Re: Human vs. natural influences on the environment
firstname.lastname@example.org (Steve Cumming) wrote:
>In article <email@example.com>,
>Harold Brashears <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>Warmer oceans release more water, forming cloud cover, blockin some
>>light, and incidently trapping some IR.
>And it is very far from clear at present which of these processes will
>be predominant. Your mere mention of a possible negative feedback
>mechanism does not establish that it is sufficient to save anyones'
>bacon. The cloud physics and oceanography people are working on it.
>We should go to them for estimates (you and Scott both) and not play
>rhetorical games unworthy of a high school debating team.
Agreed, up to a point. Seems to me that the proponents of the notion
that there won't be any effect have a greater burden of proof, since
it is our planetary home they are playing with.
>>> Melted tundra rots and moves more CO2 into the atmosphere.
>>Why would it rot? Higher CO2 stimulates plant growth.
>It would rot because it would be warmer for more of the year, as the
>permafrost moves north. This could very well cause the enormous
>resrves of sequestered carbon that have built up in boreal peatlands
>over the past 5000 years or so to start degrading. The effect of high
>C02 levels on the growth rates of <some> kinds of plant has nothing to
>do with the case.
Hmmm, here Scott is correct and Harold is wrong. I'm not sure the
tit-for-tat position you are describing really applies.
>>> More forest fires, more CO2 released into the atmoshpere.
>>Warmer oceans mean more water evaporated into the atmosphere,
>>resulting in more rain.
>Maybe. I thought all those oceanic clouds you're so confident of would
>mainly drop their rain right back into the ocean. It matters where the
>rain falls. The Indian ocean is gulf or Carpenteria are plenty warm,
>and look at Australia.
>The last run of data from 4 major GCMs (1992 runs, I think) that I
>worked with predicted somewhat higher temperatures and reduced
>preciptation in much of the western Canadian noreal forest. If my
>statistical models relating climate conditions to fire probabliity are
>any good (and they seem to be much better than any previously
>published) this means that those forests will burn at much higher
>rates than in the past millenium or so. To reiterate, it really
>matters where the rain falls.
Again, Scott seems to have the upper hand.
>>It would appear that there are a host of feedback mecanisms, many of
>>which you failed to mention. Is that because you did not know about
>You seem to know about them, at least as strings of text that one
>might type. Based on the few areas where I have some specialied
>knowledge, it seems to me that you don't understand them very well.
>The issues involved are much to grave to permit nay of us to rummage
>through the literature looking for text-bytes that support are
>favoured ideological position.
I guess I would not agree. The issues are certainly grave with
respect to the possible impacts of climate change, but I don't
think they are so grave with respect to reducing greenhouse
gas emissions. See the FAQ Section of our Web site,
http://www.econet.org/awea, for a fairly detailed discussion by
one of the IPCC working groups on how CO2 emissions can be cut
without serious economic consequences.
Director of Communications
American Wind Energy Association
PS Support renewable energy! Visit the Electronic Lobbyist For
Renewable Energy Web Site:
Interested in energy and the environment? The free electronic
edition of _Wind Energy Weekly_ reports on energy-related
environmental issues, energy policy, and wind industry trade
news. The electronic edition normally runs about 10kb in length.
For a subscription, send me an e-mail request. Please include
information on your position, organization, and reason for
interest in the publication.
Tom Gray <email@example.com>