[extropy-chat] Global warming news

[Martin Striz]

On 3/25/06, Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote:

> I refer you back to my message from Feb 7, on the "No frozen Europe" thread,
> in which I point back to my "Global Warming is a Red Herring" paper.  Though
> the paper is not a finished work by any stretch (its BotE calculations in
> large part) it does point out how there is technology available *today* to
> solve the global warming problem *and* contribute to ending world hunger in
> the process.  It is *very* simple -- dump iron and phosphorus into the
> oceans!
>
> You don't use "biomass" which has long doubling times, e.g. trees (many
> years to double in mass).  You use biomass which can double in days or
> hours, e.g. phytoplankton.  The replication (doubling) time for E. coli is
> 20 minutes.  If you want to solve a big problem, and solve it quickly, you
> want something that can solve the problem produce many copies of what is
> required to solve it as quickly as possible.  That means bacteria -- not
> trees, not corn plants, not switchgrass, etc. (extending this argument from
> global warming into energy supplies...)

Have you taken into account all of the unintended consequences of a
scheme like this?  How about ecosystem changes?  If you cover the
ocean surface with biota and block out a large amount of sunlight
(heat, etc.), there could be drastic ecosystem changes.

> The comments by Martin seem to be being made by someone who has "bought" the
> conventional wisdom we see on TV or in the newspapers... "Global warming is
> a problem", "The glaciers are melting", "We will destroy the planet", etc.
> The scientific experiments *were* done *1999* that showed we could fertilize
> the oceans and produce an expansion of biomass.

Yes, the conventional wisdom of the IPCC, which collated data from
thousands of published research papers (have you read it?).  The
conventional wisdom of concensus science.  I'm tired of this charge. 
It's trite really.  Don't ever accuse me of scientific illiteracy and
popular press gullibility.

> Until someone shows me demonstrable evidence that we cannot solve the
> problem using this solution, I will assume that all "global warming" claims
> are specious.

Until someone shows me demonstrable real-world empirical data showing
that this solution works, I will assume it is highly speculative.

Global warming claims are rigorous.  Global warming denial is the new
evolution denial.

Martin