I've been told before that I need to do a better job distinguishing when I'm being sincerely wacky as opposed to (characteristically) provocative
( ... )
This is no longer clear. Firstly, because we've been dumping lots of CO2 into the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and truly huge quantities during the last 50 years or so. This might mean that we've already used up much of our grace period, and rapid changes are ahead. Secondly, because we're finding positive feedback cycles. Look, for example, at how rapidly a part of the Larsen B ice shelf in Antarctica broke up. It was the size of Rhode Island, and yet it happened in a month, far faster than anyone predicted or expected.
would be disruptive but not catastrophicI think that that depends. For people in the US, a wealthy and technologically advanced country with a lot of land area, we could probably manage. For the 140-odd million people crammed into Bangladesh, where the whole country is quite low-lying, where per capita income is extremely low, I think that it could quite accurately be considered catastrophic. The country would largely cease to exist,
( ... )
As prespective, heat can be conisdered a "pollutant" in that is can be a reguated emission under the Clean Water Act. Heat is not intrensically harmful, but the relase of heat can change an aquatic ecosystem and thow it out of balance.
The argumet is not over the intrnsic nature of carbon dixoide, that would be silly. It is about the effect of relaseing carbon that would otherwise be trapped in solid form in to the athmosphere.
The science on that can't be precise, but it seems to me that chaning the from of something - in this case the carbon in coal to carbon dixoide- from a form that effect very few to a form that effects many is something that we should consider requlating. When a liberiarian says that you might want to pay attention :)
If carobon dixoide is requlated the net effect will be to make chholrphyll more valuable. On a purely selfish level I like that idea, if trees have a market value they have an additional protection.
sorry, my first comment came out kind of meaner than I planned. But I honestly don't know where you've gotten the idea that global warming is not a bad thing? It sounds like you've been hanging out with Karl Rove. The anonymous poster was more eloquent than me in explaining generally the same things. Also even though it may be "gradual," look at how much the CO2 level has risen in just the past 50 years, and the climate changes that we've had even in the past 10. The rate of CO2 climbing slowed down a little bit now as the world has started to pay attention, but it's still extremely fast compared to history. Certain things that we've taken for granted -- for example, Antarctica -- are changing faster than any of the scientists who work there dreamed
( ... )
Re: Planning to move to New ZealandtevarinJune 27 2006, 20:20:00 UTC
I'm not that concerned with what company I'm in. Guilt by association? IMRHO, Rove is a malignant disgrace to humanity and the American political system, but that doesn't mean everything he says is wrong by definition
( ... )
Comments 17
Reply
Reply
Reply
This is no longer clear. Firstly, because we've been dumping lots of CO2 into the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and truly huge quantities during the last 50 years or so. This might mean that we've already used up much of our grace period, and rapid changes are ahead. Secondly, because we're finding positive feedback cycles. Look, for example, at how rapidly a part of the Larsen B ice shelf in Antarctica broke up. It was the size of Rhode Island, and yet it happened in a month, far faster than anyone predicted or expected.
would be disruptive but not catastrophicI think that that depends. For people in the US, a wealthy and technologically advanced country with a lot of land area, we could probably manage. For the 140-odd million people crammed into Bangladesh, where the whole country is quite low-lying, where per capita income is extremely low, I think that it could quite accurately be considered catastrophic. The country would largely cease to exist, ( ... )
Reply
The argumet is not over the intrnsic nature of carbon dixoide, that would be silly. It is about the effect of relaseing carbon that would otherwise be trapped in solid form in to the athmosphere.
The science on that can't be precise, but it seems to me that chaning the from of something - in this case the carbon in coal to carbon dixoide- from a form that effect very few to a form that effects many is something that we should consider requlating. When a liberiarian says that you might want to pay attention :)
If carobon dixoide is requlated the net effect will be to make chholrphyll more valuable. On a purely selfish level I like that idea, if trees have a market value they have an additional protection.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment