From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: PRES DEBATE
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:16:06 GMT
	<##cqfzk@lynx.unm.edu>
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: blowfish@carina.unm.edu's message of 11 Nov 92 07:19:46 GMT

In article <##cqfzk@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:

   In article <lg0hdnINN1ge@news.bbn.com> pdsmith@spca.bbn.com (Peter D. Smith) writes:
   >The moral?  That action is premature.  Once the atmospheric models can
   >predict the climate of the last century, I'll start to believe them.
   >					Peter D. Smith

   See, but you're ignoring the basic fact that >we only have 1 atmosphere<.
   If it goes away, we can't just build another one, like a bridge.
   Preventative measures, like reducing the amount of CFC restrictions, while
   they're not absolutely proven, certainly as hell can't hurt, and evidence
   is that actions like that will help.
   What's the objection to reducing CFC's, or Methane, or to slow down de-
   forestation?
   Do you wait until you need an ambulace to go see a doctor?
   r.

You're still confusing ozone-depletion with greenhouse effect warming.
Doesn't appear to me to be any reason to not take steps to reduce CFCs.

The greenhouse thing, however, is a bit more complicated.  First of all,
it is *not* clear that there has been any effect on the climate from
greenhouse gases at all.  This is because there is no certainty that
there has been any warming at all.  Recall that only 10-15 years ago,
there was a widespread conviction that the climate was *cooling*; also
note that while four out of the last ten years were record warm years,
this year appears like to be a record cool year.  (In fact it's looking
like the coolest year in more than a century.)

Now, given that it could be done at zero cost, maybe *maybe* it makes
sense to cut greenhouse gases.  (Although if last decade's theory really
*was* right, that might be all that *is* saving us from the next ice
age.)  But it can't be done at zero cost: in fact, the cost will be
substantial.  Nor is there any agreement on the degree of reduction
needed to avert catastrophe: anything from "nothing is needed, Gaea
feedback takes care of things" to "all is lost" has been proposed.

So it appears that the people who insist on action *now* are doing so on
the basis of models that don't even predict well applied to known years,
based on poorly distributed data (since climate data isn't well reported
*except* in industrialized countries), with a known bias toward warming
(since the data is usually reported from airports and big cities, which
have a warm microclimate because of all that asphalt), and are insisting
on taking expensive steps.  It doesn't seem too unreasonable to ask that
the models get refined *first*, before the money on expensive steps gets
taken. 
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T