Ryan
As someone who is VERY closely concerned (and has been for donkey's
years) with the pollution, physics, chemistry, meteorology and
climatology of the atmosphere, I must say that some of your points are
valid, but, by any means, not all of them, by a long chalk. I agree we
do not have absolute scientific proof of climate change, but the
circumstantial evidence is great and growing more convincing every day.
The first point is that "global warming" is not used in scientific
circles (other than in the term GWP or global warming potential),
because, although the mean global temperature (determined on a 5.6° X-Y
grid and 500 m vertical interval, commonly used in global meteorology)
is increasing, there are many microclimates which suffer from a decrease
of temperature. There is absolutely no doubt though, in my mind, that
the mean T is increasing. The big x is why? I think the answer is best
demonstrated, not by the change in mean temperature, but by the **rate**
of change. Never, since reliable determination of climatic conditions
over the last 10,000 years by dendrochronology and ice core samples, has
the mean temperature varied so fast as it is doing today (so you see, we
don't rely just on blokes peeking at a thermometer). The telling thing
is that the global mean temperature (on a 10 year running average, to
iron out ephemeral weather phenomena like volcanic activity and El Niņo)
correlates mathematically to a fractile probability of >0.95 with the
CO2 content, even to the dip of the 39-45 war when, strangely, less
fossil fuel was burnt.
Certainly, we don't have all the answers. You should ask Dan Albritton
or some of his colleagues, for the real answers, which are far too long
and complex to discuss here. Atmospheric science has advanced enormously
over the last decade or so with three-dimensional modelling of the
phenomena (this is why your weather forecasts today are much better than
they were 20 years ago). Please don't be too hasty in condemning the
good work done by these scientists who have a difficult enough task
(there are literally many thousands of parameters which can influence
both weather and climate) and we don't even know all the sources and
sinks of CO2, or any other substance for that matter.
If you really want to learn the basics of atmospheric science (including
a tiny chapter on climate change), I suggest the very readable (for a
scientific book) "Atmosphere, Weather & Climate" by Roger G. Barry and
Richard J. Chorley, 7th edition, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-16020-0, 409 pp,
about 30 bucks worth. Believe me, my copy is well thumbed, indeed. When
you have absorbed it open-mindedly from cover-to-cover, come back here
and we'll continue the debate.
In the meanwhile, I ask you to consider three things:
1) When Rowland and Molina proposed the notion of ozone depletion, many
pooh-poohed the idea much as, today, many do the same for climate
change. Nowadays, 26 years later, no open-minded person will contest the
science of ozone depletion as determined both theoretically and
empirically. Yet, when the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol
were signed, we had only a strong supposition, based on less scientific
knowledge then than that we have of climate change today. But thank God
for those politicians and bureaucrats who did listen to the scientists
and their since-vindicated beliefs in 1987, which allowed the Protocol
to be signed and ratified. Without it, our world would have certainly
been much less liveable-in already, let alone by 2050.
2) I, for one, do not wish to jeopardise the lives of millions of
Bengladeshi and others living in low-lying lands in impoverished
countries, just because there may be less than 100% scientific proof.
The potential loss of barrier reefs is certainly serious. The economic
loss of the chain of islands extending along the Eastern US seaboard
will not be important, comparatively speaking, because the USA is rich
enough to save some artifically and sacrifice others. But the
inhabitants of the Maldives and the Andamans do not have the resources
to save their habitat. Do you want to take the risk of making poor
countries even poorer, or that they disappear altogether?
3) Let me tell you how we, the consumers of fossil fuels, can take all
the necessary precautions against the hypothetical risk of climate
change and in such a way that the economic cost to the global
collectivity (developed and devloping countries alike) is reduced. It is
no miracle, just real and sound commonsense. Let us invest a few
zillions of dollars into sustainable engineering. This does not mean
using solar panels and running our cars on biomass. This does not mean
turning the Mojave desert into a wind farm. This does not mean reducing
pollution from industrial processes. This does not mean recycling our
resources. This does not mean running cars which are leaner and meaner.
