Global Warming Misunderstanding

(I have not been able to get in and comment on this on Justus For All – Blogger is having issues again. So, my comment is posted here)

On Justus for All, Cube says the following:

Global warming is a problem that will solve itself.

If things get warmer and ice melts, then you are going to have longer growing seasons and more greenery.

The warmer it gets the more ocean you will have also (Most oxygen is produced by the ocean, i bet the ocean also uses the most C02).

This is not totally untrue. The world will adjust. I guess my concern, is will the human race adjust?

When that ice melts, the oceans level will rise. Our beach front properties will become more difficult to get to (being under water and all) and our inland cities will be the new beachfront meccas.

Many of the current breadbaskets (the Central Valley of California for example) will no longer be able to support agribusiness. Food will become scarse. Life will suck for the surviors.

I am not saying that this will happen tomorrow, or the next day – but it’s in our cards unless we do take drastic action.

10 thoughts on “Global Warming Misunderstanding”

  1. <blockquote>That only thing that chart only shows the increase of C02. It has nothing to do with the C02 scrubbing ability of the earth at all.</blockquote>

    Very true.

    <blockquote>The C02 scrubbing abliity could have actually increased, just not enough to cover the amount of C02 that was produced.</blockquote>

    And, that gives us higher Green House Gas levels, increased, hotter climate, ice caps melting, and the <a href="http://greg.nokes.name/?p=314">Atlantic Conveyor</a> breaking down. Same thing. If the scrubbing cannot keep up with the production, then we have the same exact problem.

    <blockquote>It would seem to me that the C02 scrubbing ablitiy needs to be increased, which one of the ways to do that is increase the temperature of the earth. Like planting moss in the cities everywhere.</blockquote>

    That might be a tactic – however there also might be ramifactions to that as well. I think that the most simple solution is to cut the human production of green house gasses and see what happens.

    <blockquote>Of course, if you correlate the amount of pollution in the air over the last 30 years with a chart showing the global warming, you will get the fact that lessening polution has helped cause global warming.</blockquote>

    Really? I don’t see that at all. Could you provide more data?

  2. "Over the last 100 years, our C02 production has increased greatly. However, the worlds C02 scrubbing capability has shrunk , due to human intervention."

    That only thing that chart only shows the increase of C02. It has nothing to do with the C02 scrubbing ability of the earth at all. The C02 scrubbing abliity could have actually increased, just not enough to cover the amount of C02 that was produced.

    It would seem to me that the C02 scrubbing ablitiy needs to be increased, which one of the ways to do that is increase the temperature of the earth. Like planting moss in the cities everywhere.

    Of course, if you correlate the amount of pollution in the air over the last 30 years with a chart showing the global warming, you will get the fact that lessening polution has helped cause global warming.

  3. <i>I doubt that wealthy arabs are becoming terrorists because they fear that oil will not be valuable. I haven’t seen executive from Exxon blowing up anything recently.</i>

    A caffine buzz has a strange effect on my mind. Expands it. So the normal strange randomness goes kind of wild – and I get lots of ideas from WAY out of the box. Most are just that – strange. Some are good. You never know. :)

  4. Heh.

    There really should have been a smily after my nuclear comment :)

    I doubt that wealthy arabs are becoming terrorists because they fear that oil will not be valuable. I haven’t seen executive from Exxon blowing up anything recently.

  5. I agree – if we could safely control the climate that would have <em>intresting</em> ramifications.

    Yeah – I know that about solar. Heh. Picking nits. :)

    Petro-fuels have a high energy density, that is for sure. But there are other options that are avaible for us that are as, or more energy dense then petrochemicals. Also renewable. That’s important.

    Historically we have not had the options that we have today. We are on the cusp of new technology and a new economy. I think that some of this is why we see so make wealthy Arabs becoming terrorists. Some of them probally see that their wealth – oil – is going to be yesterdays news soon.

    Dunno – just random thoughts, on a caffine high right now :)

  6. I agree the jury is out. The ramifications though are very intriguing. I think that human ability to control global climate would be a huge boon, global warming or not.

    While I agree fully that our present warming trend is at least partially human caused, there is no particular reason to hit on the climate of the early 20th century as the ‘ideal.’

    It’s actually all nuclear of course, even solar.

    The tricky thing is though, that one thing that makes fossil fuels so useful is that they are wonderfully concentrated energy. We can ‘artificially’ create this level of concentration, but that requires energy in and of itself. This can become a viscious circle.

    I have been watching recent developments in Solar Cells, and they are interesting as well, but the key to usable solar cells is cheap and efficient storage, one reason fuel cells interest me so much. Leave aside use of fuel cells for vehicles, Solar power is only usable as a major source of electricity to power the grid if it can be stored, and I think industrial scale fuel cells may be the way to do that.

  7. <em> But ecologists caution that the technique could damage marine ecosystems in ways yet to be established</em>

    I think that the jury is still out on Iron seeding.

    I am not advocating a dramitic energy cuts – rather a switch to more enviromentally freindly energy sources. It’s all about solar energy – even petrochemicals are just stored solar energy. So, let’s work on getting closer to the source, and using technologys that do not have the ill effects of burning petro-chemicals.

  8. <em>One modeling climate change (using the amount of C02 in the air), and one modeling ecological change in regards to climate change, which the ecologial model would change the amount of C02 in the air</em>

    But the facts do not bear this up. Over the last 100 years, our C02 production has increased greatly. However, the worlds C02 scrubbing capability has shrunk – due to human intervention. If you correlate the data in the following two charts – it really becomes evident what is happening:

    C02 PPM 1957 – 2000

    <img src="http://orca.rsmas.miami.edu/~johnc/GlobalWarming/graph3.gif&quot; alt="" />

    Global Temp Changes – 1880 to 2000

    <img src="http://orca.rsmas.miami.edu/~johnc/GlobalWarming/fig1&quot; alt="" />

    So, if we existed in a perfect world, perhaps that model of increasing C0<sub>2</sub> production creating the scrubbing would hold up – but as we are destroying the plants that create that C02 sink – well we could be in a world of hurt sooner or later.

  9. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I will try restating it. The climate models are wrong, in regards to the CO2 trends causing global warming.

    "I am not saying that this will happen tomorrow, or the next day , but it’s in our cards unless we do take drastic action."

    I am saying that we should do nothing, because everything will balance out, because of the unexposed see sawing nature of C02.

    Basically, there are two parellal models. One modeling climate change (using the amount of C02 in the air), and one modeling ecological change in regards to climate change, which the ecologial model would change the amount of C02 in the air.

    The ecological model would use the information the Climate modle produced to create it’s information. After that was done, the Climate mode could use the ecological model’s info in it’s model.

    The amount of C02 in the atomsphere could actually see saw, but I do not think the climate models allow for that, they treat seem to treat C02 like an unchanging varablie.

Comments are closed.