Global Warming or Not Things Are a Changing

captdallas2
A recent article Global Warming and the Weather Channel has started a little debate. Readers seem to be placing me in the conservative denial camp or the liberal dooms day camp. That's fine with me but I really feel that I am closer to the middle of the road. In any case, I feel compelled to explain my stance on the subject of global warming.

With over six billion humans on the planet doing the silly things humans do like trying to survive. There have been a lot of changes made to the planet. Those changes can and do effect global weather and produce greenhouse gases. Some of the changes made by humans affect the weather and do not contribute to greenhouse gases. Converting millions of acres of desert to productive farmland is one such case.

The presence of mankind on this planet has an adverse environmental impact on the planet. The eradication of humankind from the planet would eliminate man's contribution to global warming. This is not an option that I would care to pursue. There are some radical groups promoting nuclear weapons proliferation that seem to be contemplating this recourse.

The ultra leftwing of our society preach doom and gloom. They are of the mind that decisive measures must be taken immediately to stop the world's destruction at the hands of mankind or all will be lost. There may be a slight chance they are correct, but a very slight chance. The planet we live on is a huge reservoir. In physics terms, this means that the planet can absorb huge amounts of energy and greenhouse gases with insignificant changes. The planet is not an infinite reservoir so there are limits.

The greenhouse effect, which contributes to global warming, which causes climate change has an effect on the reservoir. The reservoir or planet if you prefer, can counter these influences to a point. Warm trends in the northern latitudes increase ice melt and rainfall. The increased rainfall and freshwater from the ice melt decreases the salinity of the North Atlantic Ocean. A significant decrease in the salinity of the North Atlantic cold waters reduces the northern flow of the warm Gulf Stream current. As the warming current reduces, the northern latitudes will cool, increasing frozen precipitation and extending sub-freezing temperature durations. This will increase the artic ice cap size. Then the whole cycle will repeat.

The ultra rightwing consider this predicted cycle to be normal and that there have been insignificant impacts by man on this cycle. Current temperature averages seem to indicate that this thought is incorrect. The actual degree that man's activities have had on global temperatures is still subject to some debate.

Scientists differ on the rate of global warming. Some use a shorter time frame that indicates an exponential increase in temperature (very bad). Others use longer time frames and predict an increase that is more linear (not as bad). Following this next cooling cycle more accurate predictions can be made.

In the mean time, thousands of inventors and entrepreneurs view the current global warming and the energy crisis as an opportunity. They are leading a charge to develop and implement new alternate energy technologies. Wind, solar, tidal, nuclear and agricultural energy alternatives are quite viable at this time in human history.

Other entrepreneurs are working on improving product energy efficiency, which will reduce waste heat. Some are working to improving forestry management, which will decrease carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Agriculturalist are working on improved crop hybrids and farming methods that will increase production and decrease energy use in farming.

All of these positive trends in technology, that will have an impact on global temperature change, have financial incentives driving their development. President Bush's 20 in 10 statement made during his state of the union address, will increase implementation of these technologies through tax incentives.

Warm and fuzzy idealism is a wonderful example of mental masturbation. Real change is influenced by cold hard cash and that's the sex. This is the stark reality of the situation. So to best describe my position on the subject I would say opportunist, which is not a bad thing IMHO.

Published by captdallas2

Florida Keys life inspires many to artistic endeavor. CaptDallas2 is no exception. Writing songs, music and articles fills his time off the water. From boating to how to wipe your butt, the politically in...  View profile

5 Comments

Post a Comment
  • SHARON COHEN1/30/2007

    Great article. I'm still studying the issue - haven't reached a conclusion yet. I have a tendency to waffle until all the facts are in (in to my head, that is!)

  • Chris Cameron1/29/2007

    My stance on climate change is simple: show me the empirical evidence for us causing it and I'll believe it. Can you falsify the theory? How does the theory stand up to the scientific method? All we have are correlations and models that can't account for variables we know nothing about. People always ask growing up "I won't ever use this stuff" but yes we do! If we all knew more about basic earth science and physics nobody would believe global warming. The whole thing is politics and it's time we got them working on more important stuff like immigration and being more diplomatic with Iran. But the pols are rich people and people with money run the show. So it looks like were stuck with stupid theories about wacky weather and the same old same old predictions, 60% wrong. :)

  • captdallas21/29/2007

    That is a good point. The real tax breaks could have been more timely. Still there are a lot of inventors that have forseen the future and developed technologies that will help. The technoligies they have developed are now proven and poised for implimentation.

  • Jean Riva1/29/2007

    I love your term "mental masturbation." I'm sure I'll be working it into a conversation today. Great article. My only comment on this topic is that if our governement gave the same breaks to the alternate energy technologies business as they've given to the oil industry over the years we might be able to cut down on global warming.

  • Jeff Musall1/28/2007

    First, it is not "liberal doom and gloom" to say positive steps to reduce greenhouse gases need to be undertaken now if significant weather changes are to be avoided..and the idea that greenhouse gases will cause the salinity in the North Atlantic to decrease, causing the gulfstream to slow, causing freezing across the northern latitudes, thereby making a cycle...nothing in sound science points to that. Indeed, cycles will change and may, over millenia, cancel each other out to a degree (as has happened in the past) but these cycles would be extremely disruptive to humanity. Isn't it smarter to address the problems now? Not with bush's little "plan" but with a thorough endeavor? As you point out, such an endeavor will provide great opportunity as well as change.

Displaying Comments

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.