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

Re: fHuman vs. natural influences on the environment



charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>In article <4ui4cq$k7n@igc.apc.org>, tomgray 
><tomgray@igc.apc.org> wrote:
>>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.
>
>OK. Where is your proof that I am wrong on this one?

I don't know.  What are you asserting?  That the atmosphere is
too big to be altered in a very short time in such a way as to
make humans extinct?  I've already told you I agree with you
that that's unlikely.

But I've already answered that: so what?  The kind of climate
change I mentioned above (like two Pinatubos a decade, and
cumulative) is enough to probably cause economic dislocation
and environmental change, and potentially result in some
severe problems.


>>>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.
>>
>
>Assume the average of 4 deg F.  Do you really think that the 
>earth, its inhabitants, its ecosystems, etc., cannot adapt to 
>a rate of change of 0.04 deg F per year?  Let's get real 
>here.

Depends on how long it goes on, and, as has already been pointed 
out to you several times, on whether it gives rise to some
nonlinear events, such as a change in ocean currents.  If we
do nothing, it will go on indefinitely.  There is plenty of
evidence already to show that tropical diseases are likely to
spread (the World Meteorological Organization and World Health
Organization just joined in a paper warning of the health
consequences a few months ago) and that heat waves will cause
increasing numbers of fatalities.  I guess I just don't get
it, Charlie.  Why are you so anxious to defend business as
usual?

>>>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. 
>
>I know perfectly well what I wanted to ask.  Since adaptation 
>of species is well demonstrated, can you seriously expect 
>that species will go extinct from this rate of change?

Hey, I already provided a reference for this assertion.  Where is 
your evidence to the contrary?  Of course some species will become
extinct, and given that the rate of change is rather rapid in
geological terms, I personally find it difficult to believe they
will be replaced as quickly as they are eliminated.

>If 
>the affected species are that "wimpy", how did they manage to 
>survive this long?  Again, let's get real here.

Why can't we "get real here" by reducing human-produced greenhouse
gas emissions?

>Mankind has 
>never had the power or wealth to completely stabilize 
>something the size of this planet's climate.  Worrying about 
>it and basing our efforts on our present meager understanding 
>is not going to have significant impact.

As you so succinctly said about one of my other comments, "This
is crap."  We are already influencing the climate, and the
intelligent thing to do is to attempt to reduce the changes we
are introducing.
 
>>>Is this change so fast that man cannot adapt to it?
>>
>>Almost certainly not.
>
>I'm glad to see that you have some confidence in the 
>robustness of humans.
>
>>
>>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?

So...any answers, Charlie?

>>>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.
>
>Wrong.  I admit that EVERY human activity has an 
>environmental impact.  However, in many cases the impact may 
>minimal, or it may even be beneficial to some plants and 
>animals.  Admittedly, some of our impact has been bad.  But 
>this doesn't mean that all human impact is bad.

Here you are arguing with yourself, so I'll let you go ahead
and duke it out.  May the best man win.

>>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.
>
>The best way to decrease the human influence on the 
>environment is to decrease the size of the human population. 
>Period!

What is your program for accomplishing this?  Why is it likely to
be more popular and easier to do than reducing greenhouse gas
emissions?

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: