From rmg3@access5.digex.net Fri Oct  3 15:04:32 EDT 1997
Article: 153147 of sci.environment
Path: digex!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: rmg3@access5.digex.net (Robert Grumbine)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Observations of Climate Changes
Date: 3 Oct 1997 14:26:45 -0400
Organization: Under construction
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <613dd5$f3s@access5.digex.net>
References: <3428142E.2959@facstaff.wisc.edu>   <60ue8d$p4u@drn.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net
Xref: digex sci.environment:153147
Status: O

In article <60ue8d$p4u@drn.zippo.com>,
Peter  wrote:
>In article , fjyurco@midway.uchicago.edu says..
>>
>>I realise that the proposal about the erosion removing carbon dioxide to
>>such an extent is controversial still, but with the oceanic core evidence
>>backing it, it seemed to make a reasonable case. Anyone care to comment on
>>this question?

>If this is the case, then our introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere could
>offset another ice age. There is also the non-interference argument: "This is
>bigger than we are (the natural universe). We have no right to mess with it."
>Sometimes I agree with that, other times I don't. One additional factor we
>should consider. What is the rate of CO2 injection from industrial activity
>compared with the rate of removal from mountain growth?

  Industrial activity has injected 80 ppm in the last 100 years, and
is currently providing about 1.5 ppm/year.  This is a _net_ figure.  
If mountain weathering is removing any, this is already accounted for.
We're _releasing_ enough carbon to raise the atmospheric level 3 ppm/year.
Half is winding up other places (boreal forests, oceans).

  If Ruddiman and Raymo are right about the Himalayas, they're suggesting
order 80 ppm atmospheric change in a couple of _million_ years.  Geologically
(very) interesting, but in no way comparable to the present anthropogenic
effect.

-- 
Robert Grumbine rmg3@access.digex.net
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much 
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they 
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences