On Oct 27, 12:19*pm, (Andrew Gabriel)
wrote:
In article ,
* * * * T i m writes:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:40:03 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:14:56 -0000, Ash wrote:

I wonder if the cavemen in the south of England 10,000 years ago knew
that their little log fires were melting the glaciers?

Except they wern't, their log fires were not releasing fossil carbon.
Now if they had found some black rocks and also discovered they
burn't well that would be a different matter.

Isn't it the same thing just over a longer time frame? ;-)

No.

Releasing carbon which was captured in the last few years,
or even the last few thousand years, is not an issue
(although lots of ecobollockists don't even understand that).

It's releasing the carbon which was captured during the
carboniferous period which is (possibly) an issue. That's
carbon which was trapped during a 50M+ year period in coal
seams and the like, and resulted in mopping up the high level
of CO2 in the atmosphere at the beginning of the carboniferous
down to the levels at the end of the carboniferous, which are
nearer to what we have today. Rereleased over a 100 or 200
year timeframe, that is a potential cause for concern.

*potential* maybe, but actual cause for concern?

Just what proportion of the CO2 that was captured and laid down during
the carboniferous period are we ever likely to be able to get at and
release?

MBQ