Subject: Re: Carbon in the Atmosphere
From: pho@mserv1.dl.ac.uk (Pete Owens)
Date: 10 Sep 1996 11:10:05 GMT
In article 001@pm0-47.hal-pc.org, charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) writes:
>In article <322fcae8.7115827@nntp.televar.com>,
> dewey@televar.com (Dewey Burbank) wrote:
>>
>>5) There is one school of thought that predicts doom and
>gloom scenarios up to
>>and including massive death and suffering, even to the point
>of total
>>extinction of humanity. On the other extreme is the camp
>that says it's too
>>soon to act until we truly understand everything about what
>is really driving
>>the many interacting global systems that are not accounted
>for in the models.
>
>I would expect reality to fall somewhere in the middle of
>these extremes. In other words, if heating can be
>demonstrated, there will be time to act before dire
>consequences are apparent.
What on earth leads you to that conclusion.
First, since you don't believe the science on what basis do you
reach your expectation of the impact of human emmisions.
Secondly whatever consequences you expect those
emmisions to have, if you wait till you observe those
consequences it will be by definition too late to take
action to avoid them. Further due to the length of
the carbon cycle any action you then take can only
slow down the rate at which the situation gets worse
- not make it better. Even the most drastic of actions
(completely halting all human emmisions say) would take
many years to have an effect as the carbon on the atmosphere
gradually migrates to other sinks.
>>
>>I submit that the carbon in fossil fuels must have at one
>time been in the
>>earth's atmosphere. Over the history of the earth (or at
>least that period
>>since the evolution of photosynthesis) plant, animal and
>marine life has been
>>transferring CO2 out of the atmosphere and into fossil
>fuels, coral reefs, and
>>other mineral forms.
>
>This would seem reasonable if you believe that all fossil
>fuels come from dead plant and animal material.
Hence the reason for the name fossil.
> After having
>thought about this issue for a while, it seems unlikely that
>this could actually be the case. However, I don't have a
>good theory to replace the old one.
If you have no alternative explanation on what grounds do
you think the conventional one is unlikely.
---
Pete Owens
P.Owens@dl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: fHuman vs. natural influences on the environment
From: system@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
Date: 10 Sep 1996 13:52:06 GMT
charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) writes:
>In article <5124fd$p9k@corn.cso.niu.edu>,
>system@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
>> charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) writes:
>>> rparson@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert Parson) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Specifically, CFCs have long been used by oceanographers as tracers
>>>> of oceanic motions. (Two reasons: they are highly inert, and they
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> can be detected at extremely low concentrations.)
[snip]
>>>>estimate that out of
>>>>a total of 9152 Gg of CFC-11 produced, ~33 Gg reside in the ocean
^^ ^^
>>>Apparently, there is a substantial amount of CFC's in the oceans.
>>
>>33/9152 = .3% ?=? substantial
>>
>>So did you fail to do the math or ...?
>
>Not at all. I interpreted the 33 Gg as 33 gigatons.
>Apparently, some people use different abreviations than I am
>accustomed to seeing.
Gah.
>However, 33 million tons still sounds like quite a bit. For
>something that is supposed to be an ozone depletion catalyst
>(it's not used up in the reaction),
Have you read the Ozone FAQ?
It has been a few years but it is my recollection that CFCs are
indeed used up in the ozone depletion cycle.
^^^^^
>you seem surprisingly unconcerned.
They are in the ocean, not the stratosphere. In comparison to
total amount every produced it is a very small amount. If you
can't figure it out...
Robert
Morphis@physics.niu.edu
Real Men change diapers
Subject: Theft of Reptiles from Ks. Zoo Please ppost
From: asalzberg@aol.com (ASalzberg)
Date: 10 Sep 1996 10:05:52 -0400
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
On Sunday, September 8, 1996, a number of reptiles were discovered stolen
from the Herpetarium at the Sedgwick County Zoo in Wichita, KS. Please
inform us if you are made aware of attempts to sell any of the following
reptiles listed. If possible, attempt to acquire names and address.
Missing are:
1 female Graco tortoise (Testudo graeca ibera)
1 male Herman's tortoise (Testudo hermanni)
1 female Chaco tortoise (Geochelone chilensis)
2 male, 3 unsexed New guinea snapping turtles (Elseya novaeguineae)
1 male spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata)
1 male, 2 unsexed Egyptian desert monitors (Varanus griseus)**
1 male green tree monitor (Varanus prasinus)
1 unsexed Australian water dragon (Physignatus leseurii)
** Desert monitors are listed as ENDANGERED, making the possession,
transportation, purchase, and/or sale of these illegally obtained animals
a Federal offense.
Our Zoo is dedicated to promoting conservation and to providing an
atmosphere which fosters appreciation, understanding, and respect for all
of nature. Our herpetarium staff is deeply concerned about the welfare of
the animals that have been stolen. Your help is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Karen S. Graham
Curator of Herpetofauna and Fishes
1(316)942-2213 ex. 229
fax 1(316)942-3781
herps@scz.org
Subject: Re: Smog 2!!!!!
From: TL ADAMS
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 10:13:11 -0700
fred vented:
> I think the burecrats are doing what the lobbyist and the special interest
> want. To hell with me and my old truck that I drive 4 times a year to haul
> hay for my horses. We are the minority and they can say Gross Poluters
> sounds good huh. well what about when the old cars are gone then who is
> next in CARBS study where they random tested with remont sensing they found
> that although old cars individually polluted more as a group they put out
> the least polution. The worst poluters are the new cars that accelerated
> hard.
I don't really disagree with most of your comments. I think we disagree
on shades of responsibillity and shades of gray.
I concur that Southcoast air control district is promulgating a plan
that
cause the least amount of "political" harm to majority of the people.
Bureacrats, and I have been one, have to groups to content with:
1) the people at large, 2)the politico and the lobbiest that influence
them. Both public outcry and money influence them, thats the way that
the system is, it wrong to be that way. I've always strived to remove
the politics from policy, but it is a hard task.
My wife used to train hunter/jumpers in Topanga Canyon at a place called
Equus. They also had a old (70's) truck used to unload hay and feed,
think that they kept road tags. As a fellow horseman, I wholeheartedly
agree that certain agriculture/limited use vehicles should be exempt, or
have a upper level cap on repair. I think that it is a worthy goal to
lobby your state rep over. Maybe the justice of the cause will prevail.
But, as I've said many times before, use farmers get screwed.
> http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jbaron/air
>
> A relatively small amount of the overall emissions comes
> from the very old cars because they contribute such a small
> amount to the total vehicle miles traveled.
> > Well why not start limiting the miles driven in the peoples united
> socialist states
>
> The high emitter roblem appears to span all model years and results from dirty
> vehicles that are driven significant distances. One would expect
> older cars to have higher emissions, and some have very high
> emissions (super emitters). What was not expected was the high
> emission rates detected in the worst 20% of more recent model
> cars.
>
> Start aresting people for fast acceleration.
Oh, lets get serious. Maybe we can begin to train people to not be such
asshole on the San Diego Freeway, but LA don't begin to have the cops
to arrest every crazed driver. The Slow and Zoom traffic on the LA
expressways is a bloody big problem, but how do you fix it. Alot of
the air problems would go away with a better freeway system, but money
is hard to come by.
>
> This evidence of super emitters or of modes of
> vehicle operation with high emission rates (such as heavy
> accelerations) that occur more commonly than expected represents
> the main problem of excessive motor vehicle
> emissions.
> I think that public hearings and a moratorium is needed. Let the politicle process be brought out to the light of day.
> I think that disclosure and limits for lobbyist is in order. But thats
> another day.
Oh, we are on the same bandwith on these,,, let us learn as a society
to bring all major social/technical discussion out to the people. I
truly believe that good people tried to set up the best plan that they
could with smog 2, but they are just a few trying to regulate millions.
Without listening to the people affected, how can they know. Without
you telling them, how can they know.
>
> > I fear Microsoft more than I do the EPA.
>
> Bill Gates for President Ross Perot VP
If Bill Gates was running the country, the 1996 elections would not be
released until 1998.
OS/2 rules!
Subject: Re: Human vs. natural influences on the en
From: pho@mserv1.dl.ac.uk (Pete Owens)
Date: 10 Sep 1996 12:20:46 GMT
In article 010@pm1-66.hal-pc.org, charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) writes:
>In article <510rep$4s4@mserv1.dl.ac.uk>,
> pho@mserv1.dl.ac.uk (Pete Owens) wrote:
>>In article 005@pm0-47.hal-pc.org, charliew@hal-pc.org
>(charliew) writes:
>>>In article <50pk5q$1ig@mserv1.dl.ac.uk>,
>>> pho@mserv1.dl.ac.uk (Pete Owens) wrote:
>>>(BIG CUT)
>>>
>>>>No but you are going further in that you refuse to accept
>>>>that they will be as bad as the scientists are predicting.
