Brian,
Not sure what you are refering to as my hypothesis. The following site
shows how with increasing temperature, CO2 solubility is dimished;
http://www.kgs.ku.edu/PRS/publication/2003/ofr2003-33/P1-05.html
Karl
Brian Ellis wrote On 11/04/05 09:03,:
> What you are saying is that the annual 15 billion tonnes of CO2 that are
> spewing out of our chimneys and exhaust pipes, year in, year out, is for
> nought? PLEEEEEEZE! Nor the 6 billion tonnes that are not absorbed
> because of deforestation.
>
> Yes, the ocean surface waters contain 1000 billion tonnes of carbon,
> some in life forms, some in dissolved CO2, but the annual carbon
> emissions from the oceans are 90 billion tonnes, whereas the absorption
> by the oceans is 92 billion tonnes. In fact, the annual increase of
> carbon in the surface oceans is only 1 billion tonnes, because there are
> other interchanges into deep waters and, eventually into sedimentation.
> [figures from Sundquist, Trabalka, Bolin and Siegenthaler, IPCC 1990]
>
> Sorry, if your hypothesis were correct, we would be in a positive
> feedback cycle, snowballing into ever-increasing GHG emissions, causing
> more global climate change, causing more ocean heating... Hopefully, we
> are not there - yet.
>
> No, I'm sorry, it is you and I who are responsible, not some quirk of
> nature. This is now definite and no apologetics of bad science will
> diminish our responsibilty. Even GWB is admitting it!
>
> Brian
>
> Karl Sauter wrote:
>
>>Brian,
>>
>>Since the oceans contain a significant amount of carbon dioxide, and
>>will emit carbon dioxide when heated, how do we know that more direct
>>heating from the Sun is not causing the oceans to warm (generating most
>>of the carbon dioxide increase)? Also ocean heating and carbon dioxide
>>levels to not seem to correlate well with anthropogenic carbon dioxide
>>production (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html).
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Karl Sauter
>>
>>
>>
>>Brian Ellis wrote On 11/04/05 00:05,:
>>
>>
>>>You mean the Senate has some sense??? :-)
>>>
>>>Seriously, the crunch will lie in section (b)(1) which can be
>>>interpreted as business as usual and (b)(2) tell China that they have to
>>>implement strict measures so that they become less competitive.
>>>
>>>Maybe you can detect a tiny touch of cynicism.
>>>
>>>I have done some back-of-envelope calculations and I estimate that GHG
>>>emissions must be reduced by 55-60% just to maintain the status quo,
>>>i.e., not to add to the damage already done. At 60% reduction, there
>>>will even be a slight improvement over time, perhaps dropping from the
>>>current 390-400 ppm CO2 to 325-350 ppm in 300 years (the pre-industrial
>>>revolution figure was 280 ppm). The most rapid drop would be if we could
>>>reduce methane emissions, which accounts for ~15% of GHG emissions. This
>>>would mean drastically cutting down on natural gas, which, holistically,
>>>is the worst fossil fuel, although it is the least polluting fossil fuel
>>>in other ways.
>>>
>>>I posted the following in another forum. It may be of interest:
>>>
>>>[quote]... To put the church back to the middle of the village, please
>>>allow me to re-state my credo for the nth time. I believe that carbon
>>>emissions are the current greatest threat to mankind and this planet.
>>>They must be reduced as drastically and as rapidly as possible. For
>>>this, I foresee a four-pronged approach:
>>>1. Conservation: using low-consumption appliances, cars etc. to the
>>>maximum possible, maximal recycling of all resources, implementation of
>>>efficient electrical mass transport schemes for persons and merchandise
>>>at both urban and exurban (inter-city) levels
>>>2. Fixed renewables: defined as renewables that can run 24/7/50 (2 weeks
>>>for maintenance): generation and hot water from the incineration of
>>>household garbage, HE where feasible (not much scope left in most parts
>>>of the world), but only if there are no major environmental impacts (no
>>>3-Gorges, for instance), some biomass (limited by inroads to food
>>>production)
>>>3. Variable renewables: wind, solar, tide, waves. Whichever, where
>>>feasible and economically viable. I happen to live in the most
>>>solar-oriented country of the world, with ~95% of habitations having
>>>solar hot water heating, so I know what it can do. However, because of
>>>its variability, this category is limited for electricity generation to
>>>~20% of the peak demand; above that, grid instability is too dangerous.
>>>4. Nuclear: this must be sized to satisfy peak demand (when no sun, no
>>>wind etc.) and cranked down to actually, at any given moment, provide
>>>the power that the other systems cannot.
>>>
>>>I know of no other formula that will reduce carbon emissions
>>>significantly without forcing the world back to a lower standard of
>>>life. At the same time, it will reduce our dependence on oil, coal or,
>>>worse, natural gas and allow the remaining reserves to be used sensibly
>>>so that our great-great-grandchildren can still profit from them.
>>>
>>>Can you pick any real holes (based on science and technology and not on
>>>perceived emotional responses) in this credo? [/quote]
>>>
>>>Best regards,
>>>
>>>Brian
>>>
>>>Joe Fjelstad wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Senate Amendment 866, Sec. 16 was adopted after being submitted by Sen.
>>>>Bingaman for himself and Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Pete Domenici (R-NM), Lamar
>>>>Alexander (R-TN), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), Frank
>>>>Lautenberg (D-NJ), John McCain (R-AZ), James Jeffords (I-VT), John Kerry (D-MA),
>>>>Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
>>>>
>>>>(a) FINDINGS. - Congress finds that -
>>>>
>>>>(1) greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere are causing average
>>>>temperatures to rise at a rate outside the range of natural variability and are
>>>>posing a substantial risk of rising sea-levels, altered patterns of atmospheric
>>>>and oceanic circulation, and increased frequency and severity of floods and
>>>>droughts;
>>>>
>>>>(2) there is a growing scientific consensus that human activity is a
>>>>substantial cause of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere; and
>>>>
>>>>(3) mandatory steps will be required to slow or stop the growth of greenhouse
>>>>gas emissions into the atmosphere.
>>>>
>>>>(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE. - It is the sense of the Senate that, before the end
>>>>of the first session of the 109th Congress, Congress should enact a
>>>>comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits on
>>>>emissions of greenhouse gases, that slow, stop and reverse the growth of such
>>>>emissions at a rate and in a manner that -
>>>>
>>>>(1) will not significantly harm the United States economy; and
>>>>
>>>>(2) will encourage comparable action by other nations that are major trading
>>>>partners and key contributors to global emissions.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>______________________________________________
>>>Please note new e-mail address [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> ______________________________________________
> Please note new e-mail address [log in to unmask]
--
Karl Sauter Staff Engineer, Engineering Technologies
Sun Microsystems Inc.
Office: (650) 786-7663 / x87663
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
|
