|
|
"Carsten Troelsgaard" <carstenNOSPAM.troelsgaard@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:44018a5d$0$47008$edfadb0f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Alastair McDonald" <alastair@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> skrev
> i en meddelelse news:dtptm7$gv0$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > "SBC Yahoo" <atilla.the.hun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:S3MLf.60122$PL5.48562@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Yes, it has climbed since the 1950's, all right. However, what units of
> >> measurement were they using which were noted as ppm(v)? I have never
> >> heard
> >> of this unit of measurement. ppm is usually parts per million parts of
> >> weight. But the "v" would indicate to me that it may be volume, in which
> >> case one set of studies is giving parts per million in volume, the other
> >> in
> >> weight. (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vostok.co2.gif)
> >
> > On that .GIF, the y-axis is CO2 Condentration (ppmv)
> >
> > At cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/sposio.co2">http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/sposio.co2 ,
> > one of the links I gave you for CO2 at the South Pole, it says that
> > the measurements are in ppmv viz.
> > *** Atmospheric CO2 concentrations (ppmv) derived from flask ***
> > *** and in situ air samples collected at the South Pole ***
> >
> > There is no point in you denying the facts. Since the Industrial
> > Revolution atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280 ppmv to 380 ppmv.
> >
> >> In any event, there is no doubt that the conc. of CO2 is increasing, but
> >> look at the long picture, it has done this four times in the past and man
> >> was not around. Each time it returned to a low range after a period of
> >> time
> >> (50,000 years). The earth's time is different from man's time. On the
> >> earth clock, a billion years is but an hour.
> >
> > The four times in the past to which you refer, were when the Earth
> > was warming due to it exiting a glacial period. We are no longer
> > in a glacial period, hence the reason for the CO2 increasing can
> > not be due to that. From a geological point of view 380 ppm of CO2
> > is not exceptional, but from the POV of mankind it certainly is.
> > I am sure that Earth will laugh of such a small change, but it may
> > also laugh mankind off its face. Don't forget we have evolved to
> > survive a range of 180 to 280 ppm. What the effects of 380 ppm are
> > unknown.
> >
> >> I would say we do not want to put any more co2 into the atmosphere than
> >> we
> >> have to, but it is not the most important thing that we face, by any
> >> stretch
> >> of the imagination.
> >
> > How do you know that it is not important. It seems that the increase in
> > CO2
> > is melting the Greenland ice sheet, and that will lead to sea levels
> > rising
> > by over 20 feet, flooding every port in the world, many of which like New
> > York and London are major cities. We are not talking about losing the Twin
> > Towers. We are talking about losing every skyscraper in New York!
>
> I've just had a snap look for sources showing the overall ice-budget of
> Greenland and Antarctic without finding it. The current melting is a coastal
> phenomena leaving the inner reaches still building up snow-cover.
> See ie..W.S.B. Paterson, "The physics of glaciers" 3. ed. 1994
> Some altimetry-measurements by flight or satelite should have been conducted
> since.
See
Climate change: On the edge
Greenland ice cap breaking up at twice the rate it was five years ago, says
scientist Bush tried to gag
By Jim Hansen
Published: 17 February 2006
news.independent.co.uk/environment/article345926.ece">http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article345926.ece
Unfortunately you will have to pay (less than $2) to read that article now but
the message is clear. We are now at the tipping point!
Cheers, Alastair.
|
|
