Chuck

I'm currently travelling and am using DUN from my hotel room, so I'll
answer only your question 1. Yes! I'm 100% sure that atmospheric CO2
levels are increasing. I have a number of independent sources at home
(hence I can't quote chapter and verse from here) that they have been
steadily increasing since the mid-1800s and they more or less concur,
give or take an ounce or two, in different countries. They were
reasonably steady for some centuries before the rise started. These are
mostly direct analyses, even 150 years ago, but much earlier data was
derived from ice cores. Furthermore, these increases concur with
increased use of fossil fuel. I'm therefore confident that there is a
correlation. However, I agree that there is no DIRECT scientific proof
that these changes are causal to climate change, but there is sufficient
circumstantial evidence to raise doubt in the most confirmed sceptic, if
he impartially looks at the evidence with an open mind. Furthermore,
there is a damn good fit between natural and human-origin radiative
forcing, together, and measured global average temperatures over the
past 150 years. You can check it out on the IPCC web site. To denigrate
the members of this panel for the man-years of work they are
collectively volunteering, at their own expense, is, IMHO, very facile
because none of them have anything to gain from their findings.

If you wish to find out more, meet me at the Earth Technologies Forum in
Washington DC next week (leave a message for me in the Press Room). You
will be presented with some very convincing arguments regarding both
climate change and ozone depletion. This is a MUST for anyone with an
interest in the air around us.

Best regards,

Brian

Charles Dolci wrote:
>
> Paul Chalmer posted some interesting questions, but I do not think they are the
> right questions to ask.
>
> 1.  Is the evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are steadily
> increasing reliable?
> Maybe, maybe not. But whatever the answer is, it says nothing of either the
> source or the effect. It is not certain that man is the sole source of increases
> in CO2 in the atmosphere. A study by Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
> reported in the March 12 issue of the journal Science, addressed the question
> "when the Earth shifts from glacial to warm periods which comes first: an
> increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, or an increase in global
> temperature". Contrary to what many believed the team concluded that the
> temperature rise comes first, followed by a carbon dioxide boost 400 to 1,000
> years later.
> This theory was bolstered by recent observations of what is happening on Mars.
> In a November/December 2001 article in the journal Science it was reported that
> vast fields of carbon dioxide ice were eroding from the poles of Mars,
> suggesting that the climate of that planet is warming and CO2 was being released
> to the atmosphere.  Michael A. Caplinger, a scientist with Malin Space Science
> Systems, and co-author of the study, had analyzed photos of Mars taken by an
> orbiting spacecraft. There, a "global warming" clearly preceded and caused, an
> increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
> As I had indicated in an earlier posting, at a DECHEMA colloquium, held in
> Frankfurt on 11th Oct, 2001, Dr. Heinz Hug (lecturer, Wiesbaden, Germany) and
> Dr. Jack Barrett (Imperial College, London, UK) gave papers that expressed
> doubts about the science (or lack thereof) that had been applied by members of
> the IPCC in coming to their conclusions about CO2 and future climate change.
> Their laboratory research strongly suggested that the radiative forcing affect
> of CO2 was actually substantially less than the IPCC models had assumed. The
> greenhouse gas that has the major contributive affect on warming is water vapor.
>
> 2.  Will a continuing increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration,
> AT SOME POINT, be sufficient to overwhelm all other possibly confounding
> variables (such as increased cloud cover), and lead to unequivocal warming?
>
> Of course, given how the question is stated, the answer has to be YES, it is
> theoretically possible. But the relevant question is "What is the likelihood
> that man will be able to create enough CO2 to have an irrecoverable impact on
> the earth's climate?" I think the answer to that is "It is very unlikely".
> Burning fossil fuels, other than coal, is a phenomenon of the 20th century, and
> it is unlikely that it will extend much beyond that, even though resources of
> petroleum and natural gas will still be plentiful. Even the use of coal to any
> significant extent is only a couple of centuries old. If mankind follows its
> history by the end of the 21st century burning fossil fuels will probably be a
> thing of the past. And if the rest of the world follows the lead of Europe and
> the US and Canada the world population will actually start to decline.
>
> 3.  Will the deleterious effects of this warming on the habitability of the
> planet, AT SOME POINT, outweigh any local benefits such as increased
> rainfall, or global benefits such as enhanced photosynthesis?
>
> First, I am not prepared to admit the premise that "this warming" (if it is
> happening at all) is having a deleterious effect on the globe. For one thing the
> earth used to be a lot warmer (most recently during the Medieval Warm Period)
> and it didn't seem to suffer too much. If there is warming it will extend
> growing seasons thereby increasing crop yields which will lower food costs.
> Fewer people die from really hot summer days than die from really cold winter
> days.  Secondly, we are talking about CHANGE, and people may not like change,
> but NOTHING has been constant since man has been on this planet so why should we
> think that things should suddenly stop changing now, merely because we have
> developed the ability to measure the world around us. Of course, if the
> temperature of the earth should return to what it was 1 billion years ago that
> might be rough, but would that happen as a result of "this warming".
>
> 4.  Given the difficulty in reversing the trend to increasing carbon dioxide
> levels, once established, and given that the locations of the "points" in
> items 2 and 3 are unknown, is there any basis for assuming there is a
> comfort zone where we can afford to wait and see if it matters?
>
> It has not been established that "reversing the trend" is difficult. A good
> world wide recession lasting a few years will handle that nicely, or just make
> more seltzer water. And I do not believe that the "trend" is caused by human
> activity so there is nothing we can or need do to reverse it. Since the earth
> has gone through climate cycles in the past why should we assume that this one
> will be any different?  One thing is not subject to debate, and that is that
> wealth means energy. If you cut energy you reduce wealth and millions of people
> around the globe will suffer and the poorer peoples suffer the most.
>
> So given that there are an awful lot of "unknowns" and it has never been
> established (or even any credible evidence provided) that any of this is
> irreversible, I propose that we do wait and see before we force the world into a
> recession.
>
> Chuck Dolci
>
> ------------- Begin Forwarded Message -------------
>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> From: "Chalmer, Paul" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [EN] EARTH'S ICE MELTING FASTER THAN PROJECTED
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> An interesting interchange, with many valuable references.  The question of
> melting glaciers and other evidence of global warming is certainly worth
> debating, though the signal-to-noise ratio will probably be slim enough for
> the next several years to preclude any definitive resolution.
>
> I would be curious, though, to know the degree of consensus in the sample of
> opinion represented by this list serve on the answers to the following
> sequence of questions:
>
> 1.  Is the evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are steadily
> increasing reliable?
> 2.  Will a continuing increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration,
> AT SOME POINT, be sufficient to overwhelm all other possibly confounding
> variables (such as increased cloud cover), and lead to unequivocal warming?
> 3.  Will the deleterious effects of this warming on the habitability of the
> planet, AT SOME POINT, outweigh any local benefits such as increased
> rainfall, or global benefits such as enhanced photosynthesis?
> 4.  Given the difficulty in reversing the trend to increasing carbon dioxide
> levels, once established, and given that the locations of the "points" in
> items 2 and 3 are unknown, is there any basis for assuming there is a
> comfort zone where we can afford to wait and see if it matters?