this is no proof for the argument we have nothing to do with whats been happening since say round 100 years.
I believe few people are claiming that "WE" have nothing to do with it.
But more people are wondering if all we're doing is exacerbating a natural trend that has happened in the past, and is destined to happen again, with, or without human intervention.
Thus, back to my original question. Do we face the possibility that global warming is inevitable with, or without us, and take radical steps to interfere/intervene with the global ecosystem in an attempt to counteract it?
There are several steps that I can visualize us taking at this point, including "salting" the ocean with iron oxide particles in an effort to create ocean algae plumes that soak up CO2 at a faster rate than today. This would also create an unexpected food source that could counteract our excess harvesting of marine wildlife.
Second would be to devise a technology/process that would increase the salinity of the ocean near the southern tip of Greenland, the "drain spout" of the ocean conveyor, from which the gulf stream "drains" into the depths for its 40,000 year journey to the Marianas trench in the Pacific.
Since the melting of glaciers dilutes the salinity of the water off of Greenland, scientists speculate (I think rightly) that once that salinity is disrupted and the conveyor ceases to flow ("fresh" water being less dense than salinated water), it will have dramatic repercussions.
It's quite possible that such an "overheating" would stop the flow of the Gulf Steam, and lead to the onset of the next Ice Age as the northern hemisphere cools dramatically.
But that's quite a harsh solution to global warming, IMO.
Thus, the need for some scientists to started thinking about how we can interfere with nature to prevent the triggering of her "pressure release vales".
Btw, here's a very interesting link about the primordial origin of Methane and its potential role as being the primary source of surface carbon, rather than CO2. Methane is 10 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 (although breaking down more quickly in the atmosphere), and the major component of natural gas. Thus, I find it ironic that the greenies are promoting use of one greenhouse gas to cut down on the creation of another.
people.cornell.edu
Personally speaking, if you want to have a more drastic impact on global warming, I would ban natural gas use, outlaw spicy Mexican food, and Chili, requires bovines (and humans) to wear methane absorptive "depends", and most bizarrely, eradicate wood-eating termites (which produce massive quantities of methane).
Hawk |
