Re: Global warming

["Richard W. Tarara" <rtarara@saintmarys.edu>]

I teach a segment on this as well as try to keep abreast of current
thought/opinions/data through some of the science newsgroups.  While we
seem to be doing everything right (or wrong) to insure global
warming--increasing emissions of CO2, methane, hydro-flouro-carbons,
nitrous oxide, slowly but surely deforesting the tropics, etc.--the
evidence for actual global warming is scant--maybe 0.5 degrees Celsius over
the past 50 years (and no real guarantee that is man-made).  Most, if not
all the models indicate that what we are doing should cause a temperature
rise, but the system is too large and too complicated to expect even the
most sophisticated computer models to accurately predict its evolution. 
Hence it is difficult to convince those countries and industries that would
suffer economic problems with emission restrictions that action is
immediately needed.  Likewise it is difficult to tell emerging nations that
they can't use their environmental resources in the same way that Europe
and North America did a century or more ago when they need to do so to
survive in today's global economy.  

Because of the enormous inertia built into established industrial societies
(look at the US auto industry as an example) and the real economic impact
that proposed environmental actions carry, scientists are going to have to
make VERY convincing arguments for the necessity of such, and this means
hard evidence--not just computer models.  Hence my suggestion that at this
point in time, at best, we can hope for some cautionary action.  An
enlightened world would 'insure' itself against the possibilities of global
warming with more aggressive action now--but I would hardly characterize
today's global society as enlightened.  Of course there are a few (perhaps
some of our colleagues from north of the US border) who don't see global
warming as such a bad thing!  ;-)

rick

*****************************************************
Richard W. Tarara                  
Department of Chemistry & Physics      
Saint Mary's College                    
Notre Dame, IN 46556 
219-284-4664 
rtarara@saintmarys.edu  
                  
FREE PHYSICS AND ENERGY INSTRUCTIONAL SOFTWARE AVAILABLE AT            
http://estel.uindy.edu/aapt/rickt/software
http://www-hpcc.astro.washington.edu/mirrors/tarara/  
   ---recent updates fix fast computer and---  
           ---missing file problems---
 ---Win95 and Native PowerMac versions coming soon---
******************************************************* 

----------
> From: LUDWIK KOWALSKI <kowalskil@alpha.montclair.edu>
> To: phys-l@atlantis.cc.uwf.edu
> Subject: Re: Global warming
> Date: Thursday, May 01, 1997 9:06 PM
>
> I am not an expert on global worming. I read that the main human effect,
> if any, has to do with the emission of CO2 (and other gases) into the
> atmosphere. The energy-related emission of CO2 (burning of fossil fuels)
> can not be reduced unless nuclear power (or solar power, etc.) is used to

> replace traditional coal burning plants. Solar power is preferable but
its
> large scale practicality has not been demonstrated. Discussing energy
> options available to us (at all level of physics teaching) is one way in
> which we can contribute to future developments. A seesion devoted to this
> topic is planned for the next winter meeting of AAPT (New Orlean).
>
>                                                      Ludwik Kowalski
>
> > While I tend to agree about the emotional response from scientists,
urging 
> > action on a scientific basis is not only appropriate but urgently
needed. 
> > Scare tactics rarely work but the evidence is mounting the we should be

> > concerned beyond the "cautionary actions". 
> >                                                    Richard Goode