[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: