« Bushmas | Main | Why Are Republicans So Gloomy? »
November 01, 2005
Climate Change Can Be Good!
I remember reading all sorts of tales in the late 80s when I was in elementary school about how in 2005 I would have to wear a space suit to go outside because the earth wouldn't have anymore trees (or that I would wade through filth or some other such nonsense).
I also remember reading that half of North America was under ice--but no longer is. Is that a bad thing? Should we have stopped global warming 11k years ago so that most of North America is inhabitable?
The New York Times breathlessly reports today that the entire Arctic Tundra could be destroyed by "global warming," or "climate change," or what I like to call WEATHER.
New Study Warns of Total Loss of Arctic Tundra
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
If emissions of heat-trapping gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere at the current rate, there may be many centuries of warming and a near-total loss of Arctic tundra, according to a new climate study.
We REALLY need to get on the ball about battling volcanos. They put more heat-trapping gases into the air each year than man has (probably in the last 100 years). That is where our priority should be.
Over all, the world would experience profound transformations, some potentially beneficial but many disruptive, and all at a pace rarely seen in nature, said the authors of the study, being published today in The Journal of Climate.
"The question is no longer whether we will need to address this problem, but when we will need to address the problem," said Kenneth Caldeira, an author of the study and a climate expert at the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology, based at Stanford University.
"We can either address it now, before we severely and irreversibly damage our climate, or we can wait until irreversible damage manifests itself strongly," Dr. Caldeira said. "If all we do is try to adapt, things will get worse and worse."
"Some potentially beneficial but many disruptive." What does that mean? I call an explosion in population and farming in Canada disruptive--but is that bad? Couldn't we move all the folks living in deserts who need farmland and food to these new areas?
The earth at one time was covered in lava. No one then protested the great global cooling. Again, this is weather and the increase in earth's temperatures is most likely done by changes in our heat source: the sun.
But we should not be haphazzard in our treatment of the environment. Careful stewardship is always the way to go, but blaming weather on exhaust is totally unscientific. Why is LA hotter now with less smog than before when it was nothing but a gray haze?
Posted by Aaron at November 1, 2005 06:34 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.lifelikepundits.com/cgi-bin/mt3/mt-tb.cgi/1686
Comments
[Volcanos. They put more heat-trapping gases into the air each year than man has (probably in the last 100 years).]
There is your usual problem Aaron. Either erroneous or made up "facts" or simply passing unsubstantiated rumor. As far as greenhouse gases go, Volcanos on average put 110 MILLION tons of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere per year. That sounds like a pretty impressive amount until you compare that to the 10 BILLION tons of Carbon Dioxide put into the atmosphere each year by man-made source sources. So no, a volcano does not pollute more in one year than man has in 100 years. In fact, these numbers show that it takes volcanoes 100 years to contribute the amount of greenhouse gas contributed by man-made sources IN ONE YEAR.
Taken from the Volcanoe information center:
http://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/gas.htm
And by the way, Volcanos contribute more to GLOBAL COOLING than global warming. The relatively small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere. These particles in the atmosphere bounce heat energy back from the earth.
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp4/question1049.html
[ Why is LA hotter now with less smog than before when it was nothing but a gray haze?]
Aaron, the fact that you even have to ask this question shows that you don't know the difference between global effects and local effects. You are hardly a source we should be looking to for information on what is scientific or unscientific.
I seem to remember you being critical of people not knowledgable about Constitutional Law commenting on a Supreme Court Nominee's understanding of Constitutional Law. Would that you were equally crital of those who offer commentary on scientific disciplines that they have no expertise in.
Posted by: KeithS at November 2, 2005 10:37 AM
Heya!
Posted by: aaron at November 2, 2005 02:56 PM
Volcanoes aren't the only natural contributors to atmospheric carbon dioxide. Animal/bacterial respiration accounts for a large amount, as do natural releases from the oceans.
But the bulk of the Greenhouse Effect is due to Water Vapor (humidity) and Water Droplets/ice crystals (clouds). But there is no political benefit in trying to control the atmospheric humidity or the cloud cover. As if we could.
The "carbon dioxide increases cause global warming" paradigm began as a political animal, birthed by Margaret Thatcher. Once government becomes involved, as we know, money and power follow.
Posted by: joe-6-pack at November 3, 2005 01:41 AM