I seem to recall reading that the sun has entered a cool phase recently. Apparently some scientists have been using antenna arrays in deep mine shafts to measure the sun's activity. The evidence (which struck me as sketchy, but I'm a computer scientist, not a physicist) implies a correlation between cool solar phases and ice ages. If that were the case then we should be in or entering an ice-age. However other evidence implies global warming.
The simple fact of the matter is that it's a very complicated system and we don't understand it yet. It's also a system that our lives collectively depend on. We don't have a spare earth so there are no second chances. I think that caution is in order.
I'm not arguing for extreem actions; my SO lives on the other side of the continent and it's just too far without jets. But what I am saying is that we need to start think very carefully about the results of pollution. Global warming (or cooling if you prefer) is not the only issue here. There are already plenty of cases demonstrating what mercury and other heavy metals will do to people if (or maybe when is more appropriate) they get into a water supply. We have no idea about the possible long term effects of genetically enginered organisms. We have advanced at an almost exponential speed technologically and naturally we haven't completely figured out the ramifacations of these changes.
We live in a capitalist society and there isn't much dirrect incentive (as in things that will show up on the bottom line by the next financial quarter) to spend money to control polution. Indeed there is a strong incentive to avoid anything that increases immediate and obvious costs without providing additional revenue.
I believe that the long term costs of pollution will be devastating. Even if we associate financial costs to pollution through legislation (which I doubt will happen), I expect that these taxes or penalties will not be severe enough to provide sufficient incentive.
Here is a worst case scenario. Assume that both the solar thermometer amd greenhouse theories are correct. That would mean that we are currently experiencing a Maunder minimum (which would lead to an ice age in the abscence of other phenomenon) balanced by greenhouse warming. What happens when the sun heats up again?
In summary, it' mission critical, complicated to the point that we don't really understand it, and we're fucking with it.
Slashdot Mirror
I seem to recall reading that the sun has entered a cool phase recently. Apparently some scientists have been using antenna arrays in deep mine shafts to measure the sun's activity. The evidence (which struck me as sketchy, but I'm a computer scientist, not a physicist) implies a correlation between cool solar phases and ice ages. If that were the case then we should be in or entering an ice-age. However other evidence implies global warming.
The simple fact of the matter is that it's a very complicated system and we don't understand it yet. It's also a system that our lives collectively depend on. We don't have a spare earth so there are no second chances. I think that caution is in order.
I'm not arguing for extreem actions; my SO lives on the other side of the continent and it's just too far without jets. But what I am saying is that we need to start think very carefully about the results of pollution. Global warming (or cooling if you prefer) is not the only issue here. There are already plenty of cases demonstrating what mercury and other heavy metals will do to people if (or maybe when is more appropriate) they get into a water supply. We have no idea about the possible long term effects of genetically enginered organisms. We have advanced at an almost exponential speed technologically and naturally we haven't completely figured out the ramifacations of these changes.
We live in a capitalist society and there isn't much dirrect incentive (as in things that will show up on the bottom line by the next financial quarter) to spend money to control polution. Indeed there is a strong incentive to avoid anything that increases immediate and obvious costs without providing additional revenue.
I believe that the long term costs of pollution will be devastating. Even if we associate financial costs to pollution through legislation (which I doubt will happen), I expect that these taxes or penalties will not be severe enough to provide sufficient incentive.
Here is a worst case scenario. Assume that both the solar thermometer amd greenhouse theories are correct. That would mean that we are currently experiencing a Maunder minimum (which would lead to an ice age in the abscence of other phenomenon) balanced by greenhouse warming. What happens when the sun heats up again?
In summary, it' mission critical, complicated to the point that we don't really understand it, and we're fucking with it.