On Dec 21, 2008, at 10:04 AM, Nick Palmer wrote:
[snip]
Each person's environmental "spaceship" can also be seen as a
globe about 1km in diameter within which we have a patch of "Earth"
about 270 meters square, 70% of which is ocean, leaving the
aforementioned patch of land 150 metres square to live on. I think
that shows that Earth is pretty cramped and it is beyond rational
belief that our activities are not affecting things.
Nick Palmer
Here is some evidence that strongly supports that premise:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081218094551.htm
http://tinyurl.com/8lglbj
"... reforestation of agricultural lands—abandoned as the population
collapsed—pulled so much carbon out of the atmosphere that it helped
trigger a period of global cooling ... "
"What they found was a record of slowly increasing charcoal deposits,
indicating increasing burning of forestland to convert it to
cropland, as agricultural practices spread among the human population—
until around 500 years ago: At that point, there was a precipitous
drop in the amount of charcoal in the samples, coinciding with the
precipitous drop in the human population in the Americas."
"Variations in the amount of sunlight striking the Earth, caused by a
drop in sunspot activity, could also be a factor in cooling down the
globe, as could a flurry of volcanic activity in the late 16th century.
But the timing of these events doesn't fit with the observed onset of
the carbon dioxide drop. These events don't begin until at least a
century after carbon dioxide in the atmosphere began to decline and
the ratio of heavy to light carbon isotopes in atmospheric carbon
dioxide begins to increase."
We know the amount of CO2 we have contributed, and the effect it is
having, especially on the oceans. Regardless any other things that
might be happening or will happen, we know (1) we are measurably and
substantially affecting the atmosphere (2) the effect of this has
been and will continue to be the elimination of the habitat of
various animal and human populations of the earth, and (3) we do not
know the extent this anthropogenic greenhouse gas creation will self-
amplify through feedback mechanisms like the gasification of methane
hydrates, the exposure of polar waters, desert expansion, krill and
coral extermination, etc.
It is surprising to me that people who are not scientifically
qualified as atmospheric scientists and who deny the possibility of
anthropogenic global warming and anthropogenic species extermination
seem to be unable to accept the possibility they are utterly in the
wrong, especially media pundits who do not seem to realize the
consequences of their being wrong while using their media soap box to
vociferously deny the possibility of it. They should continually be
confronted with the question of exactly what forthcoming facts would
convince them they are wrong, e.g. global fires due to vegetation
drying and high winds, hurricanes with 300 mph winds, loss of coral
reefs, loss of one or more countries to rising oceans, elimination of
polar ice, commonplace summer temperatures of 130 degrees F, killing
of every fish in the ocean, etc. Likely nothing can convince them
they are wrong until it is too late.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
