Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Global Warming

"In the end, what do we really lose by taking reasonable steps to reduce
'greenhouse' emissions even if such have a very minor climatic effect
versus what we lose if we do nothing and such emissions end up having a
very major effect?"
We would also lose the opportunity to become independent, early instead of late, of a non renewable resource(s), especially as oil, w/ some H in it, runs out and we must switch to coal, ~ pure C.



bc, chicken little.

Richard Tarara wrote:

Add one more factor--Global Dimming (Google for details) that may well be
masking some of the global warming expected by the CO2 models due to
aerosols. The irony with that one is that if we work hard to clean up air
quality (and if the studies are correct) then we could trigger a more rapid
increase in temperature. OTOH, if accurate, it also seems that we then
have in hand a means for trying to control any 'real' CO2 warming.
I would hope that Gray is right, but there also seem to be plenty of
climatologists that are convinced that CO2 warming is happening--and as
alluded to by Jack U., it is the polar region data that seems most
convincing to them.
In the end, what do we really lose by taking reasonable steps to reduce
'greenhouse' emissions even if such have a very minor climatic effect
versus what we lose if we do nothing and such emissions end up having a
very major effect? I suspect, that using 'scare tactics' and admitted
exaggerations, as in the new Gore film, may backfire and lead to a
dismissal of even moderate and prudent steps that might be taken -- just in
case!

Rick

***************************************************
R.W.Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, Indiana
Free Physics Instructional Software
Windows & Mac
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
***********************************************



[Original Message]
From: John Mallinckrodt <ajm@csupomona.edu>

A few of my current thoughts on global warming:

1. The current warming trend of ~ 0.5 degrees C per ~ 30 years, IF it were to continue for just another 150 years, would lead to global temperatures as high or higher than they have been at almost any time during the last 400,000 years (~3 degrees C above "average"). Of course it is debatable whether or not the current trend will continue since there was a modest cooling trend of ~ 0.1 degrees C per ~30 years in the period from 1940 to 1970. On the other hand there are perfectly credible reasons to believe that the current trend could accelerate.

See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png>

and <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png>

2. We know that CO2 has historically been very closely correlated with global temperatures and we also know that the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 30% higher than it has previously been at any time during the last 400,000 years and that that is a result of human activity. Of course, it is debatable whether CO2 causes global warming and, even if it does, it is further debatable whether the markedly higher CO2 levels that we have will cause even noticeably increased temperatures. But, again, there are perfectly credible reasons to think both things.

See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png>

3. We know that sea levels change enormously--e.g. by more than one hundred meters during just the last 20,000 years so that a change of 10 meters hardly seems out of the question.

See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png>

4. The good news may be that there simply isn't that much ice left to melt on the scale of the amount that builds up during a glacial period.

See again <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png>

5. The overriding bad news for humanity may be that all the records point to the last 10,000 years as a highly unusual island of stability in almost every aspect. Thus, it seems likely to me that, even if we ONLY have to cope with natural variability, we have some VERY challenging times ahead on the scale, probably, of thousands of years.

(See all of the above.)

So, I understand that there are economic considerations involved in deciding what constitutes prudent safeguards to undertake. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the evidence is compelling enough and the potential downside devastating enough that one might expect the leader of the richest country on Earth AT LEAST to be using his bully pulpit to insure against recurrences of headlines like this

<http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/06/hummer_sales.html>


John "Slo" Mallinckrodt

Professor of Physics, Cal Poly Pomona
<http://www.csupomona.edu/~ajm>

and

Lead Guitarist, Out-Laws of Physics
<http://www.csupomona.edu/~hsleff/OoPs.html>


_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l



_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l