if you can't stand the heat
2005-06-30 14:57:10.991433+00 by Dan Lyke 3 comments
2005-06-30 14:57:10.991433+00 by Dan Lyke 3 comments
[ related topics: Politics Nature and environment ]
comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):
#Comment Re: made: 2005-07-01 15:51:45.810325+00 by: petronius
An excellent exchange, happily free of the bitter invective that so marks this controversy. There seems little admission on the CO2 side of this argument of things that were unquestioningly noted in previous centuries. For example, if you look at This map (pdf) of Glacier Bay National Park, you will see that the glacier completely filled in the current bay when the first Europeans saw it in 1750. Yet it had retreated almost 30 miles when measured in 1860.
#Comment Re: made: 2005-07-01 17:26:21.992679+00 by: Dan Lyke
Yeah, I don't think that anyone who's looked at the issue disputes that global warming is occurring, the question is whether human activity is responsible. What I love are the "humans are part of nature too!" argument; clearly people who've never seen what the boom and bust of a swarm cycle is like, or they wouldn't be so blithely signing themselves up for it.
#Comment Re: made: 2005-07-02 04:19:16.926365+00 by: TheSHAD0W
It's my belief that a significant amount of the warming is due to factors other than carbon dioxide release - though there may be other human factors involved. But the kicker IMO is - Kyoto isn't enough. Even if CO2 were the main factor in the temperature rise, Kyoto would barely put a dent in it, at the cost of serious damage to our society. A real cut would destroy our society completely.
IMO we need to actively regulate the global weather, rather than trying to roll back our society. One promising potential solution is "fertilizing" the oceans; seems algae growth would be a lot greater if there were more Iron salts available. The algae would absorb a LOT of carbon dioxide, perhaps even more than humanity is currently releasing. This is still being studied.