Lounge of Tomorrow - View Single Post - Atmospheric Science, the weather, and global warming

Frogberto · 08-23-2006, 10:09 PM

It's a matter of being safe rather than sorry. We know that human activities release carbon. We also know that carbon is released in a natural cycle. What we CAN do, is to minimize the compound effects of both together, by doing at least the following:

1. Making industry more efficient; and
2. Exploring alternative non carbon energy and fuels.

What's wrong with either? Industries seek efficiency anyway, and nobody wants to be burning coal, or petroleum, in 100 years either.

Part of the problem could be human activity, but its a compound effect that worries scientists in the field. To quote one of 8 articles on the problem from this month's Scientific American:

"Retreating glaciers, stronger hurricanes, hotter summers, thinner polar bears: the ominous harbingers of global warming are driving companies and governments to work toward an unprecedented change in the historical pattern of fossil-fuel use. Faster and faster, year after year for two centuries, human beings have been transferring carbon to the atmosphere from below the surface of the earth. Today the world's coal, oil and natural gas industries dig up and pump out about seven billion tons of carbon a year, and society burns nearly all of it, releasing carbon dioxide (CO2). Ever more people are convinced that prudence dictates a reversal of the present course of rising CO2 emissions.

The boundary separating the truly dangerous consequences of emissions from the merely unwise is probably located near a doubling of the concentration of CO2 that was in the atmosphere in the 18th century, before the Industrial Revolution began. Every increase in concentration carries new risks, but avoiding that danger zone would reduce the likelihood of triggering major, irreversible climate changes, such as the disappearance of the Greenland ice cap."

08-23-2006, 10:09 PM	#29
Frogberto Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 63	It's a matter of being safe rather than sorry. We know that human activities release carbon. We also know that carbon is released in a natural cycle. What we CAN do, is to minimize the compound effects of both together, by doing at least the following: 1. Making industry more efficient; and 2. Exploring alternative non carbon energy and fuels. What's wrong with either? Industries seek efficiency anyway, and nobody wants to be burning coal, or petroleum, in 100 years either. Part of the problem could be human activity, but its a compound effect that worries scientists in the field. To quote one of 8 articles on the problem from this month's Scientific American: "Retreating glaciers, stronger hurricanes, hotter summers, thinner polar bears: the ominous harbingers of global warming are driving companies and governments to work toward an unprecedented change in the historical pattern of fossil-fuel use. Faster and faster, year after year for two centuries, human beings have been transferring carbon to the atmosphere from below the surface of the earth. Today the world's coal, oil and natural gas industries dig up and pump out about seven billion tons of carbon a year, and society burns nearly all of it, releasing carbon dioxide (CO2). Ever more people are convinced that prudence dictates a reversal of the present course of rising CO2 emissions. The boundary separating the truly dangerous consequences of emissions from the merely unwise is probably located near a doubling of the concentration of CO2 that was in the atmosphere in the 18th century, before the Industrial Revolution began. Every increase in concentration carries new risks, but avoiding that danger zone would reduce the likelihood of triggering major, irreversible climate changes, such as the disappearance of the Greenland ice cap."
	Submit to Quotes