Re: More on global warming, etc

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

That makes sense, though given the angle subsumed it's probably more like 1/4 

to 1/3, but that's still a lot of heat.  However, there was never "no CO2" as 

long as there was life on the planet, and there is a paleontological record 

of CO2 cycles.  


From SCIENCE August 26, 1988 pp1043 et seq, the CO2 concentration appears to 

have increased from a low of 200 ppm (by volume) to 330 ppm in the last 9000 

years and from 265 ppm to 330 ppm in the last 350 years [this is the only 

paper in my collection that gives these data -- most of the papers just give 

projected temperature changes], or about 0.2 ppm/year at post-industrial 

revolution rates.  So if re-radiated heat were directly proportional to 

CO2,that would mean an increase in trapped heat of 0.1% per year.  By 

comparison (from the same paper) CO2 increased from 200 to 265 ppm/year in 

the 6000 years that marked the adoption of settled agriculture, or 0.01 

ppm/year -- an increase in trapped heat of 0.01% per year.  At the end of 

that period, CO2 production appears to have leveled off.  The absorbed heat 

change would have been 60%, and the human species seems to have survived it.  

If we keep going at the current rate, the absorbed heat change would be 60% 

from the beginning of the industrial revolution to about 300 years from now 

(total of about 600 years) if no other factors affected it.  U. S. energy 

consumption increased by less than 1% in 1998 (World Almanac), down from a 7% 

annual increase in 1968, without anyone doing much of anything.  


All I am trying to do is point out the complexity of the problem, and the 

fact that we should not adopt a crisis mentality towards it.




Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com