I believe the original point was that all the human efforts at CO2 reduction over the decade it was in effect, was wiped-out in 4 days worth of eruptions. It has been a while since I looked at the charts as to "carbon" savings(sic) but it seems about right. For all the talk and all the fervor there really has been a minuscule amount of CO2 reduction in 10 years when compared to the total CO2 levels. Be it remembered this was a ramp up over 30(?) years within the now abandoned Koyoto Protocol so it really hadn't come into broad active efforts of the long term goals.
Be it also remembered that this alleged letter supposed Op-Ed piece is not a peer reviewed scientific paper. It doesn't address any cumulative volcanic input, or weather extremes or overall temperature trends--just the balance sheet of human efforts to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels vs the occasional volcanic eruption.
The wisdom I would derive from this is that our efforts at reduction are ineffective and research and governmental policy should focus more on adaptation. The fact that the debate has become a religion by the largely uninformed activist prevents any meaningful research into adaptation. One of my favorites proposals which has languished in the waiting room of development, are the Mylar parasols placed in low orbit which can be expanded or contracted to match isolation levels which stabilize temperatures-- sort of like beach umbrellas for the planet.
Or we can keep spending money on the most expensive, least enforceable, least effective means at temperature control. In all the name calling, we tend to forget that the issue isn't controlling CO2 levels but stabilizing global temperatures in the long run.
Eman
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment