From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 6 Jan 93 00:03:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.190241.9405@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
> In article <m0wrqwh@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
> >I will not use the CO2/greenhouse strawman even though it would help
> >my case because I consider the whole issue to be at best, based on ignorance
> >and at worst, based on intellectual fraud.
> 
> And what does this indicate about John De Armond's attitude about
> science?

As far as I can tell, he is upset at the incorrect use of scientific results
regarding CO2 by Greenpeace and others - not the science behind it.

The science behind it shows that

1) CO2 has increased in the atmosphere as a whole since the industrial
   revolution (and it may have started to increase as early as 5000 years
   ago given indication from analysis of ice cores).

2) it increases at only half the rate we add CO2 by burning fossil fuels
   This is not understood

3) fossil fuel CO2 represents less than 5% of the total CO2 added to the
   atmosphere per year.  The vast majority of CO2 is added, then subtracted
   right back out.

4) 9 of 11 atmospheric models show an increase in temperature when CO2 is
   increased (this was several years ago - I'm sure there are even more and
   better models now).  Why can a greenhouse gas cause a decrease in
   temperature?  Because there are also the effects of changes in atmospheric
   and oceanic circulation, and changes in cloud cover can increase the
   reflection of sunlight from the earth.  All atmospheric models show
   temperature increases in some areas and decreases in others with changes
   in CO2 content.  So what we really know is that CO2 will change climate
   and is likely to increase average temperature as well.  But we don't know
   exactly what it will do.

5) Science is not confident in having identified all sources and sinks of
   greenhouse gases (including CO2, but also notably CH4).  It is also
   not confident of the size of the known sources and sinks.  For example,
   CO2 from respiration is poorly characterized, as is peat deposition
   and oceanic carbonate deposition.

6) Many factors affect the balance of CO2 other than fossil fuels - slash and
   burn agriculture is a significant contributor.  As is loss of wetlands.
   Loss of coral reef in the oceans is an unknown quantity that has a
   possibility of contributing as well.  And there is the infamous "cow gas"
   adding CH4 to the atmosphere in unknown quantities that some suggest will
   cause more warming than the increase in CO2.

Anyway, there are many scientific questions here.  We don't have all the
answers.  There is a suggestion that temperature has risen (this is very
difficult to measure, since one has to correct for a variety of influences
on the atmosphere - the best measure is the recent attempts to measure
changes in average ocean temperature, which does indicate a very small, but
significant increase).  The trouble is that groups like Greenpeace that
spend most of their time vilifying scientists are willing to take a few
scraps of scientific results, rip them completely out of context, and then
wave them about wildly in attempts to force radical change.

Anyway, I have no trouble with John's attitude about science here - I do
have trouble with the attitude of groups like Greenpeace about science.
As a scientist, I take personal offense at a lot of their wild ravings
about science.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov