Be worried, be very worried, time magazine is in the science industry
I’m noticing an alarming lack of science in the Time magazine cover story. To answer the only specific measurement sited as causal in the article, it appears we could make large islands of reflective mylar in the ocean and the earth would stop warming…
March 27th, 2006
I only read the portion of the article CNN provided. I have read enough other pieces on the subject and heard enough commentary to have no doubts that ocean levels are rising. The causes are easily understood, at least at their most basic. Carbon dioxide quantities have been increasing, causing polar ice to melt. Where does this gas come from? There is the rub. I am not particularly concerned because people tend to look only at the short term, and then only at their own unenlightened short term interests. There will need to be a crisis readily apparent to the dullest mind before anything of consequence that can be done will be done. This assumes there is anything that can be done. This gets us back to causes. According to a recent article I read, “greenhouse gas” levels have been this high previously during human existence. About 129,000 years ago, these gases and subsequent temperature increases were at least as high as now. There is also no question that as ocean levels rise, the bulk of humanity, which lives within 250 miles of coasts, will be severely impacted if levels rise as much as what I read, 13-20 feet. They’ll have to find a way to redirect that water, or abandon their coastal homes and move inland. That this set of circumstances has been inferred from studying the natural record as having existed previously, there is no reason to assume that it won’t happen again. Perhaps it is part of a long cycle in the hideously complex cycle of atmospheric behavior, the patterns of which we have only the flimsiest grasp. This having been said, should we pressure President Bush and the US Congress to approve and enforce the Kyoto Treaty Protocols, intended to lessen the production of “greenhouse gases”? Perhaps, but not as a means of stopping or lessening this increase in ocean levels. That appears to be well along and I doubt there is anything, short of initating a so called “nuclear winter” to shield our atmosphere from the sun. While the “kill ’em all and let god sort ’em out!” crowd may salivate at the idea and have very specific ideas for targets, no sensible person is going to suggest this plan. Cleaner air and water are worthwhile goals for our species and others, since we tend to rely on those for our continued survival. On those bases alone, I would be inclined to make efforts to reduce our reliance on means and fuels that contribute significant pollution to our environment. Politically, economically, and for the long term since for our purposes petroleum is a non-renweable resource, I would advocate finding an alternative to our incredible reliance on it. Doing so, so long as we aren’t planning to move to coal, which for most purposes, is as bad or worse a pollutant when converted to energy, would make for a cleaner environment, which would benefit us over the long term, regardless of ocean level changes. I’ve not read but the briefest of summaries of the Kyoto Treaty, and I gather it is flawed, as are most documents created by committee. Perhaps we would be better served were we to initiate our own search for a renewable energy source that is less polluting. I have no idea. This is not my field of expertise.
As for Time Magazine, I have not been enamoured of them as a news source for decades. There are occasionally articles I’ve found worth the read, some of them actually informative. For the most part, I find it shallow, chasing the tails of advertisers and readers, seeking to please them with what they want to read rather than presenting informed opinion and substantive news.
Regarding the mylar islands, I did not wish to waste time reading about them. Even if they are a workable, effective idea, I will not be likely to ever be asked to support or deny their construction and maintenance. I wonder at the scale of such things, what potential harm they may bring where they are placed, and the pollution their manufacture and placement may cause. It is good that people are thinking about potential solutions to the problem of changing climate. For our homes and other structures, we implement heating and cooling schemes, seeking to master our artificial environments. Barring religious proscription, what is to prevent us seeking to control our natural environment. Perhaps our near total ignorance of the mechanisms that interact in creating our environment should serve as a caution. I don’t know the answers to this one.
March 27th, 2006
I actually pulled Mylar islands out of my rectal cavity as a joke (I was busy envisioning Green Peace freeing turtles and sea gulls from the mylar). Sorry…
I’m still not 100% sure that we have sufficiently identified “Greenhouse Gasses” as causal relationship in the global warming scare, siting of my similar observation that we share a “near total ignorance of the mechanisms that create our environment”. Any time a “feedback loop” exists there is always the question of chickens and embryos. Unless you can cut the loop in pieces and test in isolation, but that is hard to do with an earth sized ecosystem.
Interesting thought on the nuclear winter. I wonder if anyone has worked the numbers on causing a volcanic eruption to fill the atmosphere with ash? Never mind, I don’t think we know enough about volcanoes either.
March 28th, 2006
I am sure that somewhere, someone is pondering the various aspects of a plan involving mylar for reflecting sunlight back into space.
We do have enough evidence to be certain that an increase in gases which trap heat are a major actor in the warming trend we’re observing. The rub is that we don’t know if our own output from our burning of fuel is making a significant contribution to the volume of these gases. That is what most of the yelling is about in political and economic circles. I think determining this is important, but standing around arguing is wasting time when it is clear that ocean levels are rising and our most densely developed land is at risk from flooding. The evidence I’ve seen and read about comes mostly in the form of measurement of various historical records, inference, and sampling air in different places.
I am sure that someone has sat down with a stack of paper and a calculator to figure out how much blast it would take to set off a volcano. I doubt it is possible to get sufficient accuracy to make it worthwhile, even if we got desperate enough to consider it. I have read articles indicating that some volcanoes are estimated to have put as much particulate and “greenhouse gases” into the atmosphere in a single eruption as we’ve managed in the last 150 years. For that reason alone, I am doubtful as to whether our contributions to the air via burning fuel are making any difference in atmospheric behavior and cycles. I do think our contribution has unfortunate consequences for us, and that is why I advocate seeking a renewable replacement for petroleum and coal that also is less polluting. I don’t know if such a thing will ever be found, or if so, made viable. The hydrogen cell powered devices are interesting but I’m betting the manufacture of them generates a tremendous amount of pollution, and a they have a long way to go before they will be competitive with our current petroleum fueled cars. Even if they reach that point, there is the matter of building infrastructure to support them, fuel stations, repair, etc.