Comments on Global warming versus global cooling

Go to Living and working in America - Add a comment - Go to Global warming versus global cooling

DamonLeigh and Burly

Thanks for stopping by and commenting. Burly, to answer your question about Amchitka, I must admit I don't know a thing about it. If time allows I'll do a bit of research and see what I come up. DamonLeigh, I was aware that methane was one of the green house gases, but I hadn't heard about the "seaweed" issue. Thanks for the heads up and I'll try to find the time to explore that line a bit further.

I bid you both peace and understanding. Arley White

posted by ArleyWhite on April 5, 2006 at 9:19 PM | link to this | reply

DamonLeigh

PS. I don't misunderstand..I disagree..there's a great difference!

posted by Burly on April 5, 2006 at 11:07 AM | link to this | reply

DamonLeigh

Hadn't you better run now while there's still chance of escape? Balderdash I say, balderdash!

posted by Burly on April 5, 2006 at 10:57 AM | link to this | reply

ArleyWhite

I forgot to ask, what ever became of the ever increasing hole in the ozone layer over the North Pole and why didn't the Amchitka underground nuclear tests break California and Alaska off into the Pacific Ocean as experts had predicted?

posted by Burly on April 5, 2006 at 10:53 AM | link to this | reply

ArleyWhite...

...you write very well, and you explain things clearly.

The only scientists now seriously denying climate change tend to be funded by Big Oil, so no great surprises there!

I'm not sure about your infrared explanation, but I can tell you that carbon dioxide is not the worst of the greenhouse gases - methane is far more effective. And that leads us into some scary positive feedback territory. The Arctic ocean, for example,  has it's bed covered with hundreds of thousands of square miles of weed that survives only within a certain (low) temperature band. The Artic ocean is rising in temperature, and it's now close to the maximum at which this weed can survive. Another small rise, and millions of tons of vegetation will die, rot, and release methane that will bubble up into the atmosphere.

Tipping point! And it's not the only one!

Burly (as ever) misunderstands the issue. Timescales and debate are largely irrelevant for half a dozen people I know personally. One is on hurricane clean-up in the US and is busier every single year, as every season gets worse. Another was head of green technology at BP - he's now at Imperial, working on a 3-year project to work out what to do with pipelines, currently built on solid permafrost, as the permafrost retreats and what is left is soft swamp.

In addition, I know Alberta, Canada, are trying to work out how to fund an entire road replacement programme as all their existing roads are built on permafrost which is, again, retreating year on year. I know island nations in the South Pacific that are sending 60 people to New Zealand every year as part of a staged evacuation - their lands will no longer be habitable as sea levels rise and pollute their drinking water sources.

For these people, the debate is over.

Can we get over this hurdle through technology and capitalism? Personally, I doubt it. As Einstein said, you can't solve a problem using the same mindset that created it. We need a paradigm shift, and if we don't get one sorted voluntarily, and soon, we'll get one forced upon us by Mother Nature.

D

posted by DamonLeigh on April 5, 2006 at 2:13 AM | link to this | reply

Burly

Thank you for stopping by to read my blog. In answer to your question regarding time frame, best estimates say that within a century or so the damage will be very significant to possibly dangerously significant. Your comment about the insignificance of man is quite probably in error. The vast herds of buffalo in North America were endless, the great primordial forest would go on forever, we could never over fish the ocean, it is simply not possible to pollute a river so badly that it dies. Sorry Burly, we are significant, and our actions do have consequences, and some of them are undesirable.

I bid you peace and understanding. Arley White

posted by ArleyWhite on April 1, 2006 at 2:16 PM | link to this | reply

ArleyWhite

You're speaking from what perspective.. 40, 50 60 years? That's a blink of the eye in world history which goes back millions if not billions of years! How could insignificant man influence world climate? Think about it! How completely riduculous! Its simply our own sense of being the center of the universe and controlling it which we aren't and we don't! Sorry and peace to you too.

posted by Burly on April 1, 2006 at 1:50 PM | link to this | reply