Or any one of a hundred forms of sustainability. It may mean ALL of
these things, though! And who is going to pay for this zillion dollar
investment, if it costs nothing to the collectivity? All of us, of
course, BUT every cent will be recoverable within a short time, despite
the high unit cost of many of the alternatives. How? By the enormous
reduction of health costs. If we can reduce the level of pollutants in
the air by just 10 or 20%, the number of cases of pneumonia, emphysema,
lung cancer, asthma and many other diseases will drop dramatically, to
the extent that thousands of hospitals throughout the world will no
longer be needed. Just to take one example, over the last 25 years,
pulmonary disease in New Delhi has increased 30-fold. Even accounting
for the fact that 25 years ago, a proportion of victims who would be
diagnosed today, would not have been diagnosed then, the statistics are
really dramatic to the extent that I ask the question, "Can we afford
NOT to reduce fossil fuel consumption for this reason alone?".
Sorry! If you haven't got the message, I do not quite share your
opinions!!!
Brian
Ryan Grant wrote:
>
> Hi Bev,
>
> With the most recent posts, I almost chickened out at sending a reply to
> technet. And I normally try to avoid environmental discussions for fear of
> being labeled a heretic. But this topic just "cuts the cake", I can't hold
> my tongue any longer.
>
> I've been loosely following "global warming" for several years now, and I am
> not convinced that "global warming" is even occurring. Until recently, I
> have been somewhat skeptical that man was causing the "global warming" if it
> was in fact it was occurring. However, recently, I have come across several
> pieces of information that makes me EXTREMELY skeptical that man is the
> source of "global warming" which is dubious is even occurring.
>
> Let me make clear that CO2 levels through out the world has in-fact
> increased several orders of magnitude. There is no doubt that man is the
> source of increasing CO2 levels. So let me state that I do NOT promote
> ignoring levels of CO2 emissions, and I do believe pollution levels should
> be controlled.
>
> My skepticism comes from two points. One (1), that global warming is
> actually occurring and two (2) that the levels of CO2 increases can have a
> measurable affect on global temperature.
>
> Addressing point 1:
> In my freshmen chemistry class lab, one experiment we had to do involved
> calibrating several (large) thermometers. (Do you remember doing the same
> experiment?). Not one of them registered zero C in ice water, and each one
> had a different offset that had to be incorporated into the data collection.
> Furthermore, there was much discussion about significant numbers. While I
> could estimate to a 0.1C accuracy, the gage R&R for myself certainly wasn't
> 0.1C, let alone if another individual read the same thermometer. Bottom
> line, if very good accuracy was required, more than one thermometer was used
> and more than one individual read the same thermometer more than once. Even
> with that, I personally wouldn't trust the numbers better than 0.5C for any
> one measurement, even though I can 'technically' use the last digit in
> calculations. In any event, the last significant number must be dropped
> from the final 'answer' because that is the area of uncertainty.
>
> In the one hundred years of weather temperature data collection, the
> thermometers used 50 years ago were not any more accurate than the half
> meter laboratory thermometers used in a freshmen college course. While the
> data collection that the supposed "global warming" has been very dutifully
> collected, the amount of increase of surface temperature has only been 0.5C
> over the course of one hundred years. If the reporting tolerance is near
> the supposed increase, I find it incredulous that ANY respectable scientist
> would stand behind those figures as solid evidence.
>
> Further confusing the issue, anyone who rides a motorcycle can attest to
> experiencing sudden and dramatic changes in temperature while riding at
> nighttime. This is due to the fact that large thermal masses such as
> buildings or trees will re-radiate heat through the night. Open fields tend
> to be several degrees colder than wooded areas or populated areas. It is
> the populated areas that cause concern. In order for a long term
> measurement to be valid, it can not be disturbed. Unfortunately, for many
> of the original temperature recording stations, they have either moved, had
> buildings grow up around them or have gaps (of a few months) in the
> recording. These effects can be seen every night on the evening news. When
> the weather is reported and the peak and current temperature is listed, some
> stations will have different values for the same city. None of these
> factors is relevant in an 'order of magnitude' calculations; however,
> "global warming" is based on a very subtle increase in global temperature.
> It is a far cry from an 'order of magnitude' calculation.
>
> Further confounding the data set, it is almost exclusively taken from the
> northern hemisphere, mostly from North America and Europe. As can be seen
> in just one US State, the temperature can vary quite radically from one area
> another. To be brash, arguing that "global warming" is occurring because we
> have measured a net increase in temperature in the US is like saying the
> East Coast can't be having flooding because the West Coast is in a drought.
