Being a writer without benefit of scientific education, training, background, or any other evidence of knowledge in the area of global warming, I have followed the “letters” page with interest as the various “experts” checked in. Since none gave education or vocational credentials, I must assume they are not certified “warming scientists” and, thus, I consider myself an equal in this fray — especially in that it seems tempers are fraying. After careful review of the letters by Messrs Dukes, Franz, Marquardt, and Normand, I pose the following. Sirs:
1. Has the presence and degree of salt in the seawater been taken into account when discussing the melting rate of the Antarctica? It seems to me that this may be of exceptional merit and have the potential for accelerating the mean temperature at the Meridian. As a follow-up to this postulation I ask why there has no consideration been given to the fresh waters of the Amazon River as a means of ameliorating said salinity and provide resistance to the global warming effect in that fresh water is of a higher temperature than is ice?
2. In that ice has a different specific gravity, could not that also influence the presence of algae when the ice was formed and subsequently released with melting? This could have a serious impact upon sea animals which in turn will affect and effect the human food chain. It seems to me that this should be given a priority in the presentation of any hypothesis.
Although a layman in this field, I recognize that the above questions may provoke contentious debate among the warming elite, and I hasten to offer my services as a public conduit: one who can distill the gobbledygook of “To warm, or not to warm, that is the question for this age.”
Alfred W. Stites
General consultant at large