TAKE ACTION
Recent entries
- Some good news for Indonesia's rainforests
- It's official: EU fishing policy is crazy
- Waiting for a nuclear disaster
- John West: the worst on tinned tuna
- Lean, green killing machine
- What it’s like at Climate Camp
- Get involved: Give coal the boot!
- Sustainable plywood and how to find it
- Climate actions in Gatwick, Essex and... Legoland?
- Jellyfish and chip supper?
Go, Gore, go
Posted by jamie on 17 August 2007.
It's a shame the New York Times only allows subscribers to see their stories online (don't get any ideas, UK press moguls) because there was an absolute corker in yesterday's edition that's been sent round on email. Al Gore, when talking to columnist Nicholas Kristof, advocated a programme of direct action to tackle climate change:
"We are now treating the Earth's atmosphere as an open sewer," [Mr Gore] said, and (perhaps because my teenage son was beside me) he encouraged young people to engage in peaceful protests to block major new carbon sources. "I can't understand why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers," Mr. Gore said, "and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants."
Is this the first sign of a change for the man who used to be the Next President of the United States? Will he shake off the mild-mannered lecturer schtick, going underground to lead troops of young activists into confrontation with police, power companies and politicians? Will there be a resurgence of grass-roots politics where our elected officials through off the trappings of state to take their lead from the people?
Nah, maybe not. Besides, I don't think a beret and beard would suit Al. Still, Kristof ended his column with a rather salient point:
Critics [of climate change] scoff that the scientific debate is continuing, that the consequences are uncertain - and they're right. There is natural variability and lots of uncertainty, especially about the magnitude and timing of climate change.
In the same way, terror experts aren't sure about the magnitude and timing of Al Qaeda's next strike. But it would be myopic to shrug that because there's uncertainty about the risks, we shouldn't act vigorously to confront them — yet that's our national policy toward climate change, and it's a disgrace.
Global Climate Change
Can I direct you to a NASA article
http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/...
I have calculated the thickness of petroleum oil covering the seas of the world to be of the order of 1mu.
The atmospheric overpressure of carbon dioxide is a symptom of a much graver climatic situation, an oil slicked micro-layer on the world's oceans.
Quote
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/...
>> Global warming should also increase snowfall accumulation rates in ice sheet interiors because of the higher moisture content of the warming atmosphere. >>
This statement is not being borne out in reality. In fact the world is becoming drier. Now you say that in the Northern Hemisphere there have been widespread flooding. This is because of ice melt into the northern waters temporally increasing the level of water vapour in the atmosphere.
Snowfall has turned to rain. In other areas, drought, heatwaves and fire are the result of the oil layered ocean.
The Southern Hemisphere is climatically decoupled from the Northern Hemisphere, and drought and heatwaves are common there.
I suggest you visit my site where I have a limited compilation of data on global climate change spanning many years.
http://omegafour.com/forum
On that site the role of the ubiquitous oil slick on the oceans is highlighted as the major player in global climate change. The rise of atmospheric CO2 is a symptom of the oil slick problem. The oil is preventing CO2 absorption by the sea water and by micro-layer micro-organisms. This lack of a CO2 sink creates the CO2 overpressure in the atmosphere.
I am afraid the situation on this planet is terminal.
To blame coal burning is rather unfortunate, because the real culprit is the oil companies hiding behind coal.
To place emphasis upon greenhouse gases allows the world's climate to spiral to a point of no return.
If any effective action can be taken it must be focused and accurate. The Earth does not have much time left. The Arctic is melting faster than anyone though possible, and I can assure you once the ice melt ceases and that fresh water runs under the oil layer, this world will bake.
Over and above such concerns the seas will heat and the consequences of that will be extinction of life on Earth.
You are a high profile organisation, and you may be able to generate a new attitude, and accentuate the urgency for action. Failure to achieve this end WILL RESULT in the collapse of civilisation and the extinction of human kind.
I urge you to seriously consider the importance of this information. Of course the oil companies have been very active in suppressing/discounting/shifting blame/ anything but allowing the spotlight to focus upon them.
The Earth needs your help. This really is a fight for the survival of life itself.
Oil on the water
Whichever way you look at them, oil spills are bad - both the big newsworthy ones and the accumulation of smaller, less prominent ones. But whether they're reducing the ability of the oceans to absorb CO2 I'm afraid I couldn't say - I just don't know the science.
Either way, our priority still has to be reducing emissions - regardless of oil spills, the capacity of the ocean as a carbon sink is limited. Fortunately, reducing emissions means moving away from fossil fuels including oil - which should mean less oil spills.
web editor
gpuk