[geeks] Global Warming causes...

[wa2egp at att.net]

> I talked to guys really working on it myself, and they didn't agree  
> with what is said here.
> 
> They basically said we are so painfully ignorant right now, there  
> isn't much that can be said with authority.

So they didn't agree nor did they disagree.

> They also said we are wasting time on how and now putting effort into  
> planning what to do about both warming and cooling, and a few dozen  
> other thing which increase in magnitude as our civilization and  
> population increase.

I don't if "how" is a waste of time.  If you don't know how, then
the planning part is without a direction.  There are other problems
too and enven though there may be a connection, they are out of the
realm of this discussion and atmospheric science.


> There's not much need to read them all, since the computer prints  
> summaries.

Don't these have to be interpreted in some way?

> No, they are facts.  You can track rather extensively the immediate  
> effects of forest fires, thermal venting, volcanos, etc.  The long  
> term effects, we really have no solid idea.

And probably never will.

> Right now the computational power to sift through the data we already  
> have is not there.
> 
> We collect data at a rate many times greater than we can process it.
> 
> We can't even monitor a large storm accurately yet.
> 
> > Cosmic radiation (what type, I
> > don't know) sounds a little far fetched.
> 
> Why does something we've been measuring for decades sound far fetched?

No.  How cosmic rays are connected to global warming.  If the mean global
temperature is increasing wouldn't there be some sort of increase in 
cosmic rays if that is one factor?  I have not heard of any.

> I was going to mention changes in sun activity too, but I guess that  
> is far fetched also.

No. But has there been an increase in light output?  Or is it solar wind?
Inquiring minds want to know.
 
> > Orbital variation should have
> > been noticed by astronomers, even subtle ones.
> 
> When did I say it was not noticed?  We've known about it for  
> centuries, and it does affect our weather and climate.

Are you talking about precession or tilt?  The latter is cited
in one theory about creation of ice ages. Has there been such
a change in tilt these last hundred years? 

> > I don't know what natural
> > disasters that would have happened more in the last hundred years than
> > before.  I find that unlikely.
> 
> I said nothing about them happening more recently, so I don't know  
> what you are driving at here.
> 
> My only point is that their output is far greater than our own, so  
> slight variations in them have a measurable effect.

I really don't know if one or two volcanos shove more CO2 into the
atmosphere than the world's driving population but there have always
been volcanos and forest fires.  Now humans are dumping more CO2
into the air.  That can't have no effect.  After 9/11 they measured
reflected light from the earth during the time all planes were 
grounded over the US and found a significant reduction in reflected 
light.  Even that might have some small effect although briefly.
 
> > Or maybe they were found to be flawed.
> 
> No, those are well worn paths, not new theories.

A well worn path can stil be flawed.
  
> It is a fact that we focus on humanity rather than nature.  We do it  
> in news, in our fears, in discussions, in politics, and in our  
> reactions.
> 
> If we did it, then it is easy to point at everyone and say, "You gotta  
> stop!"
> 
> If it is something out of our control, we quickly lose interest  
> because at present, there is usually little we can do about it.

That's the danger, if it's us and we find out too late, we're screwed.
I'd rather error on the side of caution.
 
 
> Incorrect.
> 
> Right now, ozone continues to deplete.  Some people think it is  
> slowing, but not long after the last report, it was shown to be  
> increasing again.
> 
> Ozone has a long life, and the estimation is that it will take around  
> 100 years before man-made ultraviolate catalyzed gases leave the upper  
> atmosphere.  That means around 50 years before we know if reduction of  
> CFCs is working, 100 to be certain.

Ozone is unstable and breaks down quite easily.  It is constantly 
replenished photochemically.  There is a measured reduction of the
breakdown byproducts of CFCs in the atmosphere.  The only thing I worry
about is new, developing nations starting to use them and increasing
their presence in the atmosphere.  Just because the US stopped using
them haphazardly doesn't mean everybody did.

> Stratospheric air currents can also cause ozone holes, move man-made  
> gasses around, etc, making it difficult to monitor exactly.
> 
> But the primary problem is just that it is going to take a long time  
> before what we generated is gone.
> 
> Also, CFCs are a very special case where we happened upon a compound  
> that has a very easily catalyzed reaction far in excess of what is  
> natural.

That's what prevents ozone formation but when the CFCs are reduced, the
free radicals that prevent ozone formation are reduced.  They do get
removed from the air by other processes.  Ozone holes are natural but
they don't need to be thinner than what's caused by natural processes.
They don't have to spread either.  The trend in thinning of the ozone
layer has decreased although yearly changes still go up and down.  I
still think the right course of action was taken eventhough freon is
a good working fluid for refrigeration and a darn good industrial 
solvent.> On the plus side, reducing pollution usually produces results faster.

> In mountain valleys were factories were cleaned up in the 70s, they  
> are already back to normal, so we didn't need to wait very long for  
> confirmation or the benefits.

At least the air. Not much can be said for the ground and ground water.

> Unfortunately, the rest of the world is busy doing now what we did  
> back in the 40s-70s.

Could that be one of the reasons we did not sign the Kyoto treaty?  From
what little I read, there was no restrictions on some other countries 
when they reached our level of "development" as would be on us.  Yes,
it did restrict our industrial output due to reduction of certain "bad
things" but to not hold everybody to the same standard...makes one go
"Hmmmmmm....."

> More importantly, they don't have the money we do for cleaning it up,  
> which means even if they stop, it will likely sit for long periods of  
> time unless someone helps them out.

We don't have the money.  Best if it doesn;t get messed up in the first
place.  Imagine what China is going to be like with cars instead of 
bicycles.  It's already starting to happen.

Bob