From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Tue Jul 03 2001 - 08:08:44 MDT
Anne Marie Tobias wrote:
> > No, there is not a consensus among scientists, just among those with the
> > same agenda.
>
> Actually the majority of scientist acknowlege that there is global warming.
Yes there is, but not about its cause. There is not a consensus that it
is CO2 caused. Many think that CO2 increases are simply an effect (which
would jive with the fact that studies of increases in coal burning (i.e
CO2 production) FOLLOWED increases in average temperatures.
> There is a majority that acknowledge some part of that warming is human
> based.
There is good evidence that at least 1/10th to possibly as much as 1/6th
of the CO2 content is human produced. There is no evidence to account
for changes in nature's ability to absorb CO2. If warming caused by
solar action reduces natures ability to absorb CO2, then no amount of
measures by humans can prevent CO2 from rising. Moreover, the curve of
CO2's ability to function as a greenhouse gas is one of diminishing
returns as content rises. Right now, we are at an almost flat point in
the curve: more pollution will do little to increase warming, while the
sky-is-falling types are treating it like it is a linear relationship.
> There is good evidence that some of it is solar bases.
Yes, even the greens acknowledge that at least 1/3 of the warming is
solar caused. There is no consensus about whether the solar caused
component has influenced obsorption rates, etc, which would drastically
alter this estimate. Some think that direct and indirect solar action
has caused at least 3/4 of it, part of which is a matter of our use of
CFC's in aerosols: solar UV levels rising kills more plankton that would
normally be absorbing CO2, thus CO2 absorption is reduced. This can be,
and has been, directly measured in krill populations in the southern
ocean. The greens refuse to acknowledge this mechanism as 'solar
caused'. While our CFC use is also directly implicated in this
phenomenon, our complicity is over and CFC content is waning, while the
greens continue to count this impact with CO2 production...
> There is even
> a bit of evidence that geophysical phenomena are partially to blaim. We
> may be in a temporary phase caused by several unrelated forces that for
> the moment are in constructive interference, and that may change anytime.
Yes, the three Malenkovich cycles, for instance, correctly predict the
current warming trend...
> The media is famous for making the public stupid crazy (eg. Oat Bran)...
> and blowing little deals into big deals by the liberal application of bovine
> feces wherever it may cause the increased growth of ratings. That said, we
> are now at a time in our existence that we can actually impact the world,
> and have. We've polluted entire oceans, and done some really stupid
> things because they seemed like a good idea at the time. I refer to this as
> the Jethro Factor (or a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.)
What's this? Exhibiting anti-redneck prejudice? ;)
> It would be
> wise beyond normal human limits to act with caution, and proceed with
> all due prudence in the areas of human indeavor that might have negative
> impact until we have adequate means to understand the likely results of
> our actions. I figure that we'll have computers up to snuff in about 5 years.
> Machines able to model in terms of tens of petaflops. We should declare
> a 5 year project of cleaning up our messes and not making any new ones,
> until we can see exactly what part we play in this dance. Then when the
> final ballots come in we can begin looking at what the real playing field looks
> like.
However, the as the models get more sophisticated, they continuously
are downgrading the severity of the projected temperature change. At
present, it is already far below the level that would have enough impact
on the poles to melt the above sea level ice sheets. This means the
'flood' warnings are boving excrement, to say the least.
>
> > > and there is much less consensus about the net effects of the warming,
> > > because some will be good and some will be bad. Stossel emphasized the
> > > second point and let it be assumed that the disagreement covered the
> > > other issue as well.
> >
> > Sure. If it is actually occuring, and its not actually a bad thing (who
> > can complain about millions of square miles of tundra becoming
> > productive agricultural acrage? Who can complain about the fact that if
> > sea levels rise, this will actually INCREASE the amount of coastline,
> > and therefore more seashore fore everybody....)
>
> Unless we find out that tundra is a crucial part of the complex human ecology.
> We are biota... that's it on that. You have abslutely no clue, what are the
> essential life forms on this planet for the continued existence of Homo
> Sapiens. Ecological systems are so complex, and you don't know that
> tundra may impact carribu, that impact bears, that impact seals, that impact
> orca, that impact krill, that impact grey whales, that impact through ten
> other degrees of freedom human e. coli that impact you and me. Our
> science is nowhere adavnced enough to figure out the critical interactions
> and relationships between organic populations on this planet, and you
> think melting the perma frost sound like an invitation to surfing...
What I do know is that every degree of removal from direct impact always
results in reduced impact.
The fact is that the caribou populations have soared and crashed back
and forth in the past. There are now many times more than there were a
century ago. Polar bears may not be able to go out to sea as much to
hunt seals, they will be limited to caribou and those seals that come up
on the beach. None of this impacts humans in any way, Anne. We've seen
far more severe environmental changes in the historic and pre-historic
past than are currently projected, without any significant impact on
humans. The sky is not falling.
> We need
> to do a whole lot more taking care of the house while we're still living in
> it... if you catch my drift. Every single experiment ever done with living
> populations say diversity good, monoculture bad.
We dont' live in a monoculture. What experiments do say that ecosystems
can do just fine with a limited number of species. Any more than a dozen
and you are back on top of that diminishing returns curve again. Mild
diversity is just about as good as broad diversity.
> It's a cornerstone to
> chaotic self critical systems. You don't go screwing around with critical
> ecologies without serious kaka falling out someplace you never even
> expected. We don't even have the brights yet to make plans on the scale
> you are suggesting, and we sure as hell shouldn't be making these kind of
> impacts on the world in the one in a billion shot that it might prove to be
> a good thing! There's a reason why nobody is agreeing!!! IT'S JUST TOO
> COMPLICATED!!! Notice "Too Complicated" is not an invitation to
> screw with. How many of you who have not had comercial jet training,
> would feel comfortable taking a 747 up for a spin?!!! Then why in god's
> name are you even talking about taking the planet for one?!!!
Actually, several of us have flown 747 simulators a number of times.
I've got mine configured with x-plane, I've even got several different
747 models to choose from (and skin designs). Flying a plane is not that
tough. Most of the 'training' in a formal setting is training one to
deal with wacko situations without freaking out. Those situations aside,
driving a 747 is like driving a bus.
What is important is situation awareness. Most of the people freaking
out about 'global warming' are NOT any sort of scientists, and those
that are are doing so because they find that this is a means to an end:
the institution of their socialist agenda. Its like I'm flying the
plane, but the passengers are freaking out that we're gonna crash
because one guy is claiming to be a pilot and says we are gonna crash,
when in actuality he's just a terrorist.
>
> Poor stewardship of the planet (and in this case I'm talking of only
> that thin layer filled with life that begins in priority with homo sapiens)
> by both econazis and blind business fanatics, is a threat to our long
> term survival and advancement. We must be better at making sure
> the world is able to sustain us as we become what we dream of
> becoming. Things are not doing wonderfully at the moment, one of
> the first things we can begin, as growing sentients, is preserve the
> viability of our place of birth... at least until we are born!
That's one way of looking at it, and properly balanced.
Then there is the 'fast rise' contingent: we, like any fetus, have no
use for its placenta once it's born. If Earth is as inconsequential in
the universe as many claim, there are boundless other ones out there.
Boundless resources are not worth using with a conservation mindset.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:27 MST