That sounds much better than some of the dramatic solutions I do hear bandied about. No doubt it would help to reduce CO2 emissions, and there is nothing like a bunch of entrepreneurs to come up with some great alternatives to fossil fuel. I look forward to the future.
Had there been no petroleum industry, there would have been no auto emissions. But by the turn of the 19th century, horse urine and manure were making some city streets almost intolerable. I suppose there would have been a hue and cry to come up with a less polluting source of transportation, like a self-propelled conveyance. Deja vu, all over again.
Original Message:
Sent: 06-24-2015 11:54
From: Joseph Locascio
Subject: Global Warming
Richard Browne,
You say "....what if, after trillions of dollars have been spent on CO2 reduction, we find out that it was not really a significant cause of global warming...". Then, wouldn't the best approach be to change those things whose change would do the least harm even if we were wrong about the need to change them, or make changes that would even be beneficial in the long run regardless, e.g., switching to renewable energy sources and reduce our dependence on energy from foreign countries?
------------------------------
Joseph Locascio
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 06-23-2015 13:10
From: Richard Browne
Subject: Global Warming
I continue to be surprised that even good statisticians are using the notion of linear extrapolation of a current effect,ultimately leading to disaster. Most things in nature reach plateaus with an increase in the independent variable. As an example, the end of the last ice age resulted in the oceans rising over 120 meters. It is a good thing that there were no media outlets back then or scientists going after grants, or they would have predicted the total submergence of all land and the end of non-aquatic life. Instead, the effect plateaued and we are were we are today. Tongue in cheek: Perhaps they could have blamed the cavemen and all their campfires for that climate change!
Anyway, there is a rather arrogant tone to much of the current discussion which presumes that man and his folly are the major cause of unwanted climate change. In the past few millenia, having a really big volcanic eruption has actually caused distinctly more climate change than the burning of fossil fuel over the past 200+ years. We don't like the idea that we are not in complete control of what happens to us.
Lastly, the massive interventions that some say are necessary would be extraordinarily expensive and could more easily harm the economies of poorer countries and their populations. Perhaps that is just the price we will need to pay. But what if, after trillions of dollars have been spent on CO2 reduction, we find out that it was not really a significant cause of global warming. As an example of misplaced enthusiasm for a cause, recall the ban on DDT because of Rachel Carson's book. In fact, Africa was very close to eradicating malaria using DDT, but now over 500,000 people die annually from malaria. Turns out many things she claimed as truths were closer to opinion and extrapolation. We need to avoid a similar rush to implement a change in fossil fuel utilization until we are close to certain that those interventions would yield the desired result.
------------------------------
Richard Browne
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 06-23-2015 12:13
From: Matt Sosa
Subject: Global Warming
"It might beremembered that all the fossil fuel we are discussing was originally alive, which means all that CO2 was in the atmosphere in the past and it didn't destroy all life on earth."
Not quite-- the issue at question today is the disruption of an equilibrium cycle. "All that CO2" went into the ground with more C's joined to H's than to O's. Burning the hydrocarbons takes O2 out of the air and puts some of the C back into the air as CO2-- this is why when you burn a piece of wood, the ash that's left is lighter than the piece of wood. "All that CO2" wasn't in the atmosphere at one time...
The point is that among vegetation's use of CO2 to release O2 and animal species consumption of O2 to form complex hydrocarbons (more C's joined to H's than to O's), and additional complexities with water vapor and the ocean's absorption of CO2 and O2 that I have not addressed, the earth has been in balance. Digging up the compressed remains of life and burning them is pulling more O2 out of the air, essentially, and adding it back as CO2 in amounts greatly exceeding that from natural fires, and is simply not accounted for in the previously mentioned equilibrium for the millions of years preceding man's introduction and our unique ability to 'control fire'.
This equilibrium has shifted plenty over thousands of year periods, and that slow shift has allowed other parts of the ecosystem to adapt. In just a few hundred years however, man has provided similar increases that have previously occurred only over tens of thousands of years. While it is not proven, this is potentially a change that is taking place too rapidly for other parts of the ecosystem to adjust and maintain an equilibrium supporting life as we know it, or even have known it from the fossil record.
The question we face is whether that is a chance we want to take when we are clearly the proximate cause for the rapid change.
(And to top it off, in the popular press at least, we're not even discussing the similar disruption to the nitrogen cycle that exploded after WWII and the advent of chemical fertilizers...)
------------------------------
Matt Sosa
Original Message:
Sent: 06-22-2015 11:31
From: David Corliss
Subject: Global Warming
David Salsburg writes:
"...a simple application of decision theory. Either global warming caused by human activity will eventually reach a "tipping point", where a runaway greenhouse effect destroys all life on Earth as we know it, leaving the planet more like Venus, or it will not happen."
It might be remembered that all the fossil fuel we are discussing was originally alive, which means all that CO2 was in the atmosphere in the past and it didn't destroy all life on earth. So, no need for decision theory: we can categorically rule out the Venus option.
I would also also suggest that "a runaway greenhouse effect destroys all life on Earth as we know it" is not the question we face. The question is whether climate change has been caused by people and what people can do about it. The catastrophic and preventable damage from human-caused climate change, well documented in scientific literature, simply cannot cause the end of all life. This unnecessary exaggeration weakens the cause of good science.
------------------------------
David Corliss
IAAS Rapid Response Team / Predictive Analytics
Ford Motor Company
------------------------------