Greetings,
I received a number of replies to my Venus Fly Trap letter. I thank
each of you, even those of you who do not believe mankind is assisting the
current rise in temperatures.
What follows are copies of those replies for everyone to see, but
first I would like to explain, as simple as possible, what is currently
happening to our Earth, in hopes that everyone will have a clearer picture.
The surface of out Earth has heat units coming to it from two
directions, from the hot core and from the sun. The surface also has heat
units being radiated out into space. If there is an imbalance, for any
reason, between in and out, temperatures will go up or down to correct this
imbalance. In the past there have been natural causes that resulted in
temperatures going up or down, but now mankind is doing something, he has
placed a layer of insulation in the form of CO2 gas around the earth. This
insulation has caused less heat units to leave the surface than the heat
units that arrive at the surface. You know this is possible because you
have experienced cloudy nights being warmer than clear nights. These
surplus units at the surface are causing temperatures to rise, but higher
temperatures will cause more heat units to leave the surface. Rising
temperatures will continue until there is a new balance of in and out heat
units. The big question is: "How high a temperature will accompany the new
balance of heat units." No one knows the answer to this question, but the
temperature rise will follow the path of a `S' curve as the exchange of
heat units reaches a new balance.
We are forced to be on this curve until it levels out. Or in other
words, even if it were possible to stop mankind today from putting excess
carbon into the air, we would still be required to experience rising
temperatures until the current S curve is completed.
---------------------------------------------
Temperature at new balance --> *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* <-- Temperature at last balance
--------------------------------------------
No one knows our current position on this curve, only time will tell
us. We had a record high temperature in 1990 and now a new record of plus
one degree in 2000. If the next record occurs in less than ten years, that
will mean we are at the low end of the curve and can expect higher
temperatures to come. If the next record occurs in more than ten years,
that will mean we are at the high end of the curve and can expect
temperatures to level off.
But, if we continue to add insulation we can expect a larger `S' curve
to be superimposed on this current `S' curve and inturn much higher
temperatures before we reach a balance.
Venus has already reached its balance.
Thank you again.
Donald Davison
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: Sam Lightman <sam_lightman@saltspring.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000,
Subject: Re: The Venus Fly Trap Effect
You're right, it is off topic, and there are tons of sites related to
it that I could refer you to, but Google will do a better job. But I
have to say I'm amused because my understanding is that Venus did at
one time have a temperature and atmosphere not unlike earth's, and I
have always believed that if we could send a probe to Venus that
could withstand the temperature and penetrate to the surface, it
would find a whole bunch of rusting hulks of cars and air
conditioners there. So, as they say, you are not alone.
Sam Lightman
Donald: When our planet did a radar scan of Venus, I had hopes that a
pyramid or two would be reveled, but no such luck. Maybe some of Venus'
space junk can be found on their moon, if they have a moon.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: Restore Hope in America <poverty@mtolympus.ari.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 12:28:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: The Venus Fly Trap Effect
A bit interesting piece, but nothing in it to justify changing Greenhouse
Effect to Venus Fly Trap effect. Greenhouse effect is technically correct
and has been used long enough so that few, if any, are under the
impression that it is "good." PBS has been running some very interesting
documentaries on the changing weather patterns and based on extensive
evaluation of long-term temperature "recordings" from around the world
they have developed a record covering over one thousand years. And in
fact, the past decade has seen some increases that are absolutely the
result of man-made causes.
It is something to be very concerned with, but to change the name to Venus
Fly Trap effect would not, IMO, do anything to emphasize the problem any
more than Greenhouse does now.
David R. Quammen
Restore Hope In America
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: William Evans <williamevans@HOME.COM>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000,
Subject: Re: The Venus Fly Trap Effect,
Donald E Davison wrote:
> Once this starts happening temperatures will rise faster.
