[Terrapreta] Fw: Extrapolation of the liekly effect of 1000 ppm of atmospheric CO2

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Kurt ... again,

By the way my extrapolation of expected effects were atmospheric CO2 concentrations to reach 1000 ppm are relatively tame.  I used the simple logarithmic first order approximation.  This is a smooth increase.  Many climate scientists believe that there are "climate tipping points" where things change more rapidly, because of systemic changes like Frozen CH4 in permafrost will release more quickly and the CH4 concentrations would cause a more pronounced increase in the green house effect, for instance.  Or, another example is loss of reflective ice pack on the Arctic ocean and on snow covered landmasses; Antarctica and Greenland, or several mountainous regions could cause increased warming.  Either of these would tend to further accelerate the temperature increase.  This is what Jim Hansen of NASA and others say about the 450 ppm number.

There is hard evidence for much of these assertions, too.  You don't ever seem to have read any of it.  I have.  I've read stuff like this almost weekly for years now.  Why not take some of your time to read the Journal of SCIENCE, Nature, any of the IPCC documents, or the writings of any of the scientists working on this stuff, rather than just assume or state that I am hysterical only because you have not been exposed to the research findings?

Regards,

SKB
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 
To: Kurt Treutlein<mailto:rukurt at westnet.com.au> 
Cc: Terra Preta<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] expansion


Hi Kurt,

As I said the formula for F change versus CO2 concentration change (5.35 * ln(Ct/C0)) would predict a 5.08F increase (9.14 C increase)in temperature over now if atmospheric CO2 concentration were to rise from 387 ppm now to 1000 ppm in the future (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing>).

The species loss estimate are in the fossil record.  I heard on National Public Radio just the other day that species loses of 70% of all plant species and 25% of all ammmels are expected in the next 2 or 3 decades, with just the expected heating by then.

You like to think my claims are hysterical.  I did not say 1000 ppm.  I said the expected effects of 1000 ppm.  These are extrapolated from KNOWN effects.  This is my opinion and it is widely shared by many, many hundreds of scientists who study this for a living.

So, doubt me if you like,  ...  but when you do I think you cast doubt on many who would know far better than you.

Regards,

SKB


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Kurt Treutlein<mailto:rukurt at westnet.com.au> 
  To: Undisclosed-recipients:<mailto:Undisclosed-recipients:> 
  Cc: Terra Preta<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 5:47 PM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] expansion


  Greg and April wrote:
  > And this is based on what hard data?
  >  
  Seems to me there was none. Just a quick opinion.

  Neither was the hysterical response here.


  Kurt

  _______________________________________________
  Terrapreta mailing list
  Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>
  http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org<http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/>
  http://info.bioenergylists.org<http://info.bioenergylists.org/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080602/e06069d0/attachment-0001.html