volviendo al tema del CO2 , pongo una entrevista a
Robert Giegengack, geólogo de la universidad de Pennsylvania que nos cuenta varios interesantes aspectos climáticos desde una perspectiva geológica. Su mensaje se asemeja mucho al mensaje del articulo que abria este tópic, es decir, CO2 como consecuencia de aumento de temperatura (y no al revés), aunque esto no invalida tener en cuenta el aspecto de sumarse un CO2 adicional como consecuencia de la actividad humana.
La entrevista no tiene deperdicio, y pivotando en el tema central del CO2, habla de distintos aspectos, como el papel
contaminante del dioxido de carbono, los polos, los registros de la antártida, etc, ... así como de Al Gore y su manera de contar las cosas.
_________________________________________________
"And we know from many other sources of information that the temperature of the Earth is controlled by these variations in the geometry of the Earth-Sun system, so we’re driven to the conclusion that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is the consequence of temperature, not the cause of it. And the most astonishing thing about this curve is that it shows that long before humans started modifying the chemistry of the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, the temperature and the CO2 concentration, and the methane, which he doesn’t show on his curve, varied in absolute lock-step. So there are processes out there that move carbon around from reservoir to reservoir on the Earth’s surface, that did that long before we started burning fossil fuels. So I fault him for not drawing attention to the real meaning of this curve, that says that the fundamental control of CO2 in the atmosphere is the temperature. It’s not the opposite" (hablando de Al Gore y la exposición de sus gráficos).
... the amount of CO2 that we’re now putting in the atmosphere is higher than is shown in this 650,000 year record from the Antarctic ice core, and he makes a big fuss about this is the highest concentration of CO2 we’ve seen in the last 650,000 years.
DP: Is that true, by the way?
RG: Yeah, it’s true. If you look at the curve, you know when the globe is warming, then the CO2 goes up. And we know the CO2 goes up, it has to go up, because it’s being driven out of the ocean, it’s being driven out of soils, it’s being driven out of permafrost. We think those are probably the sources of the CO2 increase at various times in the past.
So the one thing that’s different in the present warming trend, we have reversed the flow of carbon. Now it’s going from the atmosphere into the Earth’s surface reservoirs. And to the best of our knowledge, in each previous warming trend, it was coming out of those Earth surface reservoirs and into the atmosphere. And I think that’s a significant change in the way in which these cycles operate at the Earth’s surface
So it makes much more sense to suggest that changes in received solar radiation change the earth temperature and those temperature changes change the CO2, than it is to suggest that somehow this geometry changes the CO2 which then changes the temperature.http://dennisprager.townhall.com/talkradio/transcripts/Transcript.aspx?ContentGuid=c7f996f6-a340-4f8a-9317-250614e5af76_________________________________________________
o sea, que las verdades siempre a medias, ni todo blanco ni todo negro, la verdad no se posee, la verdad es, que la politica hace eso, politica, y que dentro de nuestras limitaciones intentamos encontrar un punto de equilibrio que ni sabemos donde está.
177 Respuestas
48857 Vistas