> Try to have a nice day,
> Donald Davison
Oh sure, no problem...
a different problem...what's to say that rising temps caused by fossil
fuel burning (or is this just tied in w/ sunspot cycle- who's to say)
..cause the ice sheets to melt( it's happening presently)
....warmer air can hold more moisture.... This would offset rising sea levels
ie. No sealevel flooding as predicted
heck that's no fun, no catastrophe,
or rising CO2 levels cause a greening of the earth like none
seen in recent history. THis "greening" ,so to speak,
could take up some of this excess CO2, the excess moisture in the atmosphere
due to heat and moisture released by plants causing relatively more
clouds>>>blocking more light from reaching the ground >>>more reflected
light back out to space... less heat stored in the atmosphere
drama's over...
bill e
who's not sayin' it couldnt happen any otherway, just that there's other
scenarios
Donald: You cannot say that the melting ice will be offset by the increased
water in the air. During the ice age the oceans were lower and today most
of that ice has melted and the oceans have risen.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: Sophia Roberts <songhealer@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000,
Subject: Re: The Venus Fly Trap Effect
Thanks for caring.... Actually, the information I have had for several
years is that this warming is a precursor to the next ice age, which is
decidedly less cozy sounding than global warming. Find a video called
"Stopping the Coming Ice Age" by Larry Ephron.
Thanks again, Sophia Roberts
Donald: At one time, I too felt the warming would bring on a ice age. The
increased water in the air would mean more snow being dropped in the colder
regions of the Earth, but it does not seem to be working like that, we are
having warming and the ice and snow are decreasing at the poles and
Greenland.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: Stan Czerno <stan@czerno.com>,
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000,
Subject: RE: The Venus Fly Trap Effect
The story sounds better than the Mission to Mars script. I think you are on
to something here. Write it!
Donald: Will do.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: Hugh Joseph <hjoseph@emerald.tufts.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000
Subject: Re: The Venus Fly Trap Effect,
Since we'll all be in deep doo-doo, as you say, why not call it the
Outhouse Effect?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: margaret human <lewishuman@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 16:27:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: The Venus Fly Trap Effect
very important idea----please keep working on the title-----some of us also
love--even feel almost warm and cuddly toward--the venus flytrap.---green
blessings - margaret human
Donald: After reading all these replies, my current thinking is that I'll
use the title, "The Venus Greenhouse Trap".
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: "John D'hondt" <dhondt@eircom.net>,
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000
Subject: Re: The Venus Fly Trap Effect
Dear Donald,
1) suggest you drop "Fly Trap" and use just "The Venus Effect". This gives
you the chance to put a nubile female on the cover of your book and should
be a good sales argument any time.
Also by using "Fly Trap" you might give people the impression that you
compare them with flies. That is a non starter.
2)What temperature would be the point of no return? There are some of us
who are afraid that we are already past the point of no return.
a) There are two factors playing at present; there are the "Venus
gasses" like CO2 that help to warm up the planet, but there is a lot of
other pollution, like SO2 that reflects a lot of heat back into space. SO2
will eventually come down under the form of acid rain and thereby harm the
vegetation of the world, making temperatures rise faster. To stop this type
of pollution would mean an immediate fast temperature rise, to keep it
going means the building up of a debt that we will pay for in the future.
b) Generally speaking we know that a plants metabolism, for example CO2
uptake and O2 excretion, increases with rising temperatures. But plants
also take up O2 to metabolize their self manufactured carbohydrates and
then excrete CO2. Once a plant is under temperature stress this balance can
become negative.
Given sufficient moisture plants attempt to keep their internal
temperature and their immediate environment below temperature stress point.
The higher the biomass the better this works. The temperature at the bottom
of the tropical rainforest can be a good bit lower than in a field in
Alaska in mid summer.
The temperature in the greenhouse may be higher than the temp. of the
actual plants. The more abundant the growth in your greenhouse the lower
the actual temperature.
But if the internal temp. of a plant rises above about 135F fast
denaturation of enzymes takes place. Most plants can not survive 147F
internal for very long if at all.( This is what flame weeding does ) Some
of course will start dying at well below 100F (alpine flora), while lichens
can take 160F.
