| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Tech |
| The Theology of Global Warming - based on politics, not science |
| 2005-08-13 |
| Posted by:Frank G |
| #3 Glenmore, 1. at the climatic optimum (about 8500-6500 BCE), the temperateures averaged about 3.5 deg C higher than today. Whole freaking 2k years. Due to the fact that estimated number of humans at the time was just a few millions, it is unlikely that they had any effect on the climate. 2. Granted, we count about 6 billion at the present time, but our output is still rather negligible compared what nature can produce. For instance, the last eruption and volcanic activity that followed of Mt. Etna produced during 2 months as much of particular and gaseous pollution as the whole mankind during previous 15 years. That was just Mt. Etna. 3. CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. It is climatically neutral. You've mentioned its function as plant food--it gets recycled all the time and there seems to be a substantial margin for excess or lack of the gas. 4. The amazing fact is that the rise in temperature has been noticed in oceans, from bottom up, but there is actually a measurable decrease of average temperature in athmosphere. Form your own conclusion. |
| Posted by: Sobiesky 2005-08-13 22:36 |
| #2 Glenmore: as your notes follow - nobody really knows how it works, and our contributions may/may not/have neglible effects/increase warming, especially in respect to global changes outside man's effects (cyclical). We shpould avoid Kyoto as a document written for western elites' guilt and to strap down our eceonomy. EU wishes.... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-08-13 18:05 |
| #1 I find the data fairly convincing that global warming is currently occurring, and at a rather rapid rate. Warming has been going on, at greater or lesser rates, since the end of the last Ice Age. I find the premise that increased atmospheric CO2 should enhance global warming rather convincing. And it is certain than mankind is increasing atmospheric CO2. If that was all that was going on, then we're 'guilty, as charged.' Methane is, I believe, an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Mankind is busily extracting it from the ground before it can leak into the atmosphere, and converting it to CO2. What effect does that have? Increased temperature and CO2 seem to remarkably enhance plant growth. What effect does that have? How does oceanic CO2 concentration change in response to temperature and atmospheric concentration, and how does that concentration affect carbonate-fixing activities within the oceans? And how do changes in oceanic plant levels affect oceanic temperatures, or animal concentrations? And how do human fishing activities tie in? Etc. Improved pollution control reduces atmospheric particulates ('shade'). What effect does that have? Global climate is complex. It warrants great study. Reduced CO2 emissions make good sense on a number of levels - climate effect (whatever it is), energy conservation, 'unknown' effect. The Kyoto treaty does not make sense. It is an economic redistribution scheme disguised as an environmental protection scheme. Bush's recent proposal would be substantially more effective from strictly a climate perspective. But it is 'sacrilage.' |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2005-08-13 17:57 |