Re: [asa] Creation Care

If the chart (#13?) is the line graph showing "global climate forcings"
on top of p. 15, then I see the answer to my question (as Keith
guessed) would be that direct heat addition isn't even significant
enough to rank any inclusion on the graph, unless I miss that it is
embedded in one of the forcings shown. Are all the effects shown there
(both natural and anthropogenic) indirect effects? I'm not sure what
the "Black Carbon" (BC) effect is all about -- I know *what* it is, but
not *how* it plays into global warming. I need to educate myself on
that. Thanks Randy. That report gives a lot of information about the
evidence of global warming -- and just when my older son is asking
questions about it too.

--merv

Randy Isaac wrote:
> Merv,
> To answer that question, take a look at chart number 13 in this
> presentation. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/SierraStorm.09Jan2007.pdf
>
> Randy
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Merv" <mrb22667@kansas.net>
>
>>
>> What if one of our scientific energy revolution dreams were to be
>> suddenly realized? Tomorrow somebody makes cold fusion work -- it
>> really works this time and eventually energy becomes so plentiful
>> that all our current uses barely scratch its potential. What would
>> THAT do to our global warming situation? Being a "greenhouse
>> gas-free" source would, I suppose make it an environmental
>> life-saver, but would our wanton use of plentiful energy warm our
>> planet just through its direct addition of heat? I'm curious, is
>> almost all the anthropogenic effect due to greenhouse additions? Or
>> is a significant (or any) bit of it due to direct warming effects
>> from added heat itself?
>>
>> --merv
>>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jan 23 20:19:27 2007