It is especially bad news that the best natural air conditioning
systems in the world ( rain forests and oceans) are also most sensitive.
P.S : "The Venus Trap Effect" is not bad either, as long as you drop
the flies.
Regards John
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: "trevor lovatt" <hioag@xtra.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 13:01:00 +1200
Subject: Re: The Venus Fly Trap Effect
True and it will continue as long as profit is the incentive for
production. No amount of logic will persuade capitalists to regard the
environment before profit. The only possible solution is to produce for need
rather than profit. Trev. from N.Z.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: Tony & Moira Ryan <theryans@XTRA.CO.NZ>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000
Subject: Re: The Venus Fly Trap Effect
Hi Donald
Your letter speculating on a possible future for the world does indeed
merit our serious consideration, However, I must first make a plea on
behalf of the poor innocent Venus Fly Trap, a plant which my children
when young grew, teased (with a pencil) and occasionally fed (with small
insects) to the great entertainment of us all. "Venus effect" or "Venus
Trap" by all means, but for my part I cannot stomach "Venus Fly Trap" in
such a pejorative use.
Now to come back to the serious import of your thesis. As we normally
use the Centigrade scale here I am lucky that I have a very convenient
set of conversion tables so we can converse in the same language and of
course your 212F becomes our 100C - the boiling point of water at sea level.
There is, as far as I know absolutely no chance of any life surviving
this temperature indefinitely, though there are a few highly-adapted
organisms which do in fact live successfully in very hot springs only a
little below boiling point.
For the highest temperatures at which organisms in general can actually
live and flourish, I guess we already have some indication from the
countries bordering on the major deserts, particularly the Arabian one.
Some of our list members who have personal experience of the Gulf States
and similar places are much better placed than I am to comment, but at a
guess somewhere between 55 and 60C (roughly 130-140F) must surely be
about the upper limit for this (and only for a few plants or animals
with special adaptations anyway).
As such temperatures do in fact already exist, even if only momentarily
or seasonally, in a few parts of the globe, it is not too difficult to
envisage the effect spreading gradually, just as the rainless area of
the Sahara has steadily spread for at least the last two millenia.
Perhaps that spread may not seem so rapid when placed in the context of
two million years, but the disquieting thing is that, as I gather, the
spreading has greatly accelerated even in my lifetime of just over 70
years and, if the last few years of drought in the sub-Sahara, such as
the current crisis in Ethiopia and Somalia, are any indication, may get
faster still in the next few years, until in effect more than half the
great African continent is denied to the use of living things in general
and certainly to the occupation of man.
You may be interested to know, by the way, that a comparable rise in
mean temperature, such as you mention for the USA, has also been noted
recently in NZ, which suggests the phenomenon is widespread and probably
global. Another thing we here are much aware of, because of our relative
proximity, is the very early signs of heating of Antarctia, with the
partial breakup of the previously apparently permanent Ross ice sheet.
This is of more than academic interest to the southern Pacific, because
any rise in sea level, which will almost certainly result if this
continues, will threaten the very existence of many of the numerous
small island nations which dot its waters. A lot of these are no more
than a series of coral atolls and it would take no more than a rise of
two or three metres to annihilate many of them.
Of course, while the greenhouse effect may well be speeding up the
action, major fluctuations of climate (both warmer and colder) are well
documented throughout the world's history and have doubtless led in the
past to great re-arrangements (often accompanied by extinctions) of the
populations of both plants and animals.
Your "worst scenario" is however a timely warning of how such a
fluctuation could get totally our of hand due to mankind's continued
tecnological tampering with forces they could well be unable to control.
Moira,
Tony & Moira Ryan <theryans@xtra.co.nz>
Wainuiomata, New Zealand. (on the "Ring of Fire" in the SW Pacific).
Lat. 41:16S, Long. 174:58E. Climate: Mediterranean/Temperate
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: "Joel B. Gruver" <jgruver@PRINCIPIA.EDU>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000,
Subject: Greenhouse effect vs. global climate change
Hello to all...
