Re: Life Duty Death & Denial

Javilk (
19 Sep 1995 08:44:22 GMT

Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin ( wrote:
: (John DeLaughter) wrote:
: >The addition of the ice to the oceans should not *directly* affect the
: >temperature of the oceans too much; remember that the Anarctic ice cap
: >has a total mass of about 1% of the oceans. (Imagine one ice cube in
: >a *big* glass of water.) However, since the sea level would rise by
: >about 60 m (~200 ft), there would be created many large shallow water
: >regions. These might then trap the sunlight, increasing the oceans
: >temperature, and warming things up. Offsetting this would be the increased
: >primary productivity, which would decrease the amount of CO2 in the
: >atmosphere, which should lower temperatures a bit.

: Don't forget that H2O is a decent greenhouse gas.

There is some contention as to the exact result of increased H2O in
the atmosphere. Clouds dio reflect more light back into space than they
absorb. The question is how many more clouds would there be.

As to the cooling scenario, there are two very interesting schools of
thought that I have encountered. One (controversial) school says that
moss is the natural cause of the ice ages. As forests mature, moss begins
killing more and more trees till the forest becomes a not very productive
peat bog.
Another (controversial) school has it that as the life uses up the
minerals in the soil, trees, etc. become weaker and weaker till they
start dying off. This school of thought sites numerous instances where
rock dust from quarries, instead of smothering the trees around the
quarry, actualy promotes a much more vital growth.

The tornadoes, hurricanes, etc, all go on some kind of cycles. SOme
say that this involves the sunspot cycle, others say that the sunspot
cycle is not the only cause.
The proponents of the cooling suggest that as global cooling happens,
the difference in temperature between the equator and the poles
increases, resulting in stronger winds between the equator and the
poles. This increases the propensity of the system to exhibit violent
phenomenon like hurricanes. Eventualy, the increased transport of
moisture results in scattered glaciers no longer loosing more ice than
they gain. As more and more white, highly reflective glaciers form,
polar temperatures plunge and stay low during the year, fostering more
and more snow.
ANd then, there is the problem of the upcomming flip or partial flip
of the geomagnetic poles... I don't know what effect that will have on
the ozone layer, climate, etc. I do believe that the magnetic field
does have some serious effect on the ozone layer.

Part of the global warming problem, as explained in an article in
Scientific American some time back, is that most of the older temperature
monitoring stations use to be out in pen rural fields. These areas have
become suburban, even urban in character, thus skewing the readings.

Quite frankly, we are not sure if the earth is cooling or warming. Nor
are we sure that it is US that is causing a trend. We are living on a
dynamic earth which is undergoing CONCURRENT cyclical change. A VERY FEW
of these NATURAL cycles and cycle areas:
Orbital variation cycles
Continental drift / volcanism cycles
Carbonate-volcano cycles
Erosion cycles
Geomagnetic pole reversal cycle
Cyclical animal / plant imbalances
Chandler wobble
Sunspot cycle
El Nino oscillation
Lunar orbital variations
Beaver lake - to meadow cycles
Beaver population cycles

Then there are many man made cycles:
Economic or Kondratief wave theory ~ 60 - 79 years.
Civilization cycles (Egypt, Greece, dark ages, Renaissance...)
Five, ten-eleven, and twenty-odd year business cycles
Pavement renewal cycles

(By he way, the largest source of oil based pollution, is road
tarring, That stuff is deadly to some people.)

These cycles may, at times, all add up on the positive side, and at
times all add up negative. Usualy, they simply make A LOT of uncertain
ups and downs on the charts. We may well be contributing to the
acceleration of this change, but I would have my doubts as to how much we
are contributing. It may well be that the ozone hole can be explained
away by the geomagnetic change, or by volcanic chlorine and flourine
discharges, which are higher than out discharges. As to volcanic CO2...
I thought that was the major gas discharge of volcanos, a part of the
carbonate cycle wherein carbon is captured by the plancton, ends up on
the ocean floor, is subucted by the continental plates, and then comes
up as volcanoes.
It issadi that one of the main problems of Mars, is that it does not
have this kind of carbonate cycle.

Another reader mentioned iron in responce to my mention of iron. As
I recall, there wwere two iron experiments, once of which did not produce
much of an effect, and another one which produced more of an effect, one
which I thought was higher than expected.

Yes, we are having an effect. Someday, we may even be able to tell
which way. Meanwhile, it would not hurt to keep our eyes AND MINDS
open! And do take some care in what you do.

-J- (
Think Manageable, Think Personal, Think Responsible, Think Pagan. ---
Then take what actions may help all, and hurt none. -----------------