[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: News Advisory: Still Crazy After Oil These Years!
brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
>All locked up and nowhere to go <cage@critech.com> wrote for all to
>see:
>
>>David Beorn <dbeorn@freenet.vcu.edu> wrote:
>>>I never said that - all I said was that it was not significant >>>compared to the natural sources (you even quoted my statement
>>>Requote:
>>>> : Exactly - human CO2 is basically insignificant compared to what >>>> : nature produces.
>>
>>David:
>>
>>I am absolutely certain that this assertion of yours is dead wrong,
>>unless you are nit-picking in a Nudds-like fashion about gross and
>>net emissions. You have said this several times, and now is the
>>time to put the issue to rest one way or the other.
>>
>>If you are claiming that net natural volcanic emissions plus the
>>net of respiration minus photosynthesis is so great as to make the
>>contribution from human activities insignificant, please, post
>>figures. No one but you appears to take this seriously. If you
>>would like the rest of the world to take it seriously, you will
>>have to produce more than assertions.
Hmmmm, well, total human CO2 production *is* rather small compared
to natural flows--a few percent if memory serves. I don't think
that's the issue. The issue is, so what? If a large rock is
balanced on a thin point and one adds an ounce or two of weight
each year to one side of the rock, it will eventually topple over,
even if the increment is quite small compared to the total weight
of the rock. Or as you have quite correctly pointed out, the
earth's climate tips into ice ages from time to time, suggesting
that fairly small inputs have at some point a disproportionate
impact.
>I think what he is referring to is total greenhouse gas absorption.
>CO2 is not the major greenhouse gas. If memory serves water vapor
>accounts for some 90-96% of IR atmospheric absorption, leaving the
>rest for methane, CO2 and a couple of others. Most of that water
>vapor is evaporation from the oceans, by the way. Thus, the human
>contribution to the total of greenhouse gases is very small.
And the same applies to your point, Harold.
First, this does NOT appear to me to be what David Beorn is saying,
or if it is, he is using very poor phrasing. He doesn't say anything
about other gases, only CO2. I believe Cage's interpretation is
more justified.
Second, so what? The warming that the IPCC is talking about from
CO2 and other greenhouse gases is "very small," too--only a few
percent of the total greenhouse effect that makes our planet
inhabitable. It still may have very serious climatic consequences,
which makes heavy dependence on fossil fuels an inherently
high-risk undertaking.
Tom Gray
Director of Communications
American Wind Energy Association
PS Support renewable energy! Visit the Electronic Lobbyist For
Renewable Energy Web Site:
http://www.netcom.com/~stevie2/budget.html
Interested in energy and the environment? The free electronic
edition of _Wind Energy Weekly_ reports on energy-related
environmental issues, energy policy, and wind industry trade
news. The electronic edition normally runs about 10kb in length.
For a subscription, send me an e-mail request. Please include
information on your position, organization, and reason for
interest in the publication.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Gray <tomgray@econet.org>
References: