| 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] |
Since this topic has come up and because certain people are assuming that
anyone who is even slightly skeptical of the Global Warming
science/reports/PR is somehow 'seriously flawed' (to put it kindly), let me
outline a course of action on Global Warming that was presented on another
list but comes from an economist--one with deep Physics roots. This is my
version of his plan.
1) Layout the levels of Global Warming and their consequences--from very
mild to catastophic. Do the best we can to determine the relative
probablities of these.
2) Layout a plan of action to that would minimize the adverse effects at
each level.
3) Estimate what is would cost--all types of costs--to do each of these.
4) Determine where Global Warming ranks with other threats/concerns that
will compete for the time/labor/money available. [more on this below].
5) Now pick an appropriate plan of action--based on the probablities, the
priorities, and the available resources.
These steps might take some of the 'religious fervor' out of the
process--fervor from either extreme--Fred Singer to Al Gore.
More on (4). The consequences of Global Warming may run from relatively
mild (pretty much what we are seeing right now) to catastrophic, but with
very little probability of being 'apocolyptic'. OTOH, a major meteor strike
on the earth (which has a small but real probablity of happening within the
next millennium) would be a true Extinction Event--ours. So one of the
questions above is at what priority do we place Global Warming alieviation
versus 'killer' meteor detection and deflection?
*****************
So that no one here gets the wrong idea about some of us who express
occasional doubts about how good the computer models really are or find that
certain 'informational' approaches on the topic of GW might not be the best
or even want to 'check out' the interesting graphs that come unsolicted to
us in the mail, let me relate what I say to student in my energy
course--after three weeks of study on the topic and after they have written
a personal position paper on GW--something I offer only after being asked
often by students for 'my stance'.
"Whether or not human induced global warming is as serious a threat as some
(Gore for example) profess, almost all of the proposed remedies to reduce
GW, or alieviate its affects ,are things we should do anyway. Weaning
ourselves off of fossil fuels is essential if for no other reason than those
are finite sources. Cleaning up air quality and other pollution that comes
from fossil fuel use can only be good in the end. The real question here is
just how fast should we move (do we need to move) in this direction. That
is still uncertain, but doing so as fast as we can without major economic
damage seems advisable, prudent if you will. (As we've seen in class) one
necessary step in all of this is to stabilize population, and while things
are moving that way (worldwide) we are not there yet. We also have to
understand that a rapid change to 'green' resources will be very expensive
in the short term and will be land intensive. {Note: our yearly class
project to do this for the U.S. usually runs 30 trillion dollars and at
least a half million square miles of land.} Some countries can do this
easily and some cannot (poor nations or small nations with large
populations)--at least not without lots of help, and that raises the cost
even more if the developed nations have to 'kick-in' a lot of financial
resources. India will probably be in that category. What all that means to
you is that over the next 50-100 years, expect energy costs to rise
considerably and expect to have to change your life-styles at least
minimally (and perhaps more) to accommodate both the costs and the mandates
that will result from concentrated efforts on Global Warming.
Meanwhile--watch out for the meteor!"
As noted above, we then move on in the course to lay out a possible way to
provide (primarily) 'green' energy for the U.S. by the next century.
Sorry to be long winded here, but maybe making positions clear here will
stop some of the sniping and mis-characterizations.
Rick
Richard W. Tarara
Professor of Physics
Department of Chemistry & Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l