Slashdot Mirror
Mass Extinctions from Global Warming?
uncleO writes "The current issue of Scientific American has an interesting article,
Impact from the Deep, about the possible causes for the five major global extinctions. It contends that only the most recent one was caused by a 'dinosaur killer' asteroid impact. Evidence suggests that the others were caused by 'great bubbles of toxic H2S gas erupting into the atmosphere' from the oceans due to anoxia." From the article: "The so-called thermal extinction at the end of the Paleocene began when atmospheric CO2 was just under 1,000 parts per million (ppm). At the end of the Triassic, CO2 was just above 1,000 ppm. Today with CO2 around 385 ppm...climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm...to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900 ppm by the end of the next century."
these events occured such a long time ago that the whole make up of the world was sufficiently different that I think it would be strange to be worrying about it now. I also wonder if these events might have exhausted themselves naturally.
Still, it's 100 years away at least, by which time I'll be living on mars ; )
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
Which side is right ...
...)
... or minute quantities of very very harmful nuclear waste
Environmentalists :
-> CO2 will cause mass extinctions
but also
-> gsms cause brain cancer (show me one single case
-> against nuclear power, the easiest and most economically viable option to stopping global warning
Everybody else
-> There is not sufficient evidence to really change our policy (this btw, is unfortunately very true)
-> Therefore CO2 does not cause problems (this conclusion may be true, but the honest answer is : we don't know)
So what do we do ? There is one viable option to reduce oil dependancy : nuclear power. So the debate really is coming down to :
-> Massive amounts of relatively harmless (in small quantities) CO2 + tar +
The alternatives are, at best, in development
-> fusion : currently not possible, in development
-> solar power : too expensive, currently massive quantities of oil are needed to create solar panels, research ongoing
-> wind : unreliable, will place extreme demands on distribution net, and effects unknown
-> sea wave power : currently not possible, in development
(obviously we will still need oil for chemical industry etc, but nuclear power could cut oil needs 30-40%, and thus cut our dependancy on the middle east)
Imho the environmentalist option to be against both oil and nuclear power is not going anywhere, it's just not helpful. You can call all you want for the moon to come down, but regardless it's just not going to happen. Also, you cannot turn of all energy in the country for 5 years until an alternative is developed. It needs to be here now, working and functional, and proven. Obviously you cannot turn over the country to something like wind power.
They promised us summers like in California. This year was the coldness summer in my entire life, this is simply unacceptable, we in the north are unfairly treated environmentally speaking. We need to pump more CO2 into atmosphere. Go buy a Hummer.
Well, of course we won't dig up all the coal and burn all the oil. Unfortunately, the "scientist" made the expedient assumption that usage would continue to increase unabated.
Had he spoken to an economist, he would have learned that once demand starts to exceed new discoveries, prices will increase to the point that other energy sources will become more useful. Has nothing to do with CO2, just simple economics. We'll never burn all the oil because the last 100 years' worth will become too precious.
And had he spoken to an accountant, he'd have been told to cross-check his math; in opther words, how much raw material would be needed to burn at what level of inefficiency to produce that much carbon dioxide?
Speaking of science, how come nobody complains that we're using up all the oxygen? I mean, it takes O2 to make CO2, right? Where does is come from? Why doesn't anybody ever talk about that?
And when the weatherman comes on to tell you how arm it will be, why does he tell you about the clouds in the sky, and not the CO2 in the air? I mean, it's not perfectly distributed throughout the atmosphere, and I'm sure it moves around. Shouldn't it be warmer on days when there's a little more CO2 locally? But they never even mention it.
The title of scientist does not immunize somebody from being full of shit.
How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets?
Goerge Bush, dumbass! Don't you read slashdot's parroting of the highly science-educated just-the-facts-ma'am we-have-no-agenda press?