Should we let CO2 kill life or boost satellites?
Irani , New Delhi: Nov 30 2006
Made Popular Nov 30 2006

Should we let CO2 kill life or boost satellites?Carbon dioxide is having a dual impact on human life. While on one part, their recent finding — that the amount of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere has doubled in the past 20 years — is building concerns for life on earth and the after-effects of global warming; on the other, they are relieved that the released CO2 through the burning of fossil fuels is cooling the upper atmosphere, good for low-Earth-orbit satellites like the International Space Station.

But, then what to choose? — Technology, without which survival is a fable or health and lives having the direct burns of this soaring earth’s temperatures?

Should we let CO2 kill life or boost satellites?

According to scientists, carbon dioxide cools the upper atmosphere — the region about 50-800 km above Earth’s surface boosting the radiative effect. The thinning of the thermosphere with increase in CO2 there, making operating of some low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellites such as the International Space Station, orbiting about 350 km above Earth easier.

Do you know, carbon dioxide emissions have increased by 2.5 per cent each year for the past five years? - the new data from the Cape Grim air pollution monitoring station in north-west Tasmania have found this.

But, it has been predicted to be something like a two degree warming over the next 100 years!

And the consequences! -

• Global Warming Already Causing Extinctions! The devastating phenomenon is already killing species and that too, at a much faster rate than had originally been predicted!

At least 70 species of frogs, mostly mountain-dwellers that had nowhere to go to escape the creeping heat.

– 100 to 200 cold-dependent animal species - like penguins and polar bears — are in deep trouble.

• Stronger and more frequent hurricanes and typhoons are threatening Caribbean and Pacific islands!

• Half the World’s Penguin Species Marching Towards Extinction.

• Fish stocks will be badly affected by ocean acidification — a direct result of CO2 levels.

• Small islands in this region as well as low-lying coasts such as Guyana and Belize are having dire prospects.

• Climate change already affecting UK’s marine life

• Global-warming weakened reefs could suffer more storm damage

So, it is now for us to decide our priorities and our fate! - Satellite-based technology, industrialization or curbing disastrous ‘direct impact’ of global warming on us and our surrounding?

Photo courtesy: Indiana daily Student News, NASA

Add Images and Videos
Close X
Recommended Tags or Keywords
Search by Tags or Keywords
Selected Media ( You can Upload only Six media )
Sorry no picture found for this combination of tags. Try to search minimum number of tags at once
2 Stars
Vikas Shekhawat instablogs.com
Churu, Rajasthan, India
Whenever the issue of global warming heats up, it raises many eyebrows, and why not when each one us contributes towards it making it worse. Moreover, the irony is, the issue has been lingering and terribly put-off from last 50+ years, and we’ve been wasting time doing practically nothing. One thing is sure we cannot stop technological developments, through these technologically advanced satellites only we’ve been able to predict atmospheric changes, but we can use technology to kill the problem, and that’s the need of the hour.
1 Stars
We should take a balanced approach without destroying human civilization.
0 Stars
Technological advancement always cause worry for global environment. We are being technical advance on the cost of environment that is giving us the global warming in return and damaging the species.
3 Stars
That\’s only one part of the whole picture. It will be mere idiocy to ask someone to stop satellite based technology since it were the CSIRO atmospheric scientists only who promulgated this fact, thanks to the satellite technology that lets us know about different changes above the earth and below the earth.

Rather than talking about the question of:

Should we let CO2 kill life or boost satellites?

The question should be:

What can we do to combat the issue of CO2 emmissions?

I really can\’t see the whole world fall as a quarry to global warming with my eyes open
1 Stars
Pooja
Shimla, India
Since, global warming is directly related to our civilization so we must take effective measures in reducing the emission of carbon dioxide. Since some of the effects of global warming would be rising sea levels, altered patterns of agriculture, increased extreme weather events, and the expansion of the range of tropical diseases.

The menace could be curbed by involving a hybrid program that targets the emission by making use of carbon less energy technologies, including nearly commercial systems like carbon capture and storage for fossil energy facilities and it should be universally collaborated.
1 Stars
these days life is dependent on technological advancements and life seems impossible without it. But need is to take effective measures to save human civilization from global warming.
1 Stars
Saving wildlife is equally important as technology is for us. We have to seek some measures which maintain proper balance between life and advancement ...
2 Stars
You may find thousands of options and opportunities for low-Earth-orbit satellites and many others, only if you survive from the death-defying CO2 and the knockout punch of global warming. Because if there won’t be any life, who will do the testing and launch satellites.
Add your Comment