"C. E. White" <
[email protected]> wrote in message news:<
[email protected]>...
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of years.
> > It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.
>
> You'll have to explain what you mean by "balance." The concentration of CO2 has
> never been static. In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
> concentration until about 10,000 years ago. CO2 is constantly being more or less
> permanently removed from the atmosphere and tied up in corral reefs, limestone,
> coal, oil, peat, etc., etc., etc. Recently mankind has released some of the
> stored CO2. Maybe we are actually helping to restore the balance.
I would have thought that any "balance" would have been established
before we came along. Note your next comment. "Balance", I agree, is
not a term that should be used in this discussion.
> At any rate the
> era of fossil fuel will sooner or later come to an end. It may take another 200
> years or 1000 years, but it will end. On the geologic time scale it will just be
> a blip.
That's not a helpful observation. On a geologic time scale, human
existance is a just a blip. I don't think the next 4 or 5 generations
will think it so small a deal, however.
>
> I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a change
> in the climate.
Yes, most researchers seem to agree that it will.
> However, climate change will occur whether there is or is not a
> change in the CO2 concentration.
Of course it will. The question isn't whether or not, it's how much.
The problem with our greenhouse gas emissions is that it is very
likely to increase the *rate* of change to our climate quite
dramatically.
> The component of climate change attributable to
> human activity may actually be beneficial. It might counter some "natural change"
> (whatever that means) or reinforce the "natural change" or it may be trivial
> compared to the "natural change." The manmade component might be a good thing, a
> bad thing, or an insignificant thing.
A change in global temperatures over the next 100 years that would
normally be seen over 10,000 years is not going to be insignificant.
Nor a "good thing".
> I object to what I perceive to be a
> hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it as an
> excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals.
What goals could they be?
> I think the potential for harm
> is deliberately overstated.
The only studies I've read that don't support the findings of the UN
research into climate change have been published by people funded by
vested interests.
> I think the science supporting global warming is not
> subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
> theory" with liberals.
I don't believe that you're right at all about this. I believe that
global warning has been subject to a great deal of scrutiny.
Industries that stand to lose money short term will argue against it,
both ways: Fossil fuel companies argue it's insignificant, insurance
companies argue that it's quite significant.
> I think the new medias trumpets global warming because it
> generates a lot interest.
As it should.
> I think a lot of scientist promote global warming
> because they can get money to study it.
As opposed to funding on drug research? As opposed to ozone research?
Please.
>
> If I am wrong and the worst case scenario happens, the sea level will rise 10
> feet and millions of people will have to move. Fortunately, it won't rise over
> night, so they can move. If you believe in global warming, I suggest you buy land
> in Kansas now.
This is fine for people in the US. If you had been born and raised on
the Solomons, though, you might be annoyed to find that the world
doesn't care if your entire homeland is inundated. This is a very
simplistic argument - I'll address it more further down.
> If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
> happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
> rearranged for no reason.
If they're right, we'll be moving almost 50% of the world's population
inland.
And it seems they are right: In the 130 years that temperatures have
been recorded, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1987, 1988, 1990, were six of the
seven warmest years recorded. The trend was interrupted by the
eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 which cooled temperatures around
the world for several years due to the amount of dust emitted into the
atmosphere. In l995 the warming trend was reestablished, with 1995
being the warmest year yet, coming in at 59.7F.
You'll probably right that off as a "blip", too.
> If the global warming people are right, rearranging the
> lives of millions of Americans to meet the terms of the Kyoto treaty won't have
> any affect on the end results.
I don't understand what you mean by "rearranging" the lives of
millions of Americans? Surely encouraging efficiency can only be a
good thing?
> We will just continue to move most of our CO2
> generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
> underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.
What on earth brings you to this conclusion?
>
> To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse than
> the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case is being
> dramatically overstated.
And I think you have dramatically understated the possible problems.
The costs of climate change are already being seen, I believe, and
will continue to grow. You talk about a couple of million people
relocating like it's a small thing. How much to relocate NYC, I
wonder? Relocation is going to be a long way away, though, as you've
said. Besides, some places could be protected by sea walls etc.
However, rising sea levels are only one effect of faster climate
change. A more dramatic change is the increasing number of natural
disasters: Storms, fires, droughts, etc. Here in Australia, we've
been suffering the longest doughts on record - in some areas, over 6
years long.
So you may move everyone to Kansas, but what are they going to eat?
According to the Reinsurance Association of America, nearly 50% of the
insured losses from natural catastrophes during the past forty years
have been incurred since 1990.
Other issues include: Increased rates of insect born diseases, faster
rates of species extinction, increased warfare over dwindling food and
water supplies in some regions, etc. etc.
You talk about the effects on Americans to change the way they live.
I suggest you think more globally, and think about the possibility
that no major change needs to occur to any individual for there to be
major drops in greenhouse gas emissions. Is anyone put out by
clicking on a lower wattage light globe? Is anyone harmed by living
in a house that requires dramatically less cooling or heating, due to
good design? Does anyone really care what kind of engine gets them to
work in the morning? Is anyone hurt by the job opportunities that are
created by getting cleaner, more efficient technology up and running a
little bit quicker. After all, you have acknowledged the move from
fossil fuels is a matter of "when", not "if", so why not now? Even
the big oil companies won't lose out: One of the biggest suppliers in
Australia of photo-electric cells is BP Solar. Efficiency isn't a bad
thing, you know. Nor is change.
Cheers,
Steve
