From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 22:07:03 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Flash! Environmentalists switch off Earth's volcanoes (was: The Fr
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: na
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec17.025705.24412@cbnewse.cb.att.com> harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm) writes:
>
>Here is what the original posting that I responded to SAID, (and are
>these not originally your words, then...?)  :
>quote: However, these scientists also said that this effect [Pinatubo's]
>will be short-lived (after all the ashe does eventually wash out) and 
>it will [be] back to business as usual with temperatures going back on
>an upward trend which they have been on for over 100 years. 
>unquote.
>
>Now, that is *what* I saw.  I saw *no* qualifier---at least in the 
>posting I read---that attempted to explain/ quantify this effect as 
>being limited, e.g., "until the next major eruption", for instance. 
>It was plainly left open-ended as though the assertion was no more
>volcanic eruptions.  Now within the context of the posting *I read*,
>that is plainly, clearly, and unequivocably *what was stated/asserted*.
>If there was supposed to be more--that is, if there was in that tract
>more than what was really meant to meet the eye, then it should have
>been plainly so included at that point.  One cannot make overt, blanket
>statements like this and expect someone to read in so an otherwise
>important clarifying point that is not verbally included there. 

Perhaps, Mr. Holm, you do not understand the meaning of the word "trend".
An upward trend in average temperatures does NOT preclude short term
anomalies and reversals in the basic direction of the average.  The quote
you supplied did misspeak a bit by stating "...temperatures going back on
an upward trend which...", which implies that the trend had stopped.  Even
with short term reversals, any trend continues on its course until the
fundamentals causing the trend are permanently altered.  The contention
of those you are arguning with is that volcanic eruptions are nothing but
short term reversals in the long term trend.  What you quoted made no
assertion that further temporary reversals are not possible.
>
>> >This is climate and atmoshpherics balancing each other, not a doggone
>> >celestial arm-wrestling tournament with a clear-cut predictable champ.  
>> 
>> Oh? You have some divine information we are not privy to? It is utter
>> arrogance to imply that man could never have some effect on climate or
>> the atmosphere.
>> 
>No....it is utter arrogance to think that man is greater than the sum
>of the rest of Nature so as to be able to overwhelm it.  Isn't that 
>your big fear? 

Prior to pre-industrial society, the long term trend of the amount of CO2
in the atmosphere was down.  Man has reversed this trend in the past couple
of hundred years.  The greenhouse effect is not just theory, it is observed
fact.  What is open to speculation is what effects global warming will have.
The fear is that if bad effects begin to be noticed, how long will it take
to reverse them?  You don't just slam on the brakes in huge systems such
as climates.  It's going to take decades at least to reverse the trend
in CO2 increase, once we decide to do it.  It will take decades (at least)
to notice any effects from the trend reversal.  (Note: the trend to which
I refer is a blip on the geological timescale.  In fact, it is most 
probably nothing but a momentary reversal in the overall downward trend
of atmospheric CO2 content, on geologic timescale.  Within the human
timescale, however, the trend of atmospheric CO2 content is *up*.)

Nobody in science seriously doubts that global warming is happening.
Now, if we want to argue about what the effects will be, that's one thing.
Or perhaps, how much warming will occur.  There's lots of room for debate
on those topics.  For example, there's evidence to suspect that global
warming will actually cause an *increase* in the size of the polar caps.
This is in opposition to the original assumption that it would cause the
polar caps to melt.  There's just too many variables to calculate the
outcome before it happens.  IMHO, it'll probably have to be observed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "I don't much care how a man prays -- there's plenty of
                 room in hell for all of us."  --- "Mad Jack" Duncan
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton