I advise against electing Mitt Romney. He wants to turn back important regulations on our carbon based society.
The global warming debate rages on and it seems the naysayers and doomsayers will never reach common ground. What we do know is that CO2 levels have reached historic proportions, over 30% higher than any time in a known 600,000 year history and climbing fast. There is a nearly direct correlation between higher temperatures and CO2 levels; however, many scientists will point to something called insolation as the key factor. Also, CO2 levels are a lagging factor in that they increase approximately 800-1000 years after temperatures begin to rise. So CO2 levels seem to be an effect of global heating rather than a cause. What we don’t know is what happens when CO2 levels rise to greater levels than at any time in recorded history prior to a substantial rise in global average temperatures. Well, we may be finding out now as the summer of record high temperatures goes on unabated.
Several people are amazed to find out the power of geometric progression. What starts out as a small change becomes a gigantic change in short order in geometric progressions. For instance, on a chessboard if you multiply each square by two, starting with the number one you find after 5 squares that you are only up to the number 16. If that was 16 cents you would say,” how cute and small”; however, if you continue to multiply all 64 squares that number pops up to 92 quintillion dollars. That is a geometric progression with pizzazz.
If we are in a geometric global warming progression because CO2 actually does play a role as a cause we might be in more serious trouble than anyone has thought to comment on. If the recent warm winter and searing beginning to summer of 2012 are a byproduct of that geometric progression, we might not last the year. Temperatures of 100 degrees today might be a million degrees in December.
Oh, I would say that the world will live on beyond the year and probably for many thousands of years, but the lazy science applied by those determined to boost business interests is short sighted. We have never seen such a spike in CO2 ever in recorded history and we are playing Russian roulette with the outcomes. Read the literature, we just really don’t know what kind of dynamite we’re playing with. Doing our part to reduce CO2 emissions would seem good policy prior to scientific consensus on what the effects are going to be. Republicans will likely eliminate initiatives designed to control CO2 levels and go back to a carbon heavy agenda, reducing regulations on burning coal, drilling for oil, etc… Their incentive is higher profits for corporate interests. They seem to be missing something.
Post a Comment