Actually, both sides may be right in the global warming debate.
There is historical evidence that global warming may set off a chain of events that suddenly lead to a drastic cooling.
It has to do with the Ocean Conveyor:
grida.no
mbari.org
ccpo.odu.edu
ccpo.odu.edu
Some claim that a decrease in the salinity of the Gulf Stream portion of the Ocean Conveyor will prevent the "descent" of salinated water from the surface to the ocean depths near Greenland. The melting of the polar ice caps dilutes the salinity of the ocean in these parts and could disrupt the ocean conveyor.
And that would disrupt the flow of the ocean conveyor, and plunge temperatures into an ice age.
And there seems to be evidence for them from when a gigantic fresh water lake, were the great lakes currently are, broke its glacial restraints and flooded into the gulf stream some 13,000 years ago.
whyfiles.org
And this may have nothing to do with human influences. There is also evidence that the ocean temperatures have drastically changed over the past several hundred thousand years, long before air pollution, CFCs, and Ozone.
cnn.com
The warming at the end of the last ice age, about 10,000 years ago, was supported by the disappearance of enormous ice sheets, a one-third increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and changes in the seasonal distribution of the sun's energy," said Lehman. "But the abrupt changes we documented during the last ice age seem to be almost entirely ocean driven."
Melting glaciers send fresh water into the Earth's oceans and scientists believe this cycle triggers abrupt and long-lasting cooling events, including ice ages, by interfering with the conveyor belt of water carrying heat from the tropics to temperate regions. "Numerical modeling studies show that similar changes can be triggered by warming associated with human emissions as well," said Lehman.
So the question, from my perspective, is not so much what we can stop doing to prevent exacerbating a process that may be inevitable anyway, but whether there are some proactive steps we need to take to prevent such a natural event from ever occurring.
But scientists are railing against any proactive activities, since they don't know what the end result will be. But we know what will likely happen if we don't act.. It's all there in the geological records as having happened before when mankind could not have been responsible.
There's a process of seeding the oceans with iron oxide, which would produce huge algae plumes. These algae plumes suck up tremendous amounts of CO2 and provide a wonderful source of food for fish.. And what algae that isn't eaten, dies and sinks to the ocean floor, carrying with it the CO2 it has sequestered. Folks would think this might be a win-win scenario. Create new sources of food to encourage replenishment of depleted marine life (due to over-fishing), and reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere. But there seems to be considerable hesitancy about implementing the program.
I believe such caution is foolish. If there are repercussions, then stop the seeding. It's not like we'd create a self-sustaining process. It's tantamount to adding oxygen to a fire. If you want the fire to go out, stop feeding it oxygen.
Just some scientific ramblings I thought you all might be interested in since Kyoto and CO2 carbon credits are a major Foreign Affairs topic.. :0)
Hawk |
