[geeks] More on global warming

[Phil Stracchino]

Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> The numbers I've seen seem to be around 9 billion tons per year  
> manmade, while nature fluctuations more than that, and its output is  
> 300 billion and up.

On the basis of those numbers, human output is 3% of natural output.  If
we were assume a stupidly simplistic linear relationship between
greenhouse gases and temperature, that would correspond to a global
average increase from about 293K to 302K.  Nine Kelvins of global
warming would be significant.

> If nature can change by 20 billion tons (or a lot more according to  
> some), why does our 9 billion tons have such a huge effect?

Look at that number a different way:  If natural greenhouse emissions
pccasionally fluctuate by 20 billion tons a year, and that causes
climate changes, then why should we be surprised that our generating
almost half that fluctuation year in, year out affects the climate?

> What difference does it make what climate model is accurate, if we  
> plan to do nothing in reaction to what we learn?

Aye, and there's the rub.  Right now, far too much of what we're "doing
about it" is driven by the criterion "how can we make money off
appearing to do something about it?"  The trouble with having relatively
short term elected politicians instead of a monarch reigning for life is
the politicians know that if they scratch their friends' backs without
doing anything substantive, it's OK, because it's not going to happen on
their watch.  Someone five or ten administrations down the line will get
the eventual blame for the results of their inactivity now.


-- 
  Phil Stracchino, CDK#2         ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355
  Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, Free Stater
  alaric at caerllewys.net            alaric at metrocast.net
          It's not the years, it's the mileage.