From: "Rich Gauszka" 

So are you going to adapt by growing  fins when the East Coast is flooded?


It's in your genes
http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060726_fins_limbs.html

The triangular shark fin that sends frightened swimmers scrambling to shore
is made using the same genes that help form the arms and legs of humans, a
new study reports.


"Mark"  wrote in message
news:44c947f2{at}w3.nls.net...
> Yes, what I meant was it makes sense that it would work, not that it was
> advisable to do.
>
> My other underlying point goes to my contention that we should be
> concentrating on adapting rather than pretending we can change the
> climate. But let us assume that we could do it, that strategically located
> "sulfur guns" were fired off according to a scientific formula and we
> succeed in lowering the temperature by a degree. Everyone is slapping each
> other on the back on how brilliant we all are, then the super volcano in
> Yellowstone blows (or even just a regular volcano) and lowers the already
> lower temperature by 2 more degrees and turns a 160 day growing season,
> not into 70 days, but into 0 days. We won't look so smart then, will we?
> Especially if the volcanic dust drives our man-made sulfur into the sea
> and kills the mackerel too.
>
> The people in 1816 adapted by eating fish as they had no crops and that
> was a really quick forced solution in the face of cataclysmic climate
> change in a single year by a single volcano. You global warming alarmists
> are wetting your pants over the same 1 degree change in climate (assuming
> the "science" is even right), but in the opposite direction,
and over a
> 100 year period vs. 1 year. I see no reason to believe we can't adapt to
> that and avoid destroying the world economy with misguided Kyoto type
> limits on our activities.
>
> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> news:44c91bdb{at}w3.nls.net...
>>I agree that the sulfur would lower the temperature. It's just that the
>>proposed cure will present another problem - possible major - acid rain.
>>That's one of the reasons for fuel standards that limit it.
>>
>>
>> "Mark"  wrote in message
>> news:44c91aa3$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> Makes sense to me. When Krakatoa erupted in 1883 it dropped the world
>>> temperature by 1 degree (C) and the same thing happened back in 1815
>>> when Tambora erupted. Indeed in 1816 New England farmers claimed it was
>>> the year without summer as the growing season was cut from the typical
>>> 160 days down to 70 and a whole lotta people ate a whole lotta mackerel
>>> to make it through that winter.
>>>
>>> Uh, no I don't happen to know this off the top of my head, the above
>>> facts and many, many more interesting tidbits are in Simon Winchester's
>>> Krakatoa that I happen to be reading this summer 
>>>
>>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>>> news:44c90e33{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> cooler earth with an acid rain problem?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.livescience.com/environment/060727_inject_sulfur.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One way to curb global warming is to purposely shoot sulfur into the
>>>> atmosphere, a scientists suggested today.
>>>>
>>>> The burning of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, a
greenhouse gas,
>>>> into the atmosphere. It also releases sulfur that cools
the planet by
>>>> reflecting solar radiation away from Earth.
>>>>
>>>> Injecting sulfur into the second atmospheric layer closest to Earth
>>>> would reflect more sunlight back to space and offset greenhouse gas
>>>> warming, according to Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen from the
Max Planck
>>>> Institute for Chemistry in Germany and the Scripps Institution of
>>>> Oceanography, University of California at San Diego.
>>>>
>>>> Crutzen suggests carrying sulfur into the atmosphere via
balloons and
>>>> using artillery guns to release it, where the particles
would stay for
>>>> up to two years. The results could be seen in six months.
>>>>
>>>> Nature does something like this naturally.
>>>>
>>>> When Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in1991,
millions of tons
>>>> of sulfur was injected into the atmosphere, enhancing
reflectivity and
>>>> cooling the Earth's surface by an average of 0.9 degrees
Fahrenheit in
>>>> the year following the eruption.
>>>>
>>>> "Given the grossly disappointing international
political response to
>>>> the required greenhouse gas emissions, ... research on the
feasibility
>>>> and environmental consequences of climate engineering of the kind
>>>> presented in this paper, which might need to be deployed in future,
>>>> should not be tabooed," Crutzen said.
>>>>
>>>> This proposal is detailed in the August issue of the
journal Climatic
>>>> Change.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5