Hi Dennis, I totally agree with you that, in principle, we should ameliorate harmful natural changes. But only if, and only if, we could rely on the evidence, knew precisely what to do and could devise a successful strategy. No one denies that climate change is taking place in many parts of the world. In some places it is getting warmer; in others it is getting colder. Most climatologists believe that the world as a whole is getting warmer; a minority -- though including some of the most eminent -- believe that there is insufficient evidence yet. However, all climatologists now believe that climate changes, even the onset of major events like Ice Ages, can take place very much more rapidly than was believed until recently. We can't rely on the evidence yet. Some scientists believe that CO2 analyses of ice cores are contaminated by the drilling oil used. There are serious discrepancies between temperatures measured by satellites and those by ground stations. Historic records of ground stations are not compatible because most ground stations that used to be situated in the countryside are now surrounded by urban sprawl with much higher ambient temperatures. Far too little is known about the absorption/release of CO2 by different sorts of ground cover (rain forest, agriculture, coniferous forest, etc) and, most importantly, by marine life in the oceans. Also, far too little is known of the reflectivity of cloud cover in reflecting heat to outer space. Long term computer forecasts of climate change are notoriously sensitive to wrong inputs. The slightest errors in basic premises can have exponential effects. We can afford to wait a little longer. Research into all the areas of ambiguous measurement is being accelerated. What is called "The Precautionary Principle" is a sound doctrine for many problems but is little more than fashionable clamour at this stage as regards the climate. In two or three years I have little doubt that the problem -- if it is a problem -- will be known much more precisely and computer forecasts will be that much more accurate. Keith Hudson At 16:46 14/07/01 -0700, you wrote: >Hi Keith et al, > >You are quite wrong, Keith. Just because some effect is natural >does NOT mean that nothing can be done about it. I don't know >how you can make such an assumption. > >That is like saying that, since smallpox is natural, we can't make >a vaccine to combat it. > >Yes, the earth's weather is non-linear. No doubt about it. > >Yes, there is a chance that major changes in the weather could >be brought on by a relatively small change in the composition >of the atmosphere. A chance, I said, not necessarily a liklihood. > >What are we prepared to do to mitigate that possibility, that risk? > >Yes, we should do further research. But, yes, we should do whatever >we can to reduce that risk that is commensurate with the liklihood >of the risk factor coming to pass. And we should further adjust >our actions as new information becomes available. > >dennis paull >Los Altos, CA, USA > > >At 12:23 PM 7/14/2001 Saturday , you wrote: >>At 09:53 14/07/01 -0700, Michael Gurstein wrote: >>>I think this is the best counter to Bush's irremediably self-interested know >>>nothing position on Global Warming. >>> >>>It is not that we don't know enough therefore we should do nothing thus >>>allowing things to change, rather it is that we don't know enough therefore >>>we should not be allowing potentially drastic changes to occur in what we >>>don't know enough about. >> >>This entirely misses the point. >> >>If the present climate change is natural then there's absolutely nothing >>that can be done about it. Global warming could get far worse or it could >>swing the other way. (There's strong evidence, for example, that the next >>Ice Age could start any decade soon.) >> >>If the present changes are man-made (against an otherwise stable backdrop), >>then the Kyoto proposals would come nowhere near correcting the CO2 cause. >>Nowhere near. Far more drastic action would be required that would have to >>totally replace the fossil-fuel derived productive processes of the whole >>world. It would be akin to a new type of Dark Ages. Waiting another year or >>two, while research is accelerating into important areas (reflectivity of >>cloud cover, and absorption of COs by marine life) won't do any great harm >>and will give precise parameters on which a possible strategy could be >>constructed. (And which, without doubt, the whole world would adopt without >>any further argument.) >> >>Keith Hudson >> > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org> 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
