« One Note Bob (Herbert) | Main | Casualties and the media »

February 17, 2006

Comments

Unlike yoou who gets his his scientific information from political no-nothings, I happen to be one of over 25,000 scientists and engineers in the USA who have signed pettitions that say the discussion over Global warming is just so much hot air that has not been proved but should be investigated.

In all cases, however the "warming" of a few tenths of a degree, equal to moving but several kilometers closer to the Equator as predicted will come only after several hundred years of burning more and more fossil fuels. This is only true if the Oceans do not permanently sequester the Carbon.

Everyone of any scientific merit agrees however that non-sequestration has an absorbtion/exsorbtion cycle of over 200 years, so there is no real problem until 2300 AD at the earliest.

But recent research is contra-indicating that such a cycle even exists at all. The Oceans will continue to absorb and fix all the CO2 emitted. The newly discovered aenerobic life dwelling in the seabeds that consume and fix carbon are the source of this permmanent sequestration. Did you even know that they exist? You should since the mass of these bacteria can easily be shown to equal all the life plant and animal occurring on the continents of the world. Incidently, these primitive bacteria have done the job you question once before, as they converted the early atmosphere of the Earth from a Nitrogen and CO2 atmosphere with essentially no Oxygen to what it is today where CO2 is but a trace component.

In any case, humanity by 2050 will be consuming less and less of fossil fuels. we are already building the last scientific Fusion Experiment and finally turning to the same time addressing the straight forward job of engineering the first practical plants. Long before even 2100 AD arrives, humanity will be building Fusion power plants, desalinating water and producing all the Hydrogen needed for a non fossil fuel economy. This will happen only 250-500 years sooner than "global warmning" might begin to be a practical problem.

The issue that faced New York city in 1900 was the prospect of being buried in horse manure produced by the draft animals bringing food and fibert to NYC and removiong its trash. Henry Ford solved that problem.

If you were to worry about problems a few hundred years from now I would worry more about the cyclical Ice Age for which we are about 8000 years late from commencing, as it normally would.
As for the reasons for that delay with the onset of the Ice, please read the work of the University of Virgina research.

"gets his scientific information from political no-nothings"

Er... are you saying that someone can't be scientifically knowledgeable if they are not politically savy? If not, what in the world is supposed to be the connection here?

"The issue that faced New York city in 1900 was the prospect of being buried in horse manure produced by the draft animals bringing food and fibert to NYC and removiong its trash. Henry Ford solved that problem."

How is the problem of too much manure in NYC at all comparable to the temperature of the entire planet increasing and oceans rising? In the former, the worst that can happen is it becomes so unpleasant that people start leaving and some dying who can't, taking care of the problem. In the latter, all of us here on Earth go... where?

Btw, a science blog I really like at http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars has had a number of articles recently on global warming. Though the articles tend to lean towards supporting global warming, there are good discussions on them from both sides.

As far as I can tell, there are certainly some valid arguments that we don't know with strong certainty that global warming is happening... though it looks like in recent years the argument has been moving more towards us not knowing if we are the cause of the warming that is happening. Either way, the very significant repercussions of global warming, if it is happening, lead me to tend to want to avoid dismissing it out of hand. With such dire consequences, even if there is a 25% chance of it happening (and I think the possibility seems much more likely at this point), shouldn't we be seriously discussing what could be done about it in that case?

The comments to this entry are closed.