When teaching about the greenhouse effect during an "Environmental
Chemistry" class last term, I very specifically differentiated between the
terms "greenhouse effect" and "global warming/climate change". I taught
that the "greenhouse effect" is a very important natural phenomena in which
naturally occuring IR absorbing gases cause the earth's atmosphere to be
approximately 30 degrees C warmer than the -15 C it would be without the
presence of IR absorbing gases. The great diversity and abundance of liquid
water based life that occurs on earth today would be very unlikely on a
planet with an average temperature of -15 C.
The global climate effects of anthropogenically enhanced levels of IR
active gases (CO2, N20 and methane are the big 3) and depletion of
stratospheric ozone by interactions with synthetic chemicals such as
chlorofluorocarbons and methyl bromide are not natural like the "greenhouse
effect".
Joel Gruver, Visiting Faculty, Principia College, Elsah, Illinois 62028
(618) 374 - 5289, jgruver@principia.edu
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: "John" <jfmanni@ibm.net>,
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000
Subject: Re: The Venus Fly Trap Effect
I'm concerned about it, too. The only thing I know of to individually
counter-act the effect is to plant trees. We all should become modern-day
Johnny Appleseeds. John Manning
Donald: Yes, planting trees is one thing we can do, but there is a long
laundry list of things we should stop doing. We need to reduce putting
carbon into the air, and that includes stopping all unnecessary uses of
carbon. Anyone ready to turn the public off by starting this list?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: brent rooney <whatsup@vcn.bc.ca>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 08:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: The Venus Fly Trap Effect
Dear Donald E. Davison,
Hi. The April 2000 issue of The American Spectator has
an article that debunks global warming, written by two scientists.
And they provide a website address with the references to back up
the assertions they make in the article. In big cities there is a
local warming effect from all the energy expended, which is why
any measurements based on city temperatures are deceptive.
Health,
Brent Rooney
www.nocancer.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: Jiri Polak <jiri.polak@swipnet.se>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 01:12:46 +0200
Subject: Re: The Venus Fly Trap Effect
Hello Donald and everybody! Global warming is a very serious threat. We all
must be concerned about it. My colleagues and myself believe that the only way
to stop the process leading to an environmental catastrophe is to apply
political pressure from below, i.e. to complete the representative system by
I&R (i.e. Direct Democracy). Otherwise big business and corrupt politicians
will go on to the bitter end. Environmental protection should be considered the
most powerful argument in favor of DD.
With my best regards Jiri Polak
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: omjones@freewwweb.com
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 17:21:26 -0700
Subject: Re: The Venus Fly Trap Effect
I find your diatribe on the nonsensical "greenhouse effect" to be plain
silly. For your edification, at the risk of confusing you with facts...
Enter Stage Right: http://www.enterstageright.com/0400globalwarm.htm
Donald: Dear O. M. Jones, Thank you for sharing your opening words with us.
I also want to thank you for the following article by Carlisle.
Cooling off on global warming
By John K. Carlisle, web posted April 24, 2000
The American public is going cold on global warming.
John K: For more than a decade, environmentalists have warned that man-made
greenhouse gases are causing a litany of environmental disasters such as
soaring temperatures, melting glaciers and a sharp rise in sea levels that
would flood seaboard cities.
John K: But these dire warnings are increasingly falling on deaf ears
because environmentalists can't back up their apocalyptic predictions with
evidence. Ruefully noted John Immerwahr, who conducted a study for the
American Geophysical Union, "The more we talk about global warming, the
[more the] public's concern goes down."
John K: Hence, the environmental movement's insistence on making global
warming the theme for this year's Earth Day in an attempt to keep it on the
media radar screen will only jade a public weary of an issue whose hype
isn't matched by the reality.
John K: Take the predictions of rapid warming. Officials with the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the body that has
been the principal advocate of the global warming theory, have admitted
that their predictions of major temperature increases were wrong. In 1990,
the IPCC predicted that global temperatures would rise 6° F by 2100.
