Thanks to Mark, a reader of ours, for pointing our way to some alarming new research.
Climate models predicting disastrous consequences for humanity because of global warming have depended upon assumptions that the ocean around Antarctica would be able to absorb increasing amounts of carbon dioxide as levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increase. Those assumptions were wrong, according to a collaborative study by the Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry and the British Antarctic Survey.
Unfortunately, the presumptions about southern ocean carbon dioxide absorption did not exaggerate the likely rate of global warming in years to come. They minimized it.
At the very time when carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased, the oceans around Antarctica have been aborbing progressively less carbon dioxide with each passing decade. That means that hopes that the Earth’s southern oceans would help slow the rate of global warming are unfounded.
The result for humanity may be catastrophic, unless work to reduce the extent of global warming starts very soon. Cosmos magazine cites a researcher who works for Australia’s national science agency as indicating that, “Stabilising CO2 below catastrophic levels will be more difficult to achieve than was previously thought.”
Pay attention to the choice of adjective in their reporting: Catastrophic. When you think about the potential consequences for not voting for a progressive President, one ready to deal with global climate change, in 2008, and you need to start thinking about catastrophes.
(Source: Cosmos, May 18, 2007)
This topic is so great, as there are not so many studies on the oceans and their part in the global warming is often ignored.
Recently, there has appeared a new study regarding the arctic warming (www.arctic-warming.com) that may interest you, as it debates the theme and tries to find some answers for the questions regarding climate change periods.
It is very important to focus on the oceans, as every definition we will try to find for the climate, we will get to the point where we will say that “the climate is the continuation of oceans by other means”.
Don’t plants, as in trees, use CO2 to make oxygen?
Iroquois Honky,
Yes, plants use CO2 and release oxygen. However, humans are releasing far more CO2 into the atmosphere with our activities than all of the plants in the world can absorb. Not only that, but we are cutting down vast tracts of forest that could absorb CO2. Burning fossil fuels and deforestation are the two main ways humans are putting huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Is it worthwhile asking how many trees absorb what CO2?
It seems there needs to be a variety of solutions. Like the guy who said solar could “only” replace x percentage of our oil use. Take that tiny percentage and express it as numbers of barrels of oil, and perhaps you would then think it a worthwhile program to pursue. The same with trees.
I am thinking in particular of the huge amount of public land that parallels the interstate highway system and the huge amount of matching funds available from the federal government for continued contruction of new highways. Do we really need so many new highways, and could the matching funds be applied by the states to reforestation along public highways? If someone has studied ocean impact on CO2, surely someone must know about tree impact.
Fucking al bore, bought more carbon credits from the southern Atlantic huh??
MUWHAHAHHAHAHAHA
You stupid fucking cunts. al bore invented global warming. But the socialist elitist has enough money to buy (hehehhehe) carbon credits, while the unwashed masses have to change their way of living???? And you fucking idiots believe this shit????
allahdamn you are too fucking stupid!