Ben,

Thanks for the link.  Not to discount the article as a whole and its
potential level of accuracy or validity, ... but as in this case, most of
what you will hear through the new services is filled politics, opinion,
speculation, is skewed, and generally not good science.  Politicians,
extremist, or others with agendas will tell you what they want you to hear
because it benefits them directly.  Good science is relatively neutral on
its spin.  There are a lot of people out there (scientist included) whose
jobs depend on the spin, the hype, and the money that comes with it all.

CO2 gets the bad wrap as a green house gas, but it is not the real
problematic green house gas, methane is!  Its production is directly liked
to the raising of domestic livestock, rice cultivation, and the human
consumption of certain foods such as beans or cabbage, etc.  Its [methane]
production has followed the progress of civilization over the last 6-10 k
years, and it is the main thing that has kept us out of the next ice age.
Yet you hear almost nothing about it? ... it doesn't beat up on American
automobile use and industry.  Earth is several 1000 years overdue for its
next ice age.

CO2 production when combined with particulates actually creates cooling
effects.  This was manifest through the industrial revolution through two
"mini" ice-ages.  First in northern Europe in the late 1700's, and in North
America in the late 1800's.  The burning of large quantities of coal and
wood caused large scale regional cooling effects.  Cleaning up those
industries, much due to the use of petroleum instead, coupled with the
massive increase in cattle, rice production, in the US, and reforestation of
North America and Northern Europe, changed that equation and returned some
climatic equilibrium.

Also the release of man-made "CFC's" Chlorofluorocarbons (Freon) has no or
little impact on the environment.  One good size volcano eruption will put
more CFC's directly into the atmosphere than man has ever created.  The
whole CFC issue comes back to money, ... i.e. - Dupont's patents were
expiring so they had to come up with some new ones to maintain the prices to
American consumer.  ... as the saying goes, if you want to find the truth,
follow the money!

The problem with most global climate model equations is short-term thinking,
and short-term data.  What is left out is the fact things will change with
or without man.  The earth an out solar systems is subject to various
cycles, of which man has no influence over.  Generically, amongst others,
these are the seasons, earth year, 22 Solar Cycle, 100 year solar cycle,
10-15k cycles, etc.  Additionally, the universe, solar system, and our
planet are aging, maturing, and ever changing.  Which means the cycles them
selves are always different in their net results.

Bottom line is that between ice ages the earth will thaw out progressively.
Like a frozen turkey sitting on the counter, eventually the core [earths
poles] of it will thaw too.  If you begin to re-freeze it, it will do so
while other parts are even still thawing.

Yes we have part to be a responsible and a good steward of our environment.
It is the many other things that we do daily that make the big accumulative
difference in general pollution and consumption of natural resources.  Until
you can change human behavior, you can't fix those problems.  Most of us are
too selfish or apathetic to change our ways.  We think we should be the
exception or want to push the burden to someone else.


Leslie




-----Original Message-----
From: Conchologists List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Benjamin Carter
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 8:04 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Southern ocean to absorb no more CO2

All,

This is not directly about shells, but it is about the health of our oceans,
which, of course, has a great deal to do with mollusks.

I thought you might all be interested in this. Oceans are known to be able
to absorb rather large quantities of 'excess' CO2, a major greenhouse gas.
This study indicates that the oceans around Antarctica are nearly saturated.
They were expected to absorb a lot more, moderating the excess CO2 that we
are contributing to the atmosphere.
That may be wrong. If the science is good, and I am making no judgment yet,
then this could dramatically increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
and hence speed global climate change. See the link below.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN1623079520070517

Note also that, the more CO2 that the ocean absorbs, the greater the acidity
of the water and also that cooler water is actually able to absorb more CO2
than warm water.

Ben

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------