Just three years later, the IPCC adjusted its warming projection downward,
forecasting that temperatures would rise less than 2° F, a noticeable
temperature increase but hardly a cause for concern. Natural temperature
increases of 3° to 4° F have occurred in past centuries and have
generally benefited humanity by prolonging growing seasons and promoting
mild weather.
Donald: Only fools would attempt to predict the temperature for the year
2100. Which also makes both Jones and John K. Carlisle fools for passing
this garbage along. It should have been apparent to those two that these
officials of the UN did not know what they are doing. Their actions have no
bearing on the status of the Greenhouse Effect.
John K: But it is significant that the world's temperature is not rising.
Predictions of global warming are not coming true. NASA's Tiros weather
satellites, the most accurate barometers of global temperature, show that
the Earth has slightly cooled since 1979, contradicting global warming
doomsayers who predicted that human-induced warming should have caused the
temperature to increase 0.6° F by now.
Donald: I am willing to accept the fact that Tiros showed cooled
temperatures since 1979, but Jones and Carlisle are misreading what this
means. It means that less heat is being radiated from the surface to the
Tiros satellites. This is because the Earth now has an extra layer of
insulation around it since 1979. The Tiros satellites are on the cool side
of this insulation, but we are on the hot side. I am more concerned about
surface temperatures than orbit temperatures, being as I will be down here
on the surface if and when the temperatures do rise.
Temperatures can best be recorded by digging a hole into the earth,
inserting a temperature probe, and back filling the hole. We are not
concerned about different probes around the world having different average
temperatures, this will happen. We are concerned about changes up and down.
John K: Recent scientific research is also disproving claims that global
warming is causing the sea level to dangerously rise. In October 1999, a
team of scientists led by Dr. Howard Conway of the University of Washington
reported that the massive West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), considered to be
especially vulnerable to alleged global warming, is not melting due to
human influences. Dr. Conway said the gradual melting of the WAIS "appears
to be part of an ongoing natural cycle" of melting that began when the ice
age ended 10,000 years ago. It will take several thousand years before this
melting ice sheet would even begin to affect seaboard cities - assuming the
Earth doesn't enter a new ice age.
Donald: This means nothing. Dr Howard Conway gives no facts nor proof that
human influences are not assisting the natural cycle of melting. He is
merely expressing an opinion, off the top of his head.
John K: In light of such mounting evidence, environmentalist efforts to
claim scientific support for the global warming theory are foundering. The
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a liberal advocacy organization,
points to the 1,500 scientists who signed a 1997 UCS document endorsing
major cuts in greenhouse gases as evidence of scientific support for the
global warming theory. But since then, nearly 17,000 scientists have signed
a petition, organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine,
which declares that, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human
release of... greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable
future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere." The signers
include 2,100 climatologists, meteorologists and environmental scientists
who are especially well-qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide
on the Earth's climate.
Donald: This also means nothing. This would not be the first time that a
large body of so called experts were wrong.
John K: Given the deepening scientific and public skepticism over global
warming, environmentalists would have done better to choose another issue
as their theme for Earth Day 2000. When it comes to global warming,
environmentalists may have cried wolf one too many times.
Donald: It may not be popular with Jones, Carlisle, and the public, but it
is the correct issue because it is an issue that could boil us all alive if
left unattended.
It is not a question of "crying wolf one too many times", it is a
question of crying wolf over and over until enough people pay attention. If
we are wrong there will be little damage compared to the hell to be paid if
they are wrong.
John K. Carlisle is the director of The National Center for Public Policy
Research's Environmental Policy Task Force. Comments may be sent to
JCarlisle@nationalcenter.org. The center can be found at
http://www.nationalcenter.org
Donald: O M Jones said that he did not want to confusing me with facts.
John's paper had few facts and those few did not support their position
that we should stick our heads in the sand.
Regards, Donald E Davison
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 11 2000 - 22:02:12 EDT