From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts
Date: 26 Jul 92 23:54:47 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <1992Jul25.210755.21103@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.184652.10374@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>>* The anthropogenic forcing is large enough that significant climate
>>change is inevitable,
>
>You already pointed out that the albedo effects from increased
>H2O are unpredictable.  One possible outcome is that the cloud 
>reflectivity compensates for CO2 greenhouse effect, so that temperature 
>change is not "inevitable".

Nick, read what Michael wrote.  He said the CLIMATE CHANGE is inevitable.  The
change in cloud patterns that might mitigate greenhouse warming is, by
definition, climate change.

>>If the worst case surface sensitivity holds and
>>the worst case emissions continue, the results will be devastating. 
>
>"Will"?  All you've described is temperature increase; that alone
>is not at all devastating.

Nick, you're ignoring the fact that Michael used a conditional clause.  He said
IF THE WORST CASE SURFACE SENSITIVITY HOLDS AND THE WORST-CASE EMISSIONS
CONTINUE.  If both these conditions hold, then ocean warming will increase the
volume of the oceans, causing flooding of coastal regions.  I'd call that
devastating.

>Secondary effects like weather pattern
>changes, ecosystem impacts, glacial melts or buildups, sea volume 
>increases, etc. may or may not be significant, even in the worst case.  

Given the worst case, please give a scenario in which sea volume increases
would not be significant.

>We already know that there are _benefits_ of CO2 itself, such as the 
>fertilization effect which increases the productivity of agriculture 
>and most ecosystems.

It increases the productivity of some plant species.  It decreases the
productivity of others.

>>The situation is such that anthropogenic emissions are just changing
>>from insignificant to profound.
>
>So much for the "smooth curve"; now we have a devastating quantum
>leap.  :-)

No, we have an exponential rise in anthropogenic CO2 which is only now
comparable to the geologically recent natural CO2 levels.  The smooth curve and
a relatively sudden change from insignificant to profound effects of
anthropogenic CO2 are not at all incompatible.

>Tobis, this is what I mean by "hyperbole", if you were
>wondering.  Some of your analysis is very good but then you descend
>into this crap.

Try paying attention to what he says instead of constructing straw men to knock
down.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.psychology