From: mlorrey@yahoo.com
Date: Tue Mar 25 2003 - 08:08:14 MST
From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mlorrey@yahoo.com>
X-Mailer: YaBB
On a serious note, I will say that if this study is accurate, then we do
really need to do something to mitigate the impact of this over the long
term, and I mean 'we' in the sense of us extropes, being the most pro-tech
pro-solution types around. Or does something need to not be done?
At the present time, though, the impact seems to be exclusively at the
poles. Equatorial regions record little or no increase in temperature, despite
receiving the brunt of the increased irradiance. It is, rather, that heat is
being stopped up from radiating to space at the poles.
Atmospheric data show that while high polar altitudes are getting colder,
lower altitudes are getting warmer, indicating that there is a greenhouse
effect occuring in the polar regions.
At the same time, there is a problem of ozone holes at the poles allowing in
increased UV, which kills off much plankton, upon which the ecosystems of
both poles depend and is a major factor in carbon sequestration in the polar
regions.
Experts say that the problem of CFCs destroying ozone in the polar regions
will self repair within a decade or two, so long as humans maintain a ban on
CFC use. So, it appears that nothing further needs to be done to resolve the
current greenhouse effect problem. If we find that having temperate climates
in arctic regions is beneficial (more agricultural area, more seacoast to
develop, etc), we might even desire to INCREASE CFC release.
There is a longer term problem though that is real but not as dire as many
claim.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but too many assume that its impact is linear. They
assume that an x percent increase in CO2 concentrations will result in an
equal increase in the greenhouse effect. This simply is not the case. The
assumption of a linear relationship is what contributes to the "melting
icecaps will flood the world" predictions of many.
In fact, increasing CO2 concentrations have a diminishing returns
effect. Every additional percent increase results in increasingly reduced
additional impact on thermal retention. This is the exact opposite of
compounding interest. This means that there will be a problem, but its impact
won't have any kind of seriousness for humanity for several centuries at the
very least.
The fact that this is a longer term problem suggests two things:
a) it is more cost effective to wait for more advanced technologies to deal
with the problem in the future, if it continues to be a problem at all.
b) since we know the sun's output is cyclic (see Milankovic Cycles), it is
entirely possible that by the time CO2 levels reach serious levels, we will
need that protection against an impending ice age.
---- This message was posted by Michael S. Lorrey to the Extropians 2003 board on ExI BBS. <http://www.extropy.org/bbs/index.php?board=67;action=display;threadid=55293>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 25 2003 - 08:15:34 MST