[Phys-l] Climate Change - Is it Controversial?

[kyle forinash <kforinas@ius.edu>]

Robert;

I think you have hit on exactly what worries me more about the climate 
issue, regardless of the question of whether temperatures are changing 
or not.

The amount of CO2 in the air is 30% higher than it has been in the past 
800,000 years (150% for methane). This extra amount can be accounted for 
(approximately) by adding up what has been released by carbon fuel 
burning (all types) by humans since the industrial revolution (total 
energy consumption has increased by about 100x). The current atmosphere 
is not 'natural' if compared to the last 800,000 years and humans are to 
blame.

Biological life has affected the atmospheric makeup before- plants are 
responsible for changing the percentage of O2 in a significant way (to 
the advantage of terrestrial life). So on a long time scale (and with no 
concern for the species of life which exists) you are correct; the total 
carbon content in the world doesn't change. However the percent found in 
the atmosphere appears to be very different now than in the last 800,000 
years.

kyle


> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Robert Carlson <rcarlson@physicstoolkit.com>
> Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Climate Change - Is it Controversial?
> To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>,
>         "Folkerts, Timothy J" <FolkertsT@bartonccc.edu>
> Message-ID: <744066.81763.qm@web604.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
> My point is that coal and petroleum, being biofuels, were once part of Earth's biosystem.  The carbon in them has been removed from the biosystem and is no longer available to the biosystem as a renewable energy source.  So, perhaps they should be burned and returned to the biosystem.
>
> Now, I do understand the concern that we might be burning fossil fuels too quickly and putting too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at once, at a rate greater than can be absorbed by plant life.  But, since fossil fuels were once part of the Earth's biosystem, and life seemed to flourish then, I see no reason that they cannot again be a part of it.
>
>
> --- On Wed, 3/11/09, Folkerts, Timothy J <FolkertsT@bartonccc.edu> wrote:
>
> > From: Folkerts, Timothy J <FolkertsT@bartonccc.edu>
> > Subject: RE: [Phys-l] Climate Change - Is it Controversial?
> > To: rcarlson@physicstoolkit.com, "Forum for Physics Educators" <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
> > Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 10:45 AM
> > > So, can we agree that coal and oil are biofuels?
> > Could you please make your point, and skip further
> > rhetorical questions?
> >
> > "If coal & oil ARE biofuels then ....  If they are
> > NOT biofuels, then
> > instead ...."
> >
> > This would help us all know what you are getting at and why
> > this
> > question is so important to you.  The general consensus
> > here seems to be
> > that they ARE biofuels, but what does it matter for climate
> > change (or
> > energy policy for that matter)?
> >
> >
> > Tim F
>
>
> ------------------------------

--
------------------------------------------
 "When applied to material things,
the term "sustainable growth" is an oxymoron."
	Albert Bartlett

 kyle forinash   812-941-2039
  kforinas@ius.edu
  http://Physics.ius.edu/
-----------------------------------------