--- Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kurt, with all due respect- what's the gist of it? I can't possibly read all the referenced urls before springtime. TIA!
Looking at the two of the temperature proxy graphs at 700,000 years resolution - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Epica_do18_plot.png - and another at the 140,000 year resolution - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice-core-isotope.png - shows that there have been four extreme temperature spikes in the last 400,000 years. Forget the numbers - just look at the shape and amplitude peaks of the curves. There are a couple of ways that you can read these graphs. Both are reasonable interpertations IMHO, because the matter is inherently uncertain: 1) (To paraphrase Joe's interpretation): We are in a natural global warming interlude between two extended ice ages. We cannot distinguish between man-made forced warming and a natural cycle. The conservative approach suggests to take no policy action; do no harm by not undertaking unnecessary and expensive governmental intervention. 2) (To paraphrase my read): We are near the peak of a natural global warming interlude between two extended ice ages. Kind of a dumb time, isn't it, to be conducting a global chemistry experiment with man-made forcing of global warming? Human activity is injecting 6.3 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. (Although this is not practical, wouldn't it make more sense to wait for the next ice age - when it is colder - to conduct such an experiment? -:) ) There is no real expert dispute that our best global climate models indicate that man-induced injection of CO2 into the atmosphere contributes (along with volcanism) to increased global temperatures. The conservative approach suggests to stop the chemistry experiment and to take affirmative invervention steps by biting the substantial cost bullet of developing and converting to non-CO2 producing energy sources. Finally, although most of the media attention in the last couple of years has been focused on the temperature changes over the last 1,000 years, that is only one part of the debate - a little sliver on the far left of each graph. The third major component of the debate is whether the global climate models (GCMs) are accurate. (The first component is the short-term changes in the last 1,000 years; the second are ice cores and long-term changes.) Don would probably argue (as he has in the past) that the Earth's carbon cycle - which contains about 750 gigatonnes of atmospheric carbon and an ocean reserve of between 30,000-50,0000 gigatonnes of carbon, can soak up our annual injection of 6 gigatonnes of carbon into the air - or another 300-350 gigatonnes over the next 50 years. There are about 300-350 gigatonnes of carbon in known petroleum and coal reserves. In short, the ocean will soak it up. IMHO, the GCMs are probably right and the oceans will not soak up all carbon that we inject into the atmosphere. Clear Skies - Kurt ____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index