[extropy-chat] on The Climate Change Question

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:> 
> 3) Judith Lean ''Living with a Variable Sun,'' June 2005 Physics
> Today.
> 
>  From 1), you will read that the (very sensitive) Arctic _is_
> warming, and such a warming could have alarming consequences on
global
> climate.
> Are we sure that there is a man-made warming trend, though? Yes, if
> you read in detail the next two references.

Few doubt that the arctic is warming. Only an idiot can look at the
open seas of the northwest passage, compare it to photos from last
century, and think otherwise, but regional climate change is not global
climate change, nor are environmental changes of less than 30-100 years
any sort of significant change of any permanence. Ask the Anasazi about
climate change.

> 
> Reference 2) states the primary physics of what gases (for example,
> CO2) in the atmosphere trap infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's
> surface, which leads to a greenhouse effect, and the article shows
> the
> increase of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over the last 60
> years. Increased atmospheric heat is the simple physical and chemical
> result. The warming is real, but how does that compare to 'natural'
> warming in Earth's history, due to variabilities in the Sun's output?

Among other things, such as changes in the populations of ruminant,
ungulate, and other methane producing animals. Methane is six times
more effective as a green house gase than CO2. 20-30% of the methane in
the atmosphere is produced by the cattle of India. By any measurement
of the many liters of methane such animals release each day indicates
that the average third world family cow contributes more to global
warming than the average American family car. What is the history of
methane production worldwide? Did the white buffalo hunters of the
American west cause the severe cold temperatures of the late 19th
century by shooting all the buffalo (temperatures against which the
global warming chicken littles use as a baseline)?

> 
> The third 3) reference describes the Sun-Earth energy flow in detail,
> and what should be particularly interesting to readers of this
> subject
> are the terrestrial responses to solar activity. The author Lean
> writes (pg.37):
> 
> 	''Contemporary habitat pressure is primarily from human
> 	activity rather than solar. The atmospheric concentration of
> 	CO2 has increased 31% since 1750. A doubling of
> 	greenhouse-gas concentrations is projected to warm Earth's
> 	surface by 4.2K. Solar-driven surface temperature changes
> 	are substantially less, unlikely to exceed 0.5K and maybe as
> 	small as 0.1K (points to Fig 3). Nevertheless, they must be
> 	reliably specified so that policy decisions on global change
> 	have a firm scientific basis. Furthermore, climate
> 	encompasses more than surface temperatures, and future
> 	surprises, perhaps involving the Sun's influence on drought
> 	and rainfall, are possible.''

The 4.2K claim is the maximum claimed by the UN climate change panel
report and is generally considered unsupported by the science. Maximum
real temperature change over the 21st century (total) is considered to
be 0.5-2.0 K (including astronomical) when CO2 levels are expected to
double.

Of course, these are the same brilliant mathematicians who claimed in
1975 that we had 30 years of oil left. I think I'll take my chances.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions – no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/