A long letter, maybe too long to print. I tried to write it for easy chopping
Sir, I'd like to thank Dick Keane for rising to the challenge and presenting tangible claims in contrast to the rhetoric of other climate change sceptics. He is correct that CO2 is a very small part of the Earth's atmosphere. He is also correct that there is far more water vapour in the atmosphere (although NASA's Earth fact sheet puts it at 25 times greater than CO2 in contrast to Mr Keane's 100). Neither of these two facts justify his claim that CO2 is therefore "almost completely irrelevant as a greenhouse gas". Different gases have different properties, including different greenhouse properties. Despite its relative rarity, CO2 is still a major greenhouse gas. Water vapour is indeed the greatest greenhouse contributor and probably contributes 2 to 4 times more than CO2 but CO2 is far from "irrelevant". The other important point is that the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is relatively unaffected by human activity. If we add extra water to the atmosphere it soon condenses and falls as rain. CO2 in contrast stays in the atmosphere until it is extracted by photosynthesis or absorbed into the ocean. Finally, Mr Keane says that it is "warmer oceans", not human activities over the last 150 years that have caused the observed increase in CO2. There are two problems with this. It is indeed harder for CO2 to dissolve in warmer sea-water, however over the industrial period, the oceans have been a net absorber of CO2. This could only happen if the level of CO2 in the atmosphere from other sources was enough to overcome the effect of the warmth and force the oceans to absorb even more. Secondly, all the oil, coal and gas we've burnt neatly accounts for the increase in CO2 that we've seen. To suggest that something else caused the increase begs the question, "what happened to all that we released?". Nature spent hundreds of millions of years extracting a vast amount of carbon from the atmosphere and burying it as fossil fuel. The idea that we can release it all back into the atmosphere over a couple of centuries with no side-effects is extraordinary. As such it requires extraordinary evidence to back it up. This evidence has not been presented. The sources of my data are The Royal Society's report on ocean acidification, NASA and www.realclimate.org,
I got the information on total human CO2 emissions from realclimate.org and I also used thier comparison of the relative strengths of greenhouse gases
No comments:
Post a Comment