Oil and NASA's mission statement change

There may be a number of mechanisms that change climate, but the current level of CO2 ain't one of them.

Absorption of CO2 into ocean water leads to a number of items, mostly coral. I do not see how it would lead to coal or petroleum.

In regard to human health, CO2 does not have an adverse effect on metabolism and respiration until it reaches about 15,000 ppm.

Given the past, I quite agree that we can look forward to another Ice Age. However, we are still guessing at the mechanisms.

Gregg Wilson

Gregg, What I mean by spin here is using data to promote a political position. As you and everyone else knows CO2 has become a hot potato in the western world which ever side you come down on. But, it is a fact that the climate runs in cycles from warm to cool over a period of several tens of thousands of years. There doesn't seem to be any good way to understand why this happens and there is a good deal of spin about this detail also. Anyway, the rock guys have the best data on this natural cycle and it doesn't seem to be related to CO2 anywhere in the lithosphere. And in any case whatever CO2 may be involved is not caused by man. The greenhouse gas theory is so arrogant in that it presumes man is so powerful he can make nature do what nature does.

MV wrote: ". . . Introduction of freshwater from polar melting shouldn't raise the sealevel . . ." Wrong MV, because most of the ice is in Antarctica on top of a continent. When some or all of that slips into the Southern Ocean it will raise sea levels. So sea level really is something of immediate concern.

The other problem with global warming not touched upon is the fact that the carbon cycle has not been strong enough to keep up with our fossil fuel burning contribution, so we may have to stimulate it somehow. One way suggested a few years ago is to fertilise the Southern Ocean with iron ore. It's deficient in iron and potentially much more productive of algae. Algae in ocean surface layers are, I think, the major immediate carbon sink.

Australian topsoil is often very iron rich and much of it blows across to New Zealand, discolouring the washing they hang there on clotheslines, like we do here in Oz. This suggests a way we might be able to realise that fertilisation idea most economically:

Australia's the world's biggest exporter of iron ore, most of it being carted to the NW WA coast by very long rail trains. If we could lay some of this stuff onto coastal plains there and somehow direct some of those MV's "superstorms" to blow over it this would, hopefully, fertilise Indian and Southern Oceans and reverse global warming?!?!?!?

I wasn't under the impression that the south pole melting was as significant as Peter points out (although it is present, it is still inconclusive). Don't misunderstand that I am a proponent of doing nothing in terms of environmentalism. I am simply pointing out that CO2 levels are high and the health issues as well as acceleration of natural global warming is something to consider. The most startling impact of burning fossil fuels to the Earth is the pH changes in the ocean which are causing difficulties in the formation of calcium carbonate materials in zooplankton. This is a big problem for the plankton environment (where most of the world's O2 is produced.)
Using fossil fuels for automobiles is a stupid use of a valuable resource. Medicine and polymer development needs oil and we are foolish to use it how we do regardless of the greenhouse effect.
I think that global warming is natural and ice age inevitable...in fact from a Dickensonian point of view Scrooge would appreciate..."Decrease the surplus population."

The problem on Earth is that there are too many of us.......I would like to stay though

Mark Vitrone

[MarkVitrone] "The problem on Earth is that there are too many of us.......I would like to stay though "

As would we all. So, how do solve this problem? One way is to make sure we understand it. Are there actually too many of us?

Suppose that all six billion of us were divided into "family units" of 6 people. One billion families. And suppose that each familly lived in a typical American type suburban house (for this exercise defined as 3000 square feet, 5 bedrooms, 3 1/2 bathrooms on a 7500 square foot lot with half of a street at the front of the lot and half of an ally in back).

When you run the numbers you find that a billion of these will fit into an area about the size of Texas. You would need to perhaps double that to allow for places to work and shop.

Agriculture? Small Is Beautiful proponents claim that a 12 foot by 12 foot hydroponic greenhouse will provide all the fresh fruits and vegitables that a family of four can consume on a year round basis, with a substantial surplus.

Ranching? Throw in another Texas, or an Alaska?

The current human population could then live the "good life" in what we think of as Texas, California and Alaska (or perhaps Mexico and Central America). Suppose I miscalculated, or overlooked something important. Make that the entire continent of Africa. Essentially the entire planet would still be available for future growth.

And some of us actually enjoy packing together in high rise apartment buildings. I don't, but I have friends that do. More room for me.

===

Maybe Earth isn't as crowded as we think it is? Maybe we just have a local population porblem in certain areas?

My favorite magazine, Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, had a fact article several years ago that wondered how many of us it would take to be able to afford a sustainble human presence off-world. After looking at many factors and doing a lot of mathemagical hand waving (translation - pulling at least some of the numbers out of someone's butt) the article concluded that 10 to 12 billion people was about the least that could get the job done.

We actually need more people, and we need them now.

<i>Originally posted by MarkVitrone</i>
<br /> I am simply pointing out that CO2 levels are high and the health issues as well as acceleration of natural global warming is something to consider.

---

<i>How on Earth are CO2 levels high? They are about 360 ppm. CO2 is a fourth string, bit player in global warming. Healthwise, CO2 does not effect our metabolism and respiration until it reaches about 15,000 ppm.</i>

---

Using fossil fuels for automobiles is a stupid use of a valuable resource. Medicine and polymer development needs oil and we are foolish to use it how we do regardless of the greenhouse effect.

---

<i>I agree that consuming petroleum as simply a fuel is not too smart. But that use is determined by the market. Until we find a better source of strong energy, we will continue to use hydrocarbons. I suggest harnessing the energy found in the "hydrogen" bomb. That is what Pons and Fleischman were doing, although they had the wrong theory.</i>

---

The problem on Earth is that there are too many of us.......I would like to stay though

---

<i>Too many? Will some of you move to Bellingham, Washington and buy my house? Too many? Baloney.</i>

Gregg Wilson