[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: fHuman vs. natural influences on the environment
In article <4u665e$6r0_005@pm3-135.hal-pc.org>,
charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>In article <IbFG+CAZYcByEw4p@wandana.demon.co.uk>,
> Jim Barr <JimBarr@wandana.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <4u3avt$su3@condor.ic.net>, All locked up and
>nowhere to go
>>>
>>>The observation that the atmosphere reacts very
>substantially
>>>to a forcing function with a period of 1 year proves that
>the
>>>"long process time constant" is short even on human time
>scales.
>>>
>>>> What about the
>>>>fact that this long response time can also be beneficial
>in
>>>>that sudden disturbances may have little or no impact?
>>>
>>>This one sentence contains several faulty assumptions. To
>>>list a few:
>>>
>>>1.) It assumes the disturbance is a delta function which
>is
>>> never repeated. A more accurate model would be a
>ramp
>>> function.
>>>
>>>2.) It assumes that the response time is long compared to
>>> the duration of the disturbance. See above.
>>>
>>>3.) It assumes that the system is linear and stable. The
>>> best data to date suggests that it is chaotic.
>>>
>>>
>
>I did not make any assumptions here. There are most likely
>many disturbances entering the atmosphere, in all frequency
>ranges and all types of "forcing function shapes" (step,
>impulse (or delta), ramp, sinusoid, etc.). I have no doubt
>that a shorter "atmospheric process time constant" would be
>affected by one or more of these disturbances, if we could
>shorten the response time from where it is now. Thus, the
>response time of the atmosphere, by itself, is not
>particularly relevant to this discussion.
>
I feel like throwing in my two cents worth:
The responce time of the atmosphere would be very critical to people trying to
study it. A short responce time would speed up the results, and there would be
no greenhouse debate.
It seems to me the critical problem with a long response time is that it
impares theoretical modeling of the environment. Without a good model, we
really are flying blind into uncharted territory. That in my opinion is the
strongest argument for taking action now to curb greenhouse emisions(sp?). I
wouldn't want to be arround if we find out 40 years from now that the
historical averages are only showing a locally stable position and that we
have provided a forcing function that drove us far enough away from this
equilibrium that the new local stability point is something like Venus.
Can anyone think up a historic or geologic event that would show us that we
are safe to dump this much CO2 into the atmosphere? Without the empirical
results, the long response time may be a disaster waiting to happen.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Gourley
71A Churchill St.
Waterloo, Ontario
725-2201
Follow-Ups:
References: