Solar and GHG effect in vertical temperature of the atmos.
-
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am
MSimon, the sun was cooler long ago. It's actually evidence that CO2 + ecosystem creates a balance between sun-temperature and greenhouse forcing.
And as I said, as long as you have 1,000 W m^2 of light you should be able to grow crops. You can actually grow them in half that. It just requires technology.
Of course, I'm not advocating a return to an ice age, I am only advocating saving our coastlines.
And as I said, as long as you have 1,000 W m^2 of light you should be able to grow crops. You can actually grow them in half that. It just requires technology.
Of course, I'm not advocating a return to an ice age, I am only advocating saving our coastlines.
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.
MSimon: one interesting thing I noticed: that upper "rail" seems to have dropped about 250 million years go. I don't remember my geological history, but might that be around when Pangaea broke up?
[edit]Fix missing "million" pointed out by MSimon.
[edit]Fix missing "million" pointed out by MSimon.
Last edited by taniwha on Mon Jan 18, 2010 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Looking at the CO2 levels in that chart, I got to wondering how uncomfortable humans would be in that 7000ppm period. It turns out, most of us wouldn't even notice (some of the more sensitive people might get a little sleepy, though).
Wikipedeia
Inspectapedia
On a side note, I recently realized that ignoring industrialization, every single living thing on this planet is a net carbon sink (though some less so than others). Plants (and any other photosynthetic organism) absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and produce sugars, cellulose and other hydrocarbons (along with much needed (by non-photosynthetic organisms) O2). Although non-photosynthetic organisms produce CO2 as a metabolic byproduct, they are still net carbon sinks, otherwise they would not grow and/or multiply: the carbon in all those protein chains has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is indirectly (though food) from the atmosphere.
My conclusion: without human intervention, CO2 will continue being sucked out of the the air to the point where photosynthesis collapses. This will cause massive species die-offs as food supplies dwindle. All that will be left living is fungoids and maybe deep sea dwellers that don't rely on food from the surface. CO2 levels might rise again after that, and photosynthetic organisms might make a comeback.
Save the planet! Produce more CO2! (I'm about 3/5 serious. I'm sure there are flaws in my thinking).
Wikipedeia
Inspectapedia
On a side note, I recently realized that ignoring industrialization, every single living thing on this planet is a net carbon sink (though some less so than others). Plants (and any other photosynthetic organism) absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and produce sugars, cellulose and other hydrocarbons (along with much needed (by non-photosynthetic organisms) O2). Although non-photosynthetic organisms produce CO2 as a metabolic byproduct, they are still net carbon sinks, otherwise they would not grow and/or multiply: the carbon in all those protein chains has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is indirectly (though food) from the atmosphere.
My conclusion: without human intervention, CO2 will continue being sucked out of the the air to the point where photosynthesis collapses. This will cause massive species die-offs as food supplies dwindle. All that will be left living is fungoids and maybe deep sea dwellers that don't rely on food from the surface. CO2 levels might rise again after that, and photosynthetic organisms might make a comeback.
Save the planet! Produce more CO2! (I'm about 3/5 serious. I'm sure there are flaws in my thinking).
Correctedtaniwha wrote:MSimon: one interesting thing I noticed: that upper "rail" seems to have dropped about 250 Million years go. I don't remember my geological history, but might that be around when Pangaea broke up?
Yes.
But then you have to ask. What is the best temperature for the Earth? Medieval Optimum? Little Ice Age? Yesterday's? The depth of the last ice age? The Roman Warm? Next summer's? Three Summers Ago?
I have never been able to get anyone to tell me why ice age temperatures (such as we have now) are the best. BTW we are in an interglacial (a little warmer) part of an ice age.
Now if we take the average temperatures for the last 500,000 years (not counting from 1900 to 2010. We should set the thermometer of the planet lower. Say glaciers covering most of Canada.
Or should it be warm enough to uncover all the Viking Villages on Greenland?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
That worries me too. Suppose we overshoot in taking CO2 out of the atmosphere and a LOT of plants die off?My conclusion: without human intervention, CO2 will continue being sucked out of the the air to the point where photosynthesis collapses. This will cause massive species die-offs as food supplies dwindle. All that will be left living is fungoids and maybe deep sea dwellers that don't rely on food from the surface. CO2 levels might rise again after that, and photosynthetic organisms might make a comeback.
The most immediate thing to do is to warm the oceans so they hold less CO2.
After that we can start reducing carbonate rocks. Anyone have a use for a LOT of free calcium?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
-
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am
My view? Whatever temperature mantains our coastal cities. I'd love for it to be hotter, but I know what that means for the coastal cities, and about a billion or two people.MSimon wrote:But then you have to ask. What is the best temperature for the Earth?
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.
I'd say about 10 deg C cooler. Otherwise a lot of Holland could be under water.Josh Cryer wrote:My view? Whatever temperature mantains our coastal cities. I'd love for it to be hotter, but I know what that means for the coastal cities, and about a billion or two people.MSimon wrote:But then you have to ask. What is the best temperature for the Earth?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I say the coastal cities will be always and forever poor. And New Orleans will always be under water.Josh Cryer wrote:My view? Whatever temperature mantains our coastal cities. I'd love for it to be hotter, but I know what that means for the coastal cities, and about a billion or two people.MSimon wrote:But then you have to ask. What is the best temperature for the Earth?
Of course a sea level rise of 1 ft. in 100 years is a clear and present danger to those cities.
If we don't give Al Gore all our money we are doomed.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
-
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am
I go by what ppm is best for plants. More plants = more animals.Josh Cryer wrote:I don't go by temperature, I go by ppm. Whatever ppm was per-industrial should be a goal.
5,000 ppm is probably optimum. But I will settle for 2,000.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.