> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Doug Pensinger > Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 6:56 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: An Inconvenient Truth > > Ronn! wrote: > > > 1. "Odyssey is giving us indications of recent global climate change in > > Mars," said Jeffrey Plaut, project scientist for the mission at NASA's > > Jet Propulsion Laboratory, from > > <<http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html >>; "If > > both Mars and Earth are experiencing global warming, then perhaps there > > is a larger phenomenon going on in the Solar System that is causing > > their global climates to change," from << > > http://www.mos.org/cst-archive/article/80/9.html>>. > > > > 2. "From a meteorology point of view, these long-term changes can be > > viewed as climate change on Jupiter," says Adam Showman (University of > > Arizona) in an article about the new Red Spot on Jupiter in the Aug. '06 > > issue of _Sky & Telescope_ in which the above quote appears. A > > shortened version of the article appears at > > <<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1689_1.asp>>. > > > > So are you suggesting that, as it becomes more and more clear that we _do_ > have a very serious problem, that we should hold off on doing anything > about it while we research the idea that it's part of a larger > phenomenon? Please keep in mind that now that we know that the Arctic > (including Greenland) http://tinyurl.com/g7mxc and Antarctic ice > http://tinyurl.com/kewgu is melting much faster than previously thought > and that the time we have to take effective action (if the warming is due > to our actions) is limited.
I have a problem with this statement, as given, and it parallels one of the difficulties I have with Gore's position. Looking back over the two articles you cited, they do not really support your claim. In particular, the 3-year measurement of melting on Antarctica is not a good baseline for making century long predictions. One of the problems with non-scientists looking at contradicting indications by a number of different experimental reports is that there is an tendency to focus on the results that agree with one's presuppositions and consider other results faulty. Let's take one from the other side of global warming. Folks who argued against the existence of global warming pointed to the lack of any warming in satellite data. For me, that was an anomaly that needed to be reconciled...and one that should be counted as a point against global warming. But, since there were numerous other studies that indicated it exists, I still believed that the weight of evidence supporting global warming was still quite close to conclusive. Both measurements and modeling work have indicated that melting induced rises in sea levels would be minimal for the next century. Now, a couple of studies have suggested that melting is occurring faster than we thought. This does not mean that we now know this...it means that there are now some data that appear to be inconsistent with the previously established consensus. The Washington Post article seems to do a fairly good job of framing the present difference of opinion. While it is disingenuous to argue that the existence of human-induced global warming is a matter of scientific debate, the suggestion that the rate of ice melt is faster than previously thought is, indeed, the subject of considerable debate. It is fair to say that the new data should make us reconsider our present understanding. It is not accurate to say we that these experiments are conclusive. The parallel in Gore's position is his view of the relationship between global warming and hurricane strength. At the weather underground's tropical page, Dr. Jeff Master's gave a report from the annual meteorological conference he attended. He stated that there were very vigorous debates on the relationship between global warming and hurricane strength at panel discussions....some of which went far into the night. Gore, on the other hand, stated that "we now know." The second problem with Gore is his view of how technology is developed. It's almost as though it's completely a matter of will power. If we want it enough, we will do it. Quoting from an interview at http://newhavenadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:159325 " We have two gears in America, slow and lightning. In 1941 it was impossible to build 1,000 airplanes. But in 1943 it was pretty simple. When we make up our minds to do something, you might as well stand back and get out of the way. . . . This will be the same thing. I know it's not easy, believe me. I have come face to face with resistance on every level. But it is yielding. It is beginning to yield." To me this, as well as other statements by him, indicates that he thinks there are no real fundamental problems with efficient generation of low entropy energy via alternative fuel methods. This ignores the price that would have to be paid for stopping the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. I'd argue, and be willing to back it up, that if we needed to cap the CO2 emissions so that there the CO2 levels would flatten out in 20 years, that the price to be paid would be a global recession. To illustrate this, I'd like to consider the price the US would have to pay to reduce it's emissions of CO2 to its quote under Kyoto. Implementing Kyoto would only delay global warming by a few years, so this should be considered a relatively modest improvement. For the US to comply, it would have to reduce its emissions by 25% from the 2004 levels...and probably about 28% from the 2006 levels. But, let's just take the 2004 levels. That's an enormous amount. To see how big it is, let's look at various changes and see how much they would help. Let's look at the automobiles. Big trucks, such as semi's and dump trucks, consume about 20% of the motor vehicle fuel usage. The rest is used by SUVs, pick ups, autos, motorcycles, and that sort. Motor vehicles use about 44% of the petroleum used. Petroleum represents about 40% of total energy use. (natural gas is 23%, coal is 20%, nuclear is 8%, hydro is 4%, wood, waste, etc. is 4%, and other renewables are 1%). Thus, auto and SUV use represent about 14% of the total....or about 17% of the fossil fuel use. Let's say that, tomorrow, SUVs, pick up trucks, and the like disappear and are replaced by automobiles. That would replace a fleet with an average mileage rating of 16.2 mpg with a fleet with a mileage rating of 22.4 mpg. It would also reduce consumption of fossil fuels by about 2.2%. That's not even 10% of what is needed to meet Kyoto. Well, let's say we would, instead, increase the efficiency of the whole fleet by 50%. That would cut total consumption by a third....and cut about 7% of the total usage. This is about 25% of what is required by Kyoto. Even eliminating the auto without replacing it with anything, would only get the US 65% or so of the way to its quota. Now, it's clear that cuts would have to be made in lots of areas. But, a 25% reduction in fossil fuel use is not going to be straightforward. It will result in a lot higher costs for a number of people; drive many out of business; cause stagflation at the very least. It might result in a depression, I'm not sure about that. But, it is clear that the US will have to shoulder the bulk of the 2-3 trillion cost of Kyoto. The cost to actually stop global warming with present day technology is overwhelming....in the multiple tens of trillions of dollars. I cannot see how China and India will freeze the economies, or how the US will agree to a 25% drop in GDP.....those are the kinds of results that would accompany reversing the increase in CO2 with present day technology...or incremental improvements from that technology. Clearly, what is needed is new technology. As far as I can see, the best bets for this are in the areas of nuclear engineering and mesoscopic physics. A prudent estimate would be that, after another 20-50 years of concerted effort, we'd have the technology for a non-catastrophic transfer away from fossil fuels. During the interim, we should, of course, minimize their use...by switching to nuclear power for electricity and wind power where the wind is strong enough to make it feasible. But, I'm pretty sure that this will not happen. Billions will go to vaporware projects that will promise the moon and deliver little. Some wind power will go in, and wind may creep up to 1%-2% of total energy usage in 10 years or so. Other countries, particularly in Asia, will use nuclear power. But, the US will continue to have political debates in which neither party will be able to get anything practical passed. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