>
> Casting a big shadow of doubt that earth's air temperature is increasing
> comes from the 25 year study performed by NASA specifically to measure
> global air temperature. For the past 25 years, the air temperature, just a
> couple of miles up, has been cooling. This data set has been verified by
> temperature readings from weather balloons. The NASA scientist involved
> with the program were on the international group of scientist commissioned
> to determine whether or not "global warming" is actually occurring; they
> were, unfortunately, out voted by the surface temperature scientist.
>
> Addressing point 2:
> The primary example of the green house effect is the planet Venus.
> Astronomers are thoroughly convinced that Venus started out much like earth,
> with large oceans of water and somewhat similar atmospheres. A runaway
> green house effect occurred increasing the surface temperature well above
> that of the boiling point for water, and evaporated all of the oceans into
> its atmosphere. Because the water molecules were suspended in the
> atmosphere, the sun was able to start breaking the molecule down and kicking
> them out of orbit. However, much of the water still remains today, but
> suspended in the form of clouds so thick that the only photos of the surface
> of Venus are from a Soviet probe that landed on the surface. The green
> house effect is real!
>
> The second example comes from laboratory experiments that demonstrate how
> CO2 is a green house gas.
>
> There is a single flaw in both examples that cast serious doubt that CO2 is
> having a measurable affect on the earth surface temperature. That flaw can
> be summarize is a single phase; "order of magnitude"! CO2 in our atmosphere
> is a 'trace' gas, measured in parts per million. The atmosphere on Venus
> contains green house gasses that comprise a majority of the atmospheric
> gasses; as in, almost the entire atmosphere is a green house gas.
> Laboratory experiments demonstrating green house gasses also replace the
> atmosphere in a chamber with mostly green house gasses. I challenge any
> experiment that claims that they have taken a standard atmosphere, increased
> the trace greenhouse gas by ten times its trace value, and measured an
> increase in temperature within the experiment that can not be explained by
> other superfluous affects.
>
> The final clincher to my skepticism came the day I learned about a volcanic
> explosion in (I think) the year 464 AD This volcano completely blew up an
> entire island in the South Pacific. The island no longer exist, but its
> remnants have been traced. This explosion cooled the entire earth by
> several degrees for many years. It shortened the growing season for many
> years and as one researcher (the one who discovered the event) believes,
> caused the downfall of the Roman empire. (Because of lack of adequate
> grazing land, the nomadic and warring Mongols migrated several thousand
> miles into contact with the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire at
> Constantinople in search of range land for their horses.)
>
> Apparently, volcano researchers point to volcanoes as being a significant
> global temperature influence on earth. However, they do NOT heat up the
> atmosphere, but cool it. They point to Mount Saint Helen's explosion, and
> the volcano explosion in the Philippines as showing a 'measurable' cooling
> across the globe as seen by global surface temperature measurements.
> According to volcano researchers, the last century has been mild with
> respect to volcanic activity.
>
> It appears to me, that the source of "global warming", if it is occurring,
> is a quite naturally occurring phenomenon of volcanic inactivity. The
> evidence, data, and 'order of magnitude' calculations are all available, but
> obviously ignored, I believe, because disagreeing with "chicken little" (the
> sky is falling) means losing research funding and being labeled
> environmentally unfriendly. I think many scientist argue that cause is
> "noble", even though the science behind it is lousy, so why fight it. While
> I agree that funding and research to reduce pollution should be made, I
> vehemently disagree with using "scare" tactics as a means to an end.
>
> Thanks for letting me vent.
>
> Ryan Grant
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bev Christian [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 12:50 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [TN] No technical content? I beg to differ! Salvage
> > the Age d thread
> >
> > 1) Somehow I missed the "No technical content rule" for the title, but I
> > will adhere to it in the future.
> > 2) My one liner (see thread below) was a very calculated sentence. You
> > will
> > notice I used a good chemist "weasel" word - might. I was hoping to spark
> > a
> > good technical discussion on global warming. This is something that could
> > affect us all in our jobs (technical) and in our daily lives with our
> > families. I have made the topic one of my hobbies and am trying to
> > collect
> > as much information on the subject as possible. And since any human
> > activity, including the electronics industry, could be contributing to the
> > phenomena, I thought I would see what I could precipitate.
> >
> > OK, let me see if I can jump start this again.
> >
> > I am not even sure I believe in man-made global warming. How's that for
> > a
> > provocative statement? However, if it does exist, I don't want to leave a
> > mess for my children and grandchildren. As a result I think we should act
> > responsibly and do our best to conserve and change our spendthrift ways.