>>>>If you want to argue that the change *might* not be as
>>>>bad as predicted it is equally valid to argue that the
>>>>change *might* be worse. The greater the uncertainty
>>>>the greater the level of action becomes appropriate.
>>>
>>>I don't see it this way. The greater the risk, the greater
>>>the level of action required.
>>
>>Absolutely.
>>
>>> Big uncertainty bothers me a lot less than big risk.
>>
>>It effectively amounts to the same thing.
>
>NOW, I see why you chaps are so irritated with me. I see
>that you equate uncertainty with risk.
No, I explained patiently how in this case reducing the
uncertainties reduces the probability of high risk events.
I note you had to delete this explanation in order
to continue making your point. I don't see how you
can disentangle risk from uncertainty - the word risk
ceases to have any meaning for certain events.
>What a pity. You are
>certain to lead miserable lives, because many activities
>involve substantially more uncertainty than risk.
Why on earth should that make my life miserable?
I am not averse to risks - I am a rock climber for
Christs sake. I simply believe in making rational
decisions and this involves basing them on all the
information available.
>For the record, if it can be demonstrated that we are dealing
>with a high risk problem, you guys will have to get out of my
>way to avoid being run over as I try to help fix this
>problem. I never meant to imply that I intended to ignore a
>high risk situation.
However, you just set such stringent criteria for observations
to demonstrate to you that a problem exists that you can
guaruntee that you could never possibly be convinced. So the
paragraph above is an excersise in sophistry.
Rather like Nelson (excuse the reference to British history)
caiming that he would have obeyed the signal had he been able
to see it through his blind eye.
---
Pete Owens
P.Owens@dl.ac.uk
Subject: eBase 5.1: An Environmental Database
From: greendisk@igc.org
Date: 10 Sep 1996 08:15:22
From: The GreenDisk Journal
Subject: eBase 5.1: An Environmental Database
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>> eBASE 5.1: AN 8500 PAGE ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA <<
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
For Immediate Release September 10, 1996
Diskettes, Manuals and Packaging are Made From Recycled Materials
Washington, DC. The Green Disk -- a journal of contemporary
environmental issues published on disk -- has released the most
comprehensive resource for environmental learning, research and
activism ever published. The innovative database contains
twenty-five research compendia, each focusing on one challenging
environmental issue like the Decline of Global Fisheries,
Sustainable Agriculture, and Environmental Building and Design
(see WWW site for complete list). Included are extensive
background articles and bibliographies, listings of computer
resources and publications available, plus a profile of the major
players and organizations working on that issue.
The complete text of hundreds of reports, articles and essays
covering all aspects of ecology and the environment are included,
along with thousands of abstracts from journals, magazines and
newsletters. Over 1100 World Wide Web Sites, listservs, online
databases, software, educational programs, CD-roms and literally
thousands of environmental publications, videos and other media
are listed -- all this in a format that uses a minimum of natural
resources, and is keyword searchable.
"Our goal is to publicize the many diverse projects and
organizations working for a clean environment. We hope to empower
people with the knowledge they need to become part of the
solution," says editor and publisher William Sugg, who worked as
a computer specialist and conservation biologist for the
Smithsonian Institution, The Peregrine Fund and the National
Wildlife Federation before launching The Green Disk in 1992.
"Until now such comprehensive and sophisticated information
resources have been well out of the price and technical range for
most students, educators, libraries, writers and activists
working on a tight budget," notes Sugg.
In the words of Joel Makower -- syndicated columnist, publisher
of the Green Business Letter and author of The E Factor, "given
the low price and amount of data, The Green Disk is both a
convenience and a bargain." Michael Potts of Real Goods News
writes, "features on the environment, jobs, college programs, and
other nuggets you could waste your life looking for on the nets
are provided here in a concise, resource-friendly package." The
top-quality disks are made from recovered materials as are the
manuals and box of the software package.
Each back issue of The Green Disk Journal may be ordered
separately for $10, but all twenty-five are available in version
5.1 of the database for only $129. A money back guarantee is
offered on every order -- unsatisfied customers receive a full
refund and keep the computer disks. For more information visit
The Green Disk WWW site at http://www.igc.org/greendisk, email
greendisk@igc.org, phone toll-free 1-888-GRN-DISK or write to POB
32224, Washington, DC 20007. Orders can be made by VISA/MC at the
WWW site, or complete and email/fax/post this order form:
---------------------------- :< --------------------------------
Name & Title: ___________________________________________________
Organization: ___________________________________________________
Address: ________________________________________________________
City, State: ____________________________________________________
Postal Code, Country: ___________________________________________
What type of computer do you have? ____ Macintosh ____ IBM-PC
What is your Internet user ID? __________________________________
Back Issues Database & User Interface (eBase 5.1) $129 _____
One-year (six issues) of updates North America $45 _____
One-year (six issues) of updates outside N. America US$50 _____
First class/airmail, postage and handling all orders add $ __5__
Priority mail, US additional $3, Intl additional $9 $3/9 _____
Total enclosed _____
PAYMENT
Payment is by check, money order or VISA/MC. Foreign payment is
accepted by VISA/MC, a check drawn on a US bank, or AmEx
traveller's checks. VISA/MC payments are also accepted by email,
phone and FAX toll-free to 1-888-GRN-DISK (Outside North America
+1-207-655-5472). Prepayment required. Federal ID#238156570.
VISA# _____________________________________ Exp. Date ___________
Name appearing on card: _________________________________________
SITE LICENSES - The Green Disk is used in classrooms, offices and
learning centers all over the world. Contact us for information
on reasonably priced site licenses that will allow you install
the software on several computers.
The Green Disk, PO Box 32224, Washington, DC 20007
Phone/FAX toll-free: 1-888-GRN-DISK Outside NA: +1-207-655-5472
EcoNet Internet
http://www.igc.org/greendisk
-- Please repost/forward this message where appropriate --
Subject: Re: Carbon in the Atmosphere
From: Leonard Evens
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 10:42:24 -0500
Bryan Hannegan wrote:
>
> On 7 Sep 1996, John McCarthy wrote:
> >
> > I fear that the dominant ideology in "earth system science" is such as
> > prevents Brian Hannegan from understanding my question, although I
> > infer that the answer is no. The question concerned whether anyone
> > there dared study *intentional* measures to adjust the climate for human
> > welfare.
> >
> > If there are no such studies, humanity is in for unpleasant surprises
> > - but such studies aren't green.
>
> A few years ago, Ralph Cicerone and others offered a number of technological
> proposals for transporting tropospheric ozone into the lower stratosphere
> directly, in attempts to replace ozone loss via halocarbons. Similarly,
> there was once interest in iron fertilization of the open oceans in an
> attempt to enhance oceanic removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
>
> While I don't deny John his point that there may be some merit in pursuing
> such scientific studies, I don't believe that our efforts are best placed
> there until we figure out how the "earth system" works: there are a number
> of interrelated processes in the climate system that we still don't have
> a good handle on in terms of understanding.
>
> It's my belief that we ought to figure those out in some detail before we
> go about intentionally modifying the climate system to acheive a desired
> result.
>
> Bryan Hannegan
> Earth System Science, UC Irvine
> bjhanneg@uci.edu
A good statement of the situation from an `angel'. No comment on who
the `fools' are.
--
Leonard Evens len@math.nwu.edu 491-5537
Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
Evanston Illinois
Subject: Re: MOUNTAIN LIONS chased rider
From: David Blake
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 08:49:29 -0700
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> Rick A. Hopkins wrote:
> > >I just love the way we confidantly assert that we shot the same lion
> > >that caused the problem.
> >
> > Mike: CDFG has an eloborate and well trained forensic team they use is
> > cases like this. An aside, they have also used it to convict several
> > poachers.
> They kill the lion first, then SAY it was the one that was the problem. Hard
> to trust reverse justice like that.
And, if it isn't the lion, then they continue the hunt. Ain't justice
cool !
> > >I guess opponents of mountain biking deserve to be shot, huh?
> > Are we just a wee bit parnoid?
> No, factual. When mountain lions oppose mountain biking in their habitat, they
> are shot. Period.
