The article was about MORE than just Gray's perspective. If you bother to reread it, there are other scientifsts and their opinions being referred to in it. And that even with discounting EVERYTHING the guy from CEI might have had to say.
Did you really mean that? I would expect that they have most certainly incorporated cyclical aspects within the computer models.
The operative word was "solely". And no.. given the recent history of "chicken little" scientific rantings from the past dealing with both global warming and forecasts of a new ice age, I'm not confident in these whiz-bang models.
But I sufficiently concerned about GW that I'm advocated research being performed on the OTHER side of the equation, namely the possibility that we are ALSO experiencing a building deficit in global capacity to handle even PRE-EXISTING CO2 levels.
After all, the earth has been demonstrating a warming trend FAR EARLIER than the advent of man's burning of C02. Isn't it CLEAR that we need to dedicate more effort into researching why the oceans, and other related consumers of CO2 are not as capable of absorbing excess quantities of it?
Now tell me IN WHAT YEAR are we going to have enough research to satisfy everyone that we know EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED TO DO.
If both of us had our way, I'm sure we'd agree that it would be THIS YEAR. But that's not being pragmatic. And pragmatism is where the solution lies, not in some fairy-tale dream that we're going to convince billions of people to suddenly give up all of the fossil fuel burning contraptions they've acquired overnight.
We need to focus on the possibility that it might be required to "interfere" with the natural process and enhance the capability of the global ecosystem to deal with excess CO2.
Hell, it might even have to go so far as genetically engineering "super-phytoplankton" that consumes even more CO2...
But I'm not willing to sit here and wait for decades while we try and all reach a consensus when it's apparent that there are proactive steps that could both increase CO2 sequestration, while also benefitting the marine food chain.
And as you might be aware, I've been in favor of converting to a Hydrogen economy for some time now. I know there are more efficient alternatives that currently exist, such as bio-diesels and alcohol, but I think that converting to a fuel who's only by-product is water, seems a worthwhile goal.
But then again, some folks will assert that bio-diesels, derived from EXISTING carbon-bearing flora on the planet, represents a "closed cycle" far different than pumping long-sequestered hydrocarbons from the depths of the planet and refining it into petroleum products. And that's a VERY GOOD ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF BIO-DIESELS...
But in the meantime, I view the ocean fertilization concept as a "win-win" solution, if properly managed and monitored.
Because I'm a man who really likes his Sushi and the thought of ever-depleting marine stocks of Tuna, Salmon, and Marlin really disturbs me.. ;0)
I'll also admit that if I had found myself in my current and past fields of specialty, I would have liked to pursue Marine Biology.. If anything because it would give me a great avenue for enjoying one of my favorite things.. Scuba diving.
Hawk |
