[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: fHuman vs. natural influences on the environment
In article <4t5chh$145@condor.ic.net>, All locked up and nowhere to go
<cage@critech.com> writes
>My news server expired all articles last night, so I am unable to
>generate a follow-up to the original. I have updated the subject.
>
>David Beorn <dbeorn@freenet.vcu.edu> wrote:
>>Not in the least - you should be ashamed for propagating unsubstantiated
>>information.
>
>On the contrary. The shame has always been yours. Nudds
>is a crank who subjugates his judgement to his politics. You
>either stooped to his level, or you were already there.
>
>>> There is no serious question that human activities, specifically the
>>> deforestation of large areas and burning of large amounts of fossil
>>> carbon, have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere steadily
>>> and substantially.
>>
>>I have not contended that they aren't increasing CO2 - I only questioned
>>whether they were the major contributor.
>
>Over the last 50 years, the measured concentration of CO2 in the
>atmosphere has increased at a rate which follows the human consumption
>of fossil fuels like a train follows its rails. There is no denying
>this data. Volcanic activity cannot account for it. There is no
>excess which could be due to unknown volcanism; instead there is a
>deficit, due to a sink which researchers are working hard to identify.
>
>>I also dispute the contention
>>that this is the cause of so-called "global warming" - what happened to
>>the ice age many scientists were predicting a few decades ago???
>
>Yes, the Earth is in what looks just like an interglacial period
>of an ice age. Yes, if nothing else had changed, the historical
>record shows that we might expect glaciation soon.
>
>Events have a way of changing things. If your habits for the last
>20 years had been to smoke, drink and eat to excess, you would
>expect to be at risk of a coronary. However, if you had not eaten
>for 6 weeks, you would instead be at risk of death by starvation.
>Your long-term history would have little to do with your immediate
>situation.
>
>The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has been characterized by
>an annual cycle superimposed on a steepening curve of increase.
>The annual cycle is due to uptake of carbon by plants in the
>spring and summer, and release in the fall and winter (in the
>Northern hemisphere, where most of the temperate zone lies).
>The ramp is due to fossil-fuel use and deforestation; volcanic
>activity levels do not correlate with it.
>
>Datum: In the last 10 years, the beginning of the spring drop
>in global CO2 concentrations has moved forward by about a week.
>Spring is arriving earlier than it has since these events started
>being recorded. The CO2 added by human activities traps heat
>equivalent to an additional 2 W/m^2 of solar irradiation; the
>solar variation due to the sunspot cycle is 0.5 to 1.0 W/m^2.
>
>What does this indicate to you?
>
>>What are the "right" things to read?? Sources that agree with
>>YOUR contentions??? Give me some examples. How about some source that
>>has some integrity and will not compromise truth/true science for political
>>or philosophical purposes.
>
>Try reading several sources in the non-specialist science press.
>I can recommend Scientific American, New Scientist, Science News
>and Discover. These will often cite sources in the peer-reviewed
>journals, which is about as uncompromising as you can get. I
>often see them print critical letters.
>
>What you will find is that there are some things which are not
>disputed among the overwhelming majority of scientists. The
>human responsibility for the increase in global CO2 is one of them.
>(There is considerable debate about the effects, of course. The
>data are not in, and the models disagree.) However, political
>reality is that unwelcome changes will be blamed on someone, and
>the resulting conflicts may be easier and cheaper to prevent than
>to solve, pay off or clean up after.
>
>>The only real solution, I expect, to our contribution to the CO2 is for us
>>to STOP making electricity, etc. by burning fossil fuels altogether.
>
>Now that is simplistic. Other solutions could be to create carbon
>sinks to offset the sources, or to find ways to take the energy of
>coal and oil without releasing the CO2 to the atmosphere. As you
>can see, I am not dogmatic.
>
>>would that solve the "problem" we are seeing??? Or is the fluctuation of
>>ozone and maybe CO2 a natural phenomenon that we just haven't had enough
>>data to document yet?? The Ozone fluctuation has DEFINITELY been
>>documented as far back as 1956 - why is this ignored in these discussions??
>
>Ozone fluctuates with solar EUV, which has the energy to create
>atomic oxygen directly. The decline in ozone we are seeing now
>has been proceeding through the last solar maximum, when EUV
>levels were highest. The mechanism for the catalytic destruction
>of ozone by chlorine has been demonstrated in the laboratory.
>(Datum: I am informed that approximately 25% of the chlorine in
>the stratosphere is derived from methyl chloride emitted by ocean
>sources. That leaves 75% from human sources, not 100%. This is
>still an overwhelming anthropogenic contribution.)
>
>If you are unaware of this, you have not been reading enough to be
>informed.
>
>>That is what YOUR source says - but my source says that volcanic gases
>>contribute FAR more to this than man.
>
>Cite your source. Your source should be able to point to a smoking
>gun, e.g. a month-by-month association of atmospheric CO2 levels
>with world-wide volcanic activity over several decades. If you
>are satisfied without such strong evidence, you are overly
>credulous or are making political rather than scientific judgements.
>
>>No - just that we either don't know enough to make these conclusions or
>>that we may in the future find info that contradicts it. Just like we
>>recently "found out" that radon gas is not the harmful thing we said it
>>was 5 years ago.
>
>Now you are over-generalizing. The EPA et al. never had direct
>evidence that radon in homes caused lung cancer. Examination of
>cancer data vs. geological levels of radon showed that the
>association was small and perhaps negative. What they did have
>was an association between employment in uranium mines (which
>have high radon levels) and lung cancer. It doesn't take
>a genius to realize that radon might not be the culprit.
>
>This "discovery" about radon was no surprise to me, because I have
>been reading better sources than our public policy-makers appear
>to do. I have known about this for at least 10 years.
>
>Similarly, the relationship of radiation to cancer is very
>tenuous at low levels, and the "zero threshold" model is almost
>certainly defective. Cancer does not increase with natural
>cosmic radiation exposure between low-latitude sea-level sites
>and high altitude or near-polar zones, for example. This is a
>fact. It's not often reported in the popular press, but if you
>read the right things, you will know.
>
>>> You are not doing anything for your credibility. If you will please take
>>> your argument out of the sci.* hierarchy, you will do everyone a favor.
>>
>>I'm not the one who put it here
>
>That is not relevant. If you want to take a crank to task, use
>the truth, it works best. If you want to have a discussion at
>the political mudslinging level, it doesn't belong in the sci
>hierarchy. I'd edit followups on this posting myself except
>that this news-poster does not allow access to the full headers.
>
>
I do not know who you are but may I compliment you on a lucid and well
constructed article.
It is possible that you are talking absolute twaddle but I enjoyed
reading it.
(actually I suspect that you do know what you are talking about)
Do not go too far away, I may ask questions later!
Jim
Jim Barr Machine Conversation, Bedfordshire England
Best is the enemy of good enough
Leaves Rustle....Blades turn..... Water moves
Follow-Ups:
References: