<As I said your Global Warming theories are based on 1960-1970 thought, perhaps from a class in college??? >
Not at all Crabbe. I made it all up myself and started doing so while paid a lot of money by BP Oil International to goof around figuring stuff out, along with many others.
I've never seen anyone else espouse my theories on limestone and other carbon graveyards as part of the crystallization of Earth. I'm sure swarms of people have, as it's so obvious. But I never see it in any reports. Most people think there's a natural balance for Earth. In fact, it's on a one way trip from a hot bunch of cosmic rubble, molten and covered in lots of gas, to a frozen wasteland with remnant volcanic activity as the carbon cycle gradually fizzles out.
A couple of months ago I saw somebody had considered the frozen ball possibility. Once frozen, there's no defreeze mechanism.
I note that you completely ignored my wonderful theory and merely talked more about the cliched greenhouse effect stuff we read so much about. Why so?
Normally, if people ignore an argument, it means they haven't got a countervailing point, so just keep talking their thing. That's like talking to Jehovah's witnesses. It's one way. If one points out some logic errors, they fall back on some random biblical quote. If one says the bible was obviously written by somebody, such as a printer or scribe in some monastery, they make absurd assertions that some deity actually hired a printing press and wrote the words themself.
Thanks for that link explaining the simultaneous heating and freezing. I know the gulf stream is supposed to shut down any minute now, even though the propulsive forces are there in full force.
In regard to time, my theory as propounded back in 1987 for our son's project at school is that the glaciation can flip onto us in a couple of years. You won't have to wait for a century or even a couple of decades. You see snow falls and immediately starts reflecting, as does cloud cover form and immediately start reflecting.
My theory is that ice ages start in a couple of years when the vegetative cover has dwindled towards the poles and deserts have increased in equatorial regions so much that reflection and absorption are no longer in balance and there's a cusp, with snow cover covering lots of greenery and water up north, which thereby makes it white and reflective instead of dark and absorptive.
Deserts are highly reflective [generally]. So, all of a sudden, there's desert around the huge equatorial areas and the vegetation cover is reduced in the northern regions sufficiently to result in net cooling which then goes into a freedback loop of more cooling, more cloud, more snow, more cooling, more cloud, more snow etc, with the water evaporating from the equatorial regions to feed the process.
Within 10 years, there's a fully fledged glaciation, with many metres of permanent ice over places like Canada and northern Europe, across Russia. With quick movement south each year. I guess it reaches a maxima within about 10 years after which the depth of snow and ice increases where it's permanent but the extent of reach towards the equator stabilizes.
Sea level drops as the water is removed from the ocean and is stacked kilometres deep in high latitudes.
In previous times, plants then migrated back towards the equator and what was once desert turned back into jungle since it was cooler and wetter with the ice age.
It's a cycle of plants moving north and south. That's the driving force of the glaciations and melts. When they are northerly, there's a lot of sunlight reflection. When they are southerly, there's a lot of sunlight absorption.
<We tend to think in terms of lifetimes, not geologic ages.>
True, but we need to think in geological ages to understand what will happen in lifetimes. Discussing only the last 460,000 years is too short to get a good understanding of the processes involved.
As CO2 concentrations increase in oceans, you'll find an increase in sea life, such as algal blooms, which feed on up the food chain. CO2 is the start of the food chain in the ocean too.
It might be a good idea to mine limestone and get ships to carry it on their voyages, sprinkling it over the oceans to help feed the bottom of the food chain. Iron is apparently also a good thing to spread. Oil supertankers could carry limestone and iron slurry as ballast to empty out as they travel back to get more oil. That would fertilize the oceans.
Yes, that's the ticket! A brand new addition to my climate control theory. You are the first to know about it, other than me.
Fish would grow like crazy. I like eating fish but it's too expensive. Make the oceans one gigantic fish farm!
Mqurice |