> > Canada is, I think, the biggest offender on a per capita basis and yet
> > here
> > we are trying to claim credit for the carbon sink of pre-existing trees!
> >
> > So, to get to the technical part, assuming mankind can have an actual
> > effect on the whole process, how do you think that the electronics
> > industry
> > is contributing, both good and ill to the situation? Diatribes,
> > suggestions, statements ,etc. gladly accepted, as long as it ties into the
> > electronics industry.
> >
> > Let the games begin.
> >
> > regards,
> > Bev Christian
> > Research in Motion
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: May 4, 2001 5:18 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [TN] Salvage the Aged
> >
> >
> > Hey Bev,
> >
> > There ain't no "might" about it according to this article below...ain't
> > nothing deadlier than a cow fart :^ {
> >
> > -Steve Gregory-
> >
> > 3/24/00 Canadian Company Tries To Reduce Cattle Flatulence For Environment
> >
> > CALGARY, Alberta (http://www.nandotimes.com) - It sounds like a joke, but
> > a
> > Canadian electric company insists an agreement signed Thursday to reduce
> > cow
> >
> > flatulence - a source of one of the greenhouse gases that cause global
> > warming - is no laughing matter. TransAlta, Canada's largest private power
> > provider, said it has reached the multimillion-dollar agreement with
> > Global
> > Livestock Group, a U.S. company, to produce a feed supplement for cattle
> > in
> > Uganda that would reduce their belching and flatulence.
> >
> > Sprayed on the cattle's hay and feed, the supplement would ease the
> > animals'
> >
> > digestion to minimize expulsions of methane gas and produce more and
> > better
> > meat and milk, according to TransAlta. If successful, the decrease in
> > methane
> > gas expelled would be equivalent to 30 million tons of carbon dioxide,
> > company spokesman Tim Richter contended.
> >
> > "People tend to snicker at the obvious joke, but when they look at the
> > size
> > of the emissions we're talking about here, they say, `Wow, that's a lot,"'
> > Richter said from Vancouver, where the announcement was made at an
> > international environmental business conference.
> >
> > Greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, trap heat in the
> > atmosphere and are believed to contribute to global warming. They are
> > largely
> > produced from burning oil, coal and gas.
> >
> > TransAlta has pursued the deal as part of its strategy to reduce its
> > greenhouse gas emissions to a net equivalent of zero by 2024. Though the
> > company's plants will still produce gases, they will be offset by
> > eliminating
> > an equivalent amount of gases elsewhere through the Uganda deal and other
> > planned projects. TransAlta operates power plants in Alberta and has
> > holdings
> > in the United States, Australia and New Zealand.
> >
> > The agreement is the type envisioned by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an
> > international treaty for industrialized nations to reduce the amount of
> > greenhouse gas emissions to pre-1990 levels by the year 2012.
> >
> > The protocol, which still requires ratification, includes a proposal
> > allowing
> > companies to continue producing a higher level of greenhouse gases by
> > gaining
> > "credits" through projects reducing emissions elsewhere. Environmental
> > groups
> > question the validity of the strategy.
> >
> > > They also might contribute to global warming. :)
> > >
> > > Bev
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Werner Engelmaier [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: May 4, 2001 4:13 PM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: [TN] Salvage the Aged
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Bernie, Brian, and other 'Old Farts" Collectively,
> > > Many of us are kicking quite well, thank you very much. I play golf 4
> > times
> > > a
> > > week and play tennis twice---if I am not too (much too busy for my
> > taste)
> > > busy with work which lately I am. When my company down-sized, I grabbed
> > the
> > > opportunity of the Early Retirement package offered--the people too
> > young
> > > for
> > > it felt discriminated against--and started consulting; surely one of my
> > > better decisions.
> > > Bernie, don't let those Senior Moments get to you.
> > > Brian, lay off the beans; besides the obvious effect, they also give
> > you
> > > gout.
> > >
> > > Werner Engelmaier
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------
> > Technet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> > the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
> > To temporarily halt delivery of Technet send the following message: SET
> > Technet NOMAIL
> > Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases >
> > E-mail Archives
> > Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for
> > additional
> > information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700
> > ext.5315
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Technet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
> To temporarily halt delivery of Technet send the following message: SET Technet NOMAIL
> Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives
> Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
To temporarily halt delivery of Technet send the following message: SET Technet NOMAIL
Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
