[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: fHuman vs. natural influences on the environment



charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
> [me]
>>Global warming is going to happen over one or two lifetimes. 
>>If it occurs as predicted, it's simply the equivalent of a 
>>Pinatubo on the plus side, happening a couple of times per 
>>decade, and cumulative instead of a one-time event.
>
>Admittedly, there are events which have altered the 
>atmosphere's temperature.  However, if the probability is 
>almost nil over one lifetime, I do not consider these events 
>to be particularly relevant.

They are not particularly relevant to real-world scientific findings 
concerning global warming.  They simply show that your statement that 
whether the atmosphere is too big a system to be altered in a short time 
is a matter of opinion--is mistaken.

>Regarding your statement that 
>global warming is going to happen over one or two lifetimes, 
>there are a couple of questions that may impact what we want 
>to do about it.
>
>How much warming will occur?

Meaningless without a time period specified.  The answer is, lots.

>How much will occur over a specified time period?

The IPCC's Second Assessment Report, issued last fall, predicts
warming of 1 C to 3.5 C (1.8 F to 6.3 F) by the year 2100.

>Is this change so fast that nature cannot adapt to it?

Think hard about this question, Charlie.  What does it tell
you?  Nature will adapt to any warming, no matter how fast.
What are you really trying to ask here?  So fast that nature
where you live won't be the same?  So fast that some species
will die?  Figure out what you really want to ask and I'll
try to comment.  

>Is this change so fast that man cannot adapt to it?

Almost certainly not.

But you are leaving out some other important questions:

What is the likelihood that nature's adaptations to the change
will be harmful to flora and fauna?  To humanity?

What will be the cost to humanity of adapting to this change?

Is it more expensive to adapt to the change, or to try to 
slow or eliminate the change instead?

>One pattern I have noticed in these postings is that people 
>seem to insist that no environmental impact whatsoever occur 
>as a result of human activities.

I think this is a pattern that is in your own mind.  One reason
may be that it is particularly easy to shoot down and so makes
an appealing target.

>There is even an 
>implication that humans intervene in a way that we keep 
>everything constant where it is.

This seems amusing.  Since it is our intervention that is 
causing things to change, is it intervening to stop?  
Or is it ceasing our existing and unplanned intervention?

>These implications do not 
>seem reasonable to me.  In other words, if you want to lessen 
>the impact that humans have on this planet, a good place to 
>start is with the number of humans on this planet.  Some of 
>the posters in this group may be addressing the symptom, 
>rather than the problem.

Certainly population growth is a major issue.  But at the 
moment, here, we've been debating "human versus natural
influences on the environment."  Climate change seems like
a perfectly natural area to be addressed by that debate.

Tom Gray
Director of Communications
American Wind Energy Association

PS Support renewable energy!  Visit the Electronic Lobbyist For
Renewable Energy Web Site:

        http://www.netcom.com/~stevie2/budget.html

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 <tomgray@econet.org>



Follow-Ups: References: