File spoon-archives/anarchy-list.archive/anarchy-list_2003/anarchy-list.0302, message 436


From: "roger" <diogenes.jones-AT-attbi.com>
Subject: Re: Gulf Stream
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 06:17:54 -0800


hi jack and dave,

this a fascinating subject.  two profs at the univ of washington have
started a whole field (trying to anyway) called 'astro-biology' that
deals with the interaction of organic and non-organic systems.  their
latest book is called 'the life and death of planet earth' (i'll give
away the ending:  the sun blows up and we all die).

i'll send the citation later today, but i saw them lecture the other
week (did you catch it, josh?) and they rock.  their concerns deal
with the carbon cycle as a whole, and i can't recall if it discusses
the possible shut-off of the gulf stream, but there is a fabulous
discussion of Snowball earth vis-a-vis Hothosue earth.  the cyclical
ice age patterns and so forth.

if i recall, the thrust of the argument is that earth is essentially
'middle-aged' and is currently relatively hospitable to multi-cellular
critters like us; but most of the early history of life was microbial,
and they claim it won't be too long until that condition prevails
again.  there's only so much carbon to recycle through the engine of
plate tectonics and vulcanism.  in other words, the carbon cycle we're
familiar with (plants put it into the atmosphere and animals take it
out) has a corollary in geological terms where tectonic subduction
zones and volcanoes also cycle carbon into and out of the crust/upper
mantel.  there's only so much to play with and then it's back to
low-energy, microbial life.  interesting book, though i'll have to dig
it out see if i recall right.

the whole gulf stream issue is a great example of how
counter-intuitive this all is:  in the long run, we should burn as
much fossil fuel as possible, because the real danger is a carbon
deficit and snowball earth, BUT for the short-term we should NOT burn
ANY fossil fuel because it raises global temps through the greenhouse
effect and creates havoc.  in fact, the whole gulf stream debate is
predicated upon the supposition that raised greenhouse effect aside,
the alteration of the oceanic thermostat (shut off of gulf stream for
ex.) could lead to a DECREASE in global temps and maybe a new ice age.
it's hard for a hairless monkey to know which way to jump.  climbing a
tree (or hiding under the sofa) just isn't the all-pupose survival
strategy it used to be, alas.

hey, isn't bart a meteorology type kind of guy?  or used to be.

roger


>
> On vrijdag, feb 21, 2003, at 10:46 Europe/Amsterdam, Dave Coull
wrote:
>
> > You may not want to give up on the Gulf Stream, but all
> > of us in these islands could find the Gulf Stream giving
> > up on us. When I did a course in environmental science
> > back in 1994 to 1996, this was being taught as a serious
> > concern regarding global warming even then. More recently,
> > scientists measuring the Gulf Stream say that it has
> > definitely slowed down.
>
> Dave,
> do you have any references on this? This has always been a private
fear
> of mine,
> the gulf stream being the rather puny thing it is (on a global
scale),
> but I've
> never managed to find any real meteorologists who had done research
> into it.
> --
> - Jack Jansen        <Jack.Jansen-AT-oratrix.com>
> http://www.cwi.nl/~jack -
> - If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution --
Emma
> Goldman -


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005