115 lines
5.2 KiB
Plaintext
115 lines
5.2 KiB
Plaintext
From fork-admin@xent.com Tue Sep 24 17:55:32 2002
|
|
Return-Path: <fork-admin@xent.com>
|
|
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.example.com
|
|
Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
|
|
by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E58B16F03
|
|
for <jm@localhost>; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:55:31 +0100 (IST)
|
|
Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
|
|
by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
|
|
for jm@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:55:31 +0100 (IST)
|
|
Received: from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org
|
|
(8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8OGQ7C11927 for <jm@jmason.org>;
|
|
Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:26:07 +0100
|
|
Received: from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix)
|
|
with ESMTP id E44E62940C6; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 09:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
|
|
Delivered-To: fork@example.com
|
|
Received: from jamesr.best.vwh.net (jamesr.best.vwh.net [192.220.76.165])
|
|
by xent.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B035829409A for <fork@xent.com>;
|
|
Tue, 24 Sep 2002 09:21:10 -0700 (PDT)
|
|
Received: (qmail 17772 invoked by uid 19621); 24 Sep 2002 16:23:01 -0000
|
|
Received: from unknown (HELO avalon) ([64.125.200.18]) (envelope-sender
|
|
<jamesr@best.com>) by 192.220.76.165 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for
|
|
<fork@xent.com>; 24 Sep 2002 16:23:01 -0000
|
|
Subject: CO2 and climate (was RE: Goodbye Global Warming)
|
|
From: James Rogers <jamesr@best.com>
|
|
To: fork@example.com
|
|
In-Reply-To: <AMEPKEBLDJJCCDEJHAMIGEAJFIAA.ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
|
|
References: <AMEPKEBLDJJCCDEJHAMIGEAJFIAA.ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
|
|
Content-Type: text/plain
|
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
|
|
X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0.2-5mdk
|
|
Message-Id: <1032885762.24435.78.camel@avalon>
|
|
MIME-Version: 1.0
|
|
Sender: fork-admin@xent.com
|
|
Errors-To: fork-admin@xent.com
|
|
X-Beenthere: fork@example.com
|
|
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
|
|
Precedence: bulk
|
|
List-Help: <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=help>
|
|
List-Post: <mailto:fork@example.com>
|
|
List-Subscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>, <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=subscribe>
|
|
List-Id: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork.xent.com>
|
|
List-Unsubscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>,
|
|
<mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=unsubscribe>
|
|
List-Archive: <http://xent.com/pipermail/fork/>
|
|
Date: 24 Sep 2002 09:42:42 -0700
|
|
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.2 required=5.0
|
|
tests=AWL,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,
|
|
QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES
|
|
version=2.50-cvs
|
|
X-Spam-Level:
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 2002-09-23 at 13:53, Jim Whitehead wrote:
|
|
>
|
|
> You have not explained why the increase in CO2 concentrations is not
|
|
> contributing to increasing global temperature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are a number of reasons to think that CO2 is not important to
|
|
controlling global temperature and that much of the CO2 increase may not
|
|
be anthropogenic. Some recent research points worth mentioning:
|
|
|
|
Recent high-resolution studies of historical CO2 concentrations and
|
|
temperatures over hundreds of thousands of years have shown a modest
|
|
correlation between the two. In a number of cases, CO2 level increases
|
|
are not in phase with temperature increases and actually trail the
|
|
increase in temperature by a short time i.e. increases in temperature
|
|
preceded increases in CO2 concentrations. The more studies that are done
|
|
of the geological record, the more it seems that CO2 concentrations are
|
|
correlated with temperature increases, but are not significantly
|
|
causative. There is a lot of evidence that CO2 levels are regulated in a
|
|
fairly stable fashion. I don't believe anyone really has an
|
|
authoritative answer as to exactly how this works yet.
|
|
|
|
With respect to absolute CO2 concentrations, it is also important to
|
|
point out that our best data to date suggests that they follow a fairly
|
|
regular cycle with a period of about 100,000 years. At previous cycle
|
|
peaks, the concentrations were similar to what they are now. If this
|
|
cycle has any validity (and we only have good data for 4-5 complete
|
|
cyclical periods, but which look surprisingly regular in shape and
|
|
time), then we should be almost exactly at a peak right now. As it
|
|
happens, current CO2 concentrations are within 10% of other previous
|
|
cyclical concentration peaks for which we have good data. In other
|
|
words, we may be adding to the CO2 levels, but it looks a lot like we
|
|
would be building a molehill on top of a mountain in the historical
|
|
record. At the very least, there is nothing anomalous about current CO2
|
|
concentrations.
|
|
|
|
Also, CO2 levels interact with the biosphere in a manner that ultimately
|
|
affects temperature. Again, the interaction is not entirely
|
|
predictable, but this is believed to be one of the regulating negative
|
|
feedback systems mentioned above.
|
|
|
|
Last, as greenhouse gases go, CO2 isn't particularly potent, although it
|
|
makes up for it in volume in some cases. Gases such as water and
|
|
methane have a far greater impact as greenhouse gases on a per molecule
|
|
basis. Water vapor may actually be the key greenhouse gas, something
|
|
that CO2 only indirectly effects through its interaction with the
|
|
biosphere.
|
|
|
|
CO2 was an easy mark for early environmentalism, but all the recent
|
|
studies and data I've seen gives me the impression that it is largely a
|
|
passenger on the climate ride rather than the driver. I certainly don't
|
|
think it is a healthy fixation if we're actually interested in
|
|
understanding warming trends.
|
|
|
|
Cheers,
|
|
|
|
-James Rogers
|
|
jamesr@best.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|