From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Sat Apr 13 2002 - 09:58:18 MDT
Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
> > Why is that a nonproblem?
> >
> > Even if the worst happens, and the Antarctic melts (not exactly overnight,
> > though, last time it happened it took 0.5 kYears), and the sea level goes
> > up by 20-something meters, and even if there's a frigging climate flip,
> > putting further heavy casualties amongst reinsurers, this is not something
> > which will even hurt us badly. And energy production landscape *will* look
>
> Sea level going up by 20-something meters will lose us much
> current coastal real-estate. Look at how many major cities that
> involves and then tell me their loss will not hurt us much.
> Also, we are talking potential thermal run-away here, not simply
> changes to coastline.
Thermal runaway is not possible for Earth unless a significant portion
of the sequestered methane hydrates underlying the ocean floors is
released. Read Fogg's Terraforming text before continuing making such
statements.
> And there is the small additional
> problem of the ozone layer holes getting bad enough to dose us
> with (more) unhealthy levels of UV. This things are not
> something I think we can screw around with because we think it
> will not "even hurt us badly".
The ozone hole is a significant problem, which seems to be healing
slowly as more and more nations enforce the global ban on CFC compounds.
I will predict here that ALL of the phenomenon known as 'global warming'
that has occured in the last 30 years is strictly the result of reduced
sequestration of carbon by oceanic phytoplankton brought about by UV
interference with plankton reproduction, primarly in the southern ocean,
from the ozone hole. Once the ozone hole goes away, so will the recent
slight bump in global temps and the recent spike in CO2 levels.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:29 MST