Keith,
Two answers for the price of one - wow!
This is to the second part of your post, which brought up the interesting
thought that the coolings played a part in the natural selection process.
Hadn't thought of that, restricting myself to noting that warm was better
for us than cool in our climate history.
The salinity of the oceans was brought into the discussion in the 35 year
long mid-century cooling I've referred to. Then, somewhat suddenly the
surface temperatures began to rise. This accounts for my comment "It's the
weather".
Did the salinity change suddenly? I don't know, but it seems unlikely.
The bottom line seems to be that we must compare the temperature stability
of actual measurement of the troposphere by satellite and radiosonde
balloons with prognostications from computers and frequently on site
estimates of all kinds.
A decade or two ago surface measurements covered about 40% of the earth.
Now less than 20% of the earth is covered. Do these offer adequate
comparison? I hardly think so. Yet, this must be laid on top of the
accepted inaccuracies of surface measurements - too often affected by local
urban heat effects.
But, that isn't the political issue, which is - are we responsible?
Well, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, but that's where the attention is
directed.
Carbon dioxide is measured in gigatonnes. Here are some figures in
gigatonnes from my notes. All are estimates as they must be - but probably
fairly good estimates.
5.5 is the CO2 that might be caused by all our activities.
750 is the total atmospheric CO2.
1,000 is in the surface ocean.
2,200 can be found vegetation, soil, and 'muck'.
38,000 in the lower ocean.
Of course, CO2 doesn't stay put. These are some of the annual exchanges.
90 between surface ocean and atmosphere.
60 between vegetation and atmosphere
50 between marine biota and atmosphere.
100 between surface and deep ocean.
Our contribution to this veritable maelstrom is 5.5. My notes don't show
it, but a fugitive memory seems to tell me that about half of this 5.5 will
disappear if we stop breathing and carrying out essential survival
activities. The other half is the "industrial revolution" bit.
For this we shake up the economic structure of the world?
I would say - hardly - if we are sensible.
We will have enough problems with the inevitable cooling.
Harry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith wrote:
>(MH)
> >Also, there is more to intelligence and effectiveness
> >than what is measured by IQ. The neurobiologist William Calvin in "A Brain
> >For All Seasons" argues that sudden coolings of climate selected for humans
> >and societies best able to share and collaborate, which suggests that
> >Gardners Interpersonal Intelligence may be man's most important selected
> >trait, not capacity for abstract reasoning.
>
>This may very well have been important, and even crucial at these
>particular times of sudden coolings. But unless this Gardner factor is
>measurable we will never know. It's more likely in my opinion that this
>factor would be correlated to a greater or lesser extent with the general
>g-factor measured by IQ tests, inherited and selected over very long
>evolutionary periods even before the emergence of homo sapiens.
>
> >Why the concern over a sudden cooling? Because that is what may happen.
> >Climatologists have been puzzled by the sudden severe little ice age
> >of the Younger Dryas 12,500 BP to 12,000 BP but have finally figured
> >out how they think it happened. They are brought on by warmings that
> >melt sufficient ice to flood the North Atlantic with fresh water and
> >stop the Atlantic Conveyor and hence the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe
> >and Eastern North America warm in winter. They have also figured out from
> >ice cores that similar sudden coolings have happened hundreds of times
> >before. Each time human populations would have crashed - been heavily
> >selected - for cooperation in the face of great adversity.
> >
> >The Woods Hole Oceanographic has been keeping track of the salinity of
> >the North Atlantic and is now sounding the alarm that it has fallen
> >far enough to be concerned about a Conveyor stoppage.
> >http://www.whoi.edu/home/about/whatsnew_abruptclimate.html
> >
> >How severe it might be is another question. They are suggesting an annual
> >average drop for Europe of 5 degrees F, enough to freeze ports and
> >shipping lanes and cause crops to fail.
> >
> >That would be more severe than the Little Ice Age, so I am sceptical. Severe
> >sudden coolings in the past were associated with deglaciation, so the
> >amounts of fresh water involved were enormous, much larger than Greenland
> >and Arctic sea ice could produce today. What may be more likely according
> >to two Swiss climatologists (Stockner and Schmittner) is a slowing of the
> >Conveyor with occasional brief cessations of one of the three downwelling
> >sites. That would lead to a slight cooling trend with short somewhat
> >cooler variations from trend.
> >
> >As always, there are other data to muddy the waters. These sudden coolings,
> >at least for the past 10,000 years that we have data, are also coincident
> >with reductions in the amount of energy radiated by the sun. Right now
> >solar radiation is in an up cycle.
> >
> >Ain't life interesting.
>
>The above comments on the Conveyor effect are extremely interesting. I was
>aware of it, of course, but haven't been as closely in touch with
>discussion about it as you've obviously been.
>
>Keith
******************************
Harry Pollard
Henry George School of LA
Box 655
Tujunga CA 91042
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: (818) 352-4141
Fax: (818) 353-2242
*******************************
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.391 / Virus Database: 222 - Release Date: 9/19/2002
