From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:19:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: techbook.1992Jul22.201920.6764
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135

>In article <1992Jul20.164701.8222@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>ENSO is rare?
>
In article <1992Jul22.093105.9358@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>No.  Nor is it global.

It impacts half the planet.

>>Pinatubo-sized volcanoes are rare?
>
>No.  Nor do the particulates injected into the atmosphere by the eruptions hang
>around in the atmosphere for very long.

There are two figures of merit, rate of change and absolute magnitude.
Tobis has claimed that rate of change is the most important problem with 
global warming, and I am refuting that.  The rate of change from Pinatubo 
and thousands of other volcanoes during human evolution, both the cooling 
and rewarming, have given us more rapid global temperature change than 
global warming.

>>[Younger Dryas, rate of change _and_ magnitude greater than hypothesized
>>global warming]

>Nor is is global.

Again, it impacted very large region, from Newfoundland to Portugal.  
For predicting ecosystem impact, it is quite relevent to compare to
large regional climate changes.

>>Younger Dryas was a 
>>change of 7C over 40 years.  The worst case IPCC scenario is 5C in over 
>>100 years (best case 1.5C, mean 2.5C).
>
>Now compute the difference in global temperature resulting from Younger Dryas
>and use that figure for comparison.

The global temperature is relevent for sea-level changes due to volume 
changes or glacial melting outside the region.  For ecosystem impacts, the
local temperatures are what is important.

>Nick, you seem to be forgetting that Tobis is arguing that global warming ought
>to be a reason for us to get away from using fossil fuels.  He's saying "If we
>continue as we have been, this is likely to happen, so we might want to start
>looking for alternatives."

I agree we should start looking, in fact we _are_ looking, from fission
power to methane/biofuels proposals.  What I disagree with is using 
global warming as an excuse to put major taxes on fossil fuels, based on
computer models and a science that, without reflecting negatively on
any of its practioners, has not been able to successfully predict the
climate.  What I _doubly_ object to is "carbon taxes" as they have
actually been implemented: directed against targets of opportunity, 
including nuclear power and small business.  This is the kind of crap
that happens when we get hysteria and people willing to take advantage
of hysteria.  We need a massive dose of deep breath and rationality
if we really want to find out what is going on here, and figure out
how to respond to it.  Tobis leaves out many relevent facts, and
lines his critique with hysterical hyperbole; he is not doing the climate 
or ourselves any service.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9706 sci.physics:11297 sci.energy:3491