The mountain lion generally will only get shot if it does some damage.
If
a cat chases you for 50 yards and loses interest, then it gets
shook off. The opponents that deserve to be shot are animals that
do damage to humans in OUR environment. Let's not forget we live
here too.
> > >And even more importantly, stay out of their habitat.
> >
> > Can you give me a good reason?
>
> Yes. The lions don't want them there. They were there first.
Are you certain that lions are phylogenetically older than
humans ?
--
Dave Blake
dblake@phy.ucsf.edu
http://www.keck.ucsf.edu/~dblake
Subject: Re: Smog 2!!!!!
From: george@apan.org.zap-for-actual-email-address (George Byrd)
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 16:34:19 GMT
In , 10 Sep 1996 06:21:03 GMT,
On "Re: Smog 2!!!!!",
wrote:
>In article <512uro$d66@nntp1.best.com>,
> george@apan.org.zap-for-actual-email-address writes:
>So, I have to say, the answer to you question is moot because it
>didn't really apply to the real situation. Get your head out of a
>speaker blasting KSFO and learn the reality of the situation.
The emissions levels for passing, and for gross polluter status, were
decreased significantly from previously. Owners who had bought cars
in good faith, that were in conformance with prior standards, are now
screwed. Furthermore the bureaucratic procedure for owners was made
almost impossible to comply with and still keep one's car.
CARB (and politicians, including Q, Kopp), lied to us about being able
to test our cars w/o being tagged permanently as "gross polluters".
They lied to us about whether there were confiscation provisions in
the pending bills and regs. Then when the texts became public, they
backtracked, saying, in effect, "those provisions never existed, and
we're taking them out also". I cannot give even qualified trust to
public officials who behave that way.
I didn't listen to KSFO until this flap began, although I had always
enjoyed Rodgers when he was on KGO evenings years ago. I noticed the
flap as newspaper articles & on usenet. Then I decided to listen to
Listen to Lee Rodgers one morning to hear what he & Melanie Morgan had
dug up. It correlated quite well with what could be gleaned from
newspaper accounts. But Melanie had more details than papers were
apparently willing to publish -- from the same sources.
>Look, this stuff was hardly done "in relative secret". The
>negotiations which lead to the compromise were splattered all over the
>papers in early 1995.
After the rules were virtually set in concrete.
> If you had paid attention you would have known
>what was coming and you could have complained about it then.
Where & when were the public input hearings held??
Where & when were they advertised *prior* to being held??
I'm very familiar with the tactic of holding ill-advertised hearings,
with misleading subject matter indications, just barely meeting the
minimal letter of the legal publication requirements. I've seen it
most intimately at the local municipal level, of course. But it is a
standard practice of entrenched and venal bureaucrats at every level
of government. I wasn't born yesterday.
>I'll address the issue of sweetheart contractors in another post.
Got it. Really the contractors didn't control what went into the
regs. Really Marty Keller won't take a sinecure working for a major
environmental contractor when he retires with sumptious benefits from
CARB. Really government has only the best interest of every citizen
at heart. Really we should love big brother. But mostly we should
just obey and shut up. I understand completely.
George
--
Opinions above are NOT those of APAN, Inc.
Opinions above are NOT legal advice.
"Laws do not persuade just because they threaten."
<< Seneca >>
Subject: Re: Human vs. natural influences on the en
From: Leonard Evens
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:25:45 -0500
Dewey Burbank wrote:
> >
> This brings up an issue that I have been struggling with in my attempts to
> understand the debate on climate change. I can not fully grasp the
> meaningfulness of "average" global temperature. Where I live, the temperature
> has a diurnal variability of roughly 25degC and a seasonal variability of
> about 50degC. The local flora and fauna are well adapted to these extremes.
>
> My simplistic question is: What difference would a 2.5degC change make?
> Especially when averaged over a time period of a century? This equates to 100
> generations for annual flora, and several (perhaps tens) of generations of
> fauna. Granted these are fast on an evolutionary scale, but we are not
> talking about evolution, but rather adaptation. In my mind, the distinction
> is important, because life forms on earth are enormously adaptable to
> short-term changes in habitat.
>
> It just seems to me that the changes that are being predicted are uncertain
> and probably insignificant in the Grand Scheme of Things.
>
> Please feel free to set me straight if there is some data that I am not aware
> of.
