From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Gore Stages Environmental Show Trials
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 02:03:31 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug19.230130.10221@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rbw3q@helga9.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Whitehurst) writes:
]In article <1992Aug19.153426.21442@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
]>As Balling points out, the available evidence indicates that global warming
]>is more likely to be beneficial than harmful. The most likely warming
]>comes at high latitudes at night. Furthermore, increased precipitation,
]>and increased CO2 concentrations, would improve agricultural productivity.
]>
][Lots o' stuff about how good CO2 is for the 3rd world, etc....]
]
]>John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
]
]	Boy, this is starting to drift away from the group's target,
]but I can't resist!
]	With all due respect, the notion that CO2 won't cause much
]warming, and if it does, hey that's better, and if it isn't, then we
]can't do much without killing the 3rd world is a load of hooey (in
]techspeak :-) ).  Ecological systems **including our main agri crops**
]are keyed to COMBINATIONS of temperature, temp. variation, rainfall
]and its timing, and sunlight duration.  Throw any of these out of
]whack, and you have great potential for major disruption, especially
]with the vast impact humans already have on systems.  Extensive,
]undisturbed systems can weather many changes and remain intact (though
]individual species distributions may change), but chop the system into
]little bits, and impose reduced species diversity, and the system
]cannot remain as robust.  Example:  If the Great Plains warm, assuming
]that there remains enough total rain for nominal wheat growth, summer
]storms or fall rains coming just a week or two earlier could destroy
]large amounts of wheat just ripening (it's often a near thing as
]is).  This is all assuming the rain stays where our big agriculture
]is, which is no certainty!

You neglect that the natural climatic variability is greater than any
reasonable global warming prediction. GW might increase the number
of YEARS of bad conditions, which might force some agriculture to
change crops, but I think you have way to little respect for
the resilience of either human or natural systems. Furthermore, since
GW would be gradual, the disruption would be small because systems
could adapt slowly.

]	I agree that CONVERTING our economies alone would be $$$ and
]maybe not show REDUCTIONS in CO2 soon, BUT what about the 3rd world?
]If some of the 3rd world DOES industrialize (which would seem the
]answer to much of their poverty and overpopulation), they'll MULTIPLY
]our output now.  We can't just tell them "you develop a low impact
]economy, even though it is tough...we'll keep our old one thanks."
]They'll tell us what to do with it, whack down their few last forests,
]overpop, starve, and REALLY be a mess!  IF they don't get really
]pissed, arm, and try to TAKE the 1st world by storm.  We ALL have to
]get in there and pitch.  AND numerous real world examples show that
]lots of "greening" is nearly painless.  REF:  Chemical companies
]improving bottom lines w/ low-waste processes.  Putting energy saving
]systems ALREADY in lap-top PCs in desktop PCs would cut energy usage
]by PCs to 10% of now, and PCs are one of the FASTEST GROWING consumers
]of electricity in the country, actually OVERLOADING some office
]building power capacities.

Speaking of hooey. Energy conservation is one of the most ridiculously
balleyhooed items yet. Where it is economically efficient, it is
already being done... due to high energy prices (and historic
disruptions). Furthermore, if we hurt our economy (and sensible
studies show that imposing CO2 reduction standards would hurt a whole
lot), it will also hurt the third world's economies. Finally,
as I pointed out, and as Balling pointed out, waiting until we
learn more about the problem is quite reasonable since it will
have almost no impact on the eventual progress of global warming.

]	You don't have to be clairvoyant, a genius, or God to come to
]some of these conclusions.  Look at the TRENDS.  If the slope of the
]curve is positive, and the function is monotonic, whaddya think will
]happen eventually?
That sort of logic is what led the various projectioneers and trenders
to predict, with great confidence, that the world would run out
of oil by 1980, that we would have a mass depression by then, and
that the US would have mass starvation in the '80s. Guess what, these
same people are still around and squawking (Paul Ehrlich, for example).

Don't just look at trends, look at bounds, and at feedback systems.
It just ain't as simple as first or second derivatives.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL ...erk  glugh   mmpph.... Memory fault (core dumped)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc