Re: (OT) Global warming - it doesn't matter what's the cause!

In message <R_idnQYJnbMEyXTYnZ2dnUVZ8q6unZ2d@xxxxxx>, Mike Dworetsky <platinum198@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
"Martin" <usenet1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:45e94626$0$2444$db0fefd9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mike Dworetsky wrote:
"Thurisaz the Einherjer" <MAILTOsecretary@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:esb924$tds$1@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Heya,

so, seeing another posting about global warming supposedly being not
human-made... I think it's time to remind everyone of something simple
yet
true.

Well, actually one needs to remind those who cling to their mantra that
it
can't be human-caused. The others are planning the right things, even if
it
should be for the wrong reasons.

So let's assume that the warming observed recently is not caused by
humans
blowing tons of CO2 and other crap into the air. What does it help you?

Will the more and more hurricans per year suddenly bypass all human
settlements if they are not caused by humans?

Will all our crops suddenly not wither in the heat if the heat isn't
caused
by our CO2?

Et cetera, ad nauseam. Well, leave out the first part of that - it's
simply
nauseating.

No matter where the warming comes from, its existence is a fact, and we
are
all in deep *** unless we counteract it.


The problem is, if recent global warming trends are not caused by human
actions, then what exactly could humans do to counteract the warming if
it is due to entirely natural causes? If warming is due to human actions
(which seems likely), it's already hard enough to counteract human CO2
generation, and it would be a miracle if we could simply agree to an
effective means of stabilizing world CO2 output (which is the best that
can be hoped for in the medium term, even if the US, China, and India
agree to limit their contributions).

Let's see, what could be done? Giant space shades at L1 for Planet
Earth? Sprinkle artificial snow on the ground? Any other ideas?

you might be interested in a BBC program which looked at a few of these
plans.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/6298507.stm

cheers


All of these ideas (except the sequestration of CO2) could have dire
ecological effects, such as pumping fertilizer into the seas to get plankton
to grow and absorb more CO2. The sulfur-seeding idea could lead to vast
increases in acid rain. Etc. The space shield is currently way beyond our
existing technology. A real answer is needed now (or very soon).

Don't put off action until you've found a silver bullet; a lot can be done with various forms of energy conservation, energy substitution, and carbon sequestration.


The article didn't give any details of the sequestration idea.


One form of sequestration involves land use changes and changes to agricultural practices. Increases in the soil and plant carbon banks reduces the problem in the short term, giving us more chance of addressing the supply side in time.

Apart from that sequestration can involve

1) pumping the CO2 into the pore spaces of rocks, e.g. depleted oil fields (and hoping that it stays there).

2) reacting it with MgSiO3 rocks to produce MgCO3 and SiO2 (which even releases energy in the process).

3) dumping it into the deep oceans where the pressure keeps it liquid and the density of the liquid keeps it down there (which is bad for the ecology of the dump sites, due to acidification of the water).


--
alias Ernest Major

.