From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Global Warming
Date: 15 Nov 92 21:54:35 GMT
 <xCiVr*ie1@caleb.UUCP> <1992Nov3.221035.10208@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Nov3.221035.10208@tamsun.tamu.edu>, Rick Russell writes:

> My simple observation of the situation is that the CO2 level in the
> atmosphere is about twice as high as it's ever been in the last 160000
> years of known climatology. Given a 'business as usual' carbon usage

My simple observation is that scientists don't have that kind of data for
any where near 160000 years.  Give us a break!  When did they discover CO2
(as a discrete, identifiable gas?)  Wasn't it less than 200 years ago?

> scenario, we could see CO2 quantities 4 or 8 times as high as they've
> ever been before within the next century. Disturbingly, CO2 seems to
> be very, very highly correlated to average global temperature.  Is CO2
> the cause? Hard to say, but the known chemical behaviour of CO2, along
> with our observations of other planetary atmospheres (i.e. Venus and
> Mars), strongly suggests that increasing CO2 will bring up the global
> temperature.
> 
> As I concluded in my last post on this issue, the EGE needs more
> study.  While carbon emission policy is a good thing (since carbon
> emission reduction means cleaner air), I don't know if fear of
> increasing EGE is a justification for changes in policy, yet.  I think
> that within 20 years, we will truly know if EGE is a threat to
> continued human survival. Especially since world carbon usage will

So, you have admitted that you don't have sufficient evidence to justify
drastic measures.  So, why not save the "end of life" hysteria until there
are enough data to justify it?

> have DOUBLED by that time without carbon emission controls. In fact,
> the IPCC put together a carbon usage scenario just like that...
> business as usual until 2010, then slow reduction in carbon usage to
> 1990 levels. Given the evidence so far, I suspect our future policy
> will follow this pattern.

Maybe, but it is also possible that new fuels and power sources may change
before any of this really happens.  No, I don't know what they are.  However,
I do expect technologies to advance in ways we don't expect.  There also are
many other alternatives (e.g. planting lots of trees, etc.)

About your expertise in meterology.  I am not questioning your abilities, I
simply reserve the right to disagree with the results.  I'm not an expert in
your field, but I do know quite a bit about simulations.  I know that one
can change the simulation result quite significantly with seemingly minor
changes in the input data or the equations used to calculate results.  I
assume that you are doing your best to produce objective, accurate results.
However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the results will be correct.
I'm sure that you will admit that this is not an "exact science" yet.
By the way, do you include a statistically representative set of volcanic
eruptions in your simulations?  (Just curious, I'm not trying to insult
you here.  Answer by EMail if you like.)


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: tx.politics