>
> Regards,
> dewey@televar.com
There are several answers to this question. First, if we consider only
the effect of climate change on biodiversity, a change oa few degrees in
average global temperatures can have a dramatic effect on the range of a
species. The fact that some species can adjust to large seasonal
changes does not invalidate this principle. For example, if the
average temperature goes up by a few degrees, the probability of very
high increases locally in particular areas is higher. The result may
be that such extremes may lead some species to be unable to continue to
exist in their current habitats. Also, habitats are complex and depend
on interrelationships of species. Climate change doesn't affect only
temperature. It affects precipitation and other things, and again an
increase in extreme events can destroy a habitat by destroying some key
species. If average temperatures increase slowly enough, in principle,
species can move north or to higher altitudes, but a hundred years is
pretty short as such things go. Moreover, human activity has greatly
intefered with the paths that such migrations would take. Many
habitats are in essence islands in a landscape made over for humanity's
purposes. The species in these habitats will probably not be able to
migrate.
Secondly, if we forget all the other species on earth, a few degrees
change in climate would probably have profound effects on human
societies. Humanity could certainly survive it, but it could esily be
very costly and disruptive. The IPCC estimates a sea level rise during
this time of 20 to 80 cm with 50 cm as the best guess. Again this
doesn't sound like very much---just under two feet, but when you
consider storm surges, it could have a dramatic effect on low lying
areas. Also, changes in precipitation could easily turn productive
farmland into deserts. Again, I don't want to sound apocalyptic about
this, but there likely would be real costs. Even if we take an
anthropocentric point of view, it is quite plausible that the costs of
not doing anything to limit fossil fuel emissions would significantly
exceed in the end the costs of doing something now to that purpose.
Finally, let me repeat the often mentioned assertion that the order of
magnitude of the predicted change is about half of the change from the
last ice age to the present climate (but in the opposite direction), and
that happened over a much longer period of time. (At the extreme end
of the range of prediction, it is comparable to that change.) At the
end of the last ice age, there was, it appears, a short period of time
in which the so called thermohaline circulation in the oceans turned
off, and that produced a resurgence of an ice age in northern Europe and
possibly globally. Wallace Broeker has written about the fact that the
climate system may have more than one stable state and that the dynamics
may be such that a change of a few degrees in average temperature could
shift us into another of those states. (See his article on this in a
recent issue of Consequences, which is available over the web.)
Leonard Evens len@math.nwu.edu 491-5537
Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
Evanston Illinois
Subject: Re: MOUNTAIN LIONS chased rider
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 10 Sep 1996 16:50:20 GMT
Someone, probably Mike Vandeman, included
> Yes. The lions don't want them there. They were there first.
I'm not sure that the "lions don't want them there."
Consider the following experiment.
Mark off two adjacent 5 mile square areas in lion country with no
barrier between them. Leave one alone, and send large numbers of
children to play in the other. After 5 years, see which area has more
lions. If there are more lions in the area where the children were
sent to play then it is reasonable to infer that the lions wanted them
there.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
Subject: Re: Human vs. natural influences on the en
From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Date: 10 Sep 1996 16:56:09 GMT
snark@swcp.com (snark@swcp.com) wrote:
: In article <50nn5i$aqk@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
: Michael Tobis wrote:
: >snark@swcp.com (snark@swcp.com) wrote:
: >: In article <50mbkf$p92@mserv1.dl.ac.uk>,
: >: Pete Owens wrote:
: >: If you wish to misread the Report, you are free to do so. Please show
: >: me quotes from the Report that say that all of the scientists are
: >: certain that anthropogenic warming is occuring. I.e., back up your
: >: claim:
: >: >They are certain the effect is occurring.
: >I quote the lead paragraphs of the original (1990) IPCC report:
: >===================================================================
: >"We are certain of the following:
: > * there is a natural greenhouse effect which already
: > keeps the world warmer than it would otherwise be
: > * emissions resulting from human activities are
: > substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations
: > of the greenhouse gases ... These increases will
: > enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average
: > in additional warming of the Earth's surface."
: >===================================================================
: >Period. No caveats or qualifiers.
: >Is that clear enough, O Snark?
: Indeed, but it does not make your point. It is clear that the
: scientists are certain anthropogenic warming will occur. It
: does not say that all of the scientists are certain that anthropogenic
: warming is occuring now, which is what was claimed.
: I'm not trying to be obtuse here, and I have no particular
: disagreement with most of what you and others are saying, Michael; I'm
: just trying to understand precisely what is being said.
I think we must have a semantic problem. We may assert that the world must
necessarily be warmer than it would have been had no greenhouse gas
emissions taken place. We acknowledge that the observational record is
inconclusive on the still open question of how much, and the consequent
questions like when, where and so what. This is because there are
other phenomena causing climate to shift on comparable time scales.
As a signal detection problem, the warming hasn't been detected. This
doesn't prove it doesn't exist, any more than the failure of your radio
to pick up WORT in Madison doesn't prove its nonexistence.
If you are claiming that "evidence for observed anthropogenic warming isn't
entirely conclusive" you still have a leg to stand on, if no longer two. If
you are claiming that "evidence for an anthropogenic component to the
radiative balance, causing a warming effect with respect to the undisturbed
system isn't entirely conlcusive" you are completely off base. We don't
need observations to back this up, but of course we have observations
by the truckload for this - any satellite temperature sounding of any
planetary atmosphere relies in detail on the physics of radiative transfer.
The warming phenomenon exists, whether we have observed it or not. In
other words, we are "certain the effect is occurring", which is what
you asked about.
mt
Subject: Re: Carbon in the Atmosphere
From: farrar@datasync.com (Paul Farrar)
Date: 10 Sep 1996 08:56:12 -0500
In article ,
John McCarthy wrote:
>In article Bryan Hannegan writes:
> >
> > On 7 Sep 1996, John McCarthy wrote:
> > >
> > > I fear that the dominant ideology in "earth system science" is such as
> > > prevents Brian Hannegan from understanding my question, although I
> > > infer that the answer is no. The question concerned whether anyone
> > > there dared study *intentional* measures to adjust the climate for human
> > > welfare.
> > >
> > > If there are no such studies, humanity is in for unpleasant surprises
> > > - but such studies aren't green.
> >
> > A few years ago, Ralph Cicerone and others offered a number of technological
> > proposals for transporting tropospheric ozone into the lower stratosphere
> > directly, in attempts to replace ozone loss via halocarbons. Similarly,
> > there was once interest in iron fertilization of the open oceans in an
> > attempt to enhance oceanic removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
> >
> > While I don't deny John his point that there may be some merit in pursuing
> > such scientific studies, I don't believe that our efforts are best placed
> > there until we figure out how the "earth system" works: there are a number
> > of interrelated processes in the climate system that we still don't have
> > a good handle on in terms of understanding.
> >
> > It's my belief that we ought to figure those out in some detail before we
> > go about intentionally modifying the climate system to acheive a desired
> > result.
> >
> > Bryan Hannegan
> > Earth System Science, UC Irvine
> > bjhanneg@uci.edu
>
>Certainly we ought to figure out the consequences of actions to affect
>climate before we undertake them, but it is skipping a logical step to
>conclude from this that studies of what positive actions mankind might
>take should be postponed indefinitely. There will be plenty of delay
>and dithering before anything will actually be done.
>
>The first experiments with iron fertilization were disappointing, and
>many naysayers said, "Well, that ends that crackpot idea". A second
>experiment gave more positive results. However, Hannegan is probably
>right to have written "there was once interest". The lack of
>respectability for studying the effects of any intentional actions
>except prohibitions is a consequence of an irrational ideology
>prevalent in large parts of the scientific community. They have been
>impressed by literary babble about hubris.
>
>Both the successful experiment and the bad attitude are nicely
>expressed in the _Science News_ story
>
>http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/iron.txt .
>
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
>
>
The very first course I had (in 1973) which studied the C cycle and the
possible effects of increasing the atmospheric content, Introduction to
Chemical Oceanography, also discussed, in the same sessions, various
schemes for countering these effects, including real brute-force
geoengineering schemes. Counter CO2 strategies are regular features of
scientific and engineering conferences. The work earth scientists do is
necessary to identify and evaluate our options. Who planned and evaluated
the iron experiments? The Marshall Institution? Jerry Pournelle? If
it weren't for chemical oceanographers, "earth system scientists", etc.,
computer scientists and programmers wouldn't even know about the possibility
of iron fertilization. Take off the ideological blinders.
Paul D. Farrar