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?