Re: population growth & physics ed

[palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)]

> Leigh Palmer says:
> > ...
> > It should always be pointed out that the rise in carbon dioxide levels
> > over the years of monitoring has been very much larger than the rise in
> > temperature over the same period.
> > ...
>
> Relative to what?  Given that I'm sure that total absence CO2 would not
> translate to an Earth temperature of 0 K, I don't know how to interpret
> this statement.

Relative to the initial temperature and concentartion at the beginning of
the monitoring period. Sorry, I thought that would be clear from context.
The (relative) increase in temperature is only about 0.02%, and the CO2
concentration has increased by about 14% since 1958 (see, for example,
http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/earth/waton/mauna.html).

I thought that, given the difference in dimensions, my comment would not
have been confusing. The relation is far from simple-mindedly linear as
extrapolation back to zero CO2 will readily demonstrate, and I leave as
an exercise for the reader.

Leigh