I see I'm just echoing Michaleangelica's post, but....
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineerdude
This isn't how our world works. There is no energy trapped or "held" in our atmosphere. The greenhouse effect is like a blanket around our planet - it does not trap energy, it just slows the movement of heat, both coming in and going out. Again, there is no significant energy trapped any place in the atmosphere - changes in air composition just make heat move faster or slower. The only part of the sun's energy that is actually held on earth is that from chemical processes or photosynthesis. The rest of the energy is just moved around and eventually radiated back out to space. The greenhouse effect has no ability to hold any energy.
|
Engineerdude,
With not enough time, I can only ask that you consider that there is some mechanism by which CO2 affects the balance of heat escaping from our atmosphere into space. You clearly misunderstand the actual mechanism, so without going into all the details, I'd ask that you defer to people who have studied and experimented with this mechanism for many lifetimes worth of work. But....
I sure agree with you that there are many immediate, tangible problems which need attention. It is fortuitous that the solution to many of those problems also involves limiting CO2 levels.
The three items you mention (...we destroy coral, pollute rivers, erode topsoil...) are "solved" if we reduce CO2 levels: ...to halt acidifying the oceans; and use the sequestered carbon, instead of petrofertilizers, to fertilize our crops--thus avoiding the runoff, helping the rivers--and simultaneously building up topsoil,
ala Terra Preta. This is all achieved thru a carbon mitigation strategy that incorporates biochar into more organic agricultural policies and procedures.
Regardless of how CO2 affects the climate, could we agree that a program of biosequestration would help the reefs, rivers and topsoils (& possibly help restore harvests in the anoxic coastal dead-zones; reduce our dependence on oil; contribute to a healthier diet and population; focus education more on health and production-- instead of entertainment and consumption; and provide new jobs, careers, and technologies-- helping the economy)
?
Sorry to get rhetorical with that last parenthetical excursive, but....
Rather than spend billions to solve each of these problems individually, maybe we should focus on one, relatively cheap, synergistic strategy as a solution.
~ SA
