- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Greetings,
This Digest contains:
* I have seen the Future, and it is Grim:
* More replies to my Venus Trap letter
* Plus some posts dealing with allied points.
* Humor
Again, I thank everyone who sent in comments, including those of you
who still do not believe mankind is causing the current rise in
temperatures.
I have abridged some of the letters.
Regards, Donald Davison
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* I have seen the Future, and it is Grim:
by Donald Davison
You too can see our future on this planet, but in order to see the
future you must understand the present, and in order to understand the
present you need to know the past.
Did I lose you? Well, allow me to walk you through this.
Our planet has been having cycles of Ice Ages and Interglacial warm
periods. The last four Ice Ages lasted about 100,000 years each, seperated
by warm periods that lasted about 10,000 years.
Up until now, the coming and going of Ice Ages were the result of the
natural cooling and warming cycles of our planet, which are the result of
the natural cycles of CO2 decreasing and increasing in the air.
In order to understand these cycles of CO2 you must first know that
part of the equation is that there is CO2 coming out of the earth at all
times. Plants and water collect this CO2 and the carbon gets converted into
other compounds. While it is true that much of this carbon will be recycled
back into CO2, some will be stored in top soil, peat, coal, oil,
carbonates, and we cannot omit the living plants and animals which make up
a huge storehouse of carbon. It is necessary to store carbon so that we do
not get an excess of CO2.
During warm periods the planet gets covered wall to wall with trees,
too many trees for the available CO2. This causes more CO2 to be taken out
of the air than the amount that is coming into the air. The CO2 levels
slowly drop and drop and the planet becomes cooler and cooler until the
planet goes into an ice age.
But, during an ice age there are less trees to collect CO2, and less
CO2 is collect by water because of the lower levels and less weather
action. As a result CO2 levels build up in the air and the planet goes into
a warm period.
This is the natural cycling of our planet, at least it was for the
last million or more years, but no more, we, mankind, are now playing a
hand in this cycle. Thanks to us, the planet no longer has wall to wall
trees, no longer has an excess of trees, instead carbon is coming out of
storage and being converted into an excess of CO2.
The last Ice Age ended about 10,000 years ago, so the start of the
next ice age has been expected. Well, the next ice age did start a few
centuries ago, but it ended in the mid-1800s. Because it ended it is called
the Little Ice Age. I suppose if it had not ended it would be called the
Big Ice Age, not that it would be bigger than any other ice age, but big to
us because it would be here, right now, in our face. It would have been our
personal ice age.
The question is, why did it end? Mankind is the answer.
Accidentally, mankind nipped our personal ice age in the bud. We have
been removing trees and burning carbon for thousands of years, with the
result that the scales happened to be tipped soon after our ice age got
started. We, unknowingly, stopped our ice age and continued the warm
period.
Are you glad that we are not now going into an Ice Age? I am, but
what happens next? I say we should take our winnings and quit, that is,
quit adding CO2 to the air and running up the temperatures. How hot do we
want it to get?
The grim specter is that there is nothing on the horizon to check the
rising carbon dioxide level and make it go down. Our planet did get wall to
wall trees during this warm period but we humans removed so many that now
there is not enough to cause CO2 levels to go down.
It has been claimed, "If CO2 levels deviated up or down, then the
oceans would release or absorb as needed." This is not true, the oceans
cannot pick up the slack. The CO2 levels are up thirty percent over
pre-industrial levels and is thirty percent after all absorptions by oceans
and the remaining trees.
Normally, CO2 would be going down at this time in a warm period.
Mankind is making the levels go up and only mankind can make them come
down. If you would like to play God, now is the time to do it.
Because of lag time between CO2 levels and peak temperatures, we need
to do something now to reverse levels, we should at least hold CO2 at
current levels until we see the effect of this first thirty percent rise
before we add another thirty percent.
If we were to plot the combined greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and
methane, for past time periods, we would have a curve that would rise and
fall. By also adding a plot of temperatures to this chart, we will have two
curves that rise and fall, but not at the same time. We should be able to
detect a lag time between the peaks of the greenhouse gases and the
following temperature peaks.
I have been trying to find this data on the internet so I could plot
these curves myself, but with no luck so far. If anyone knows where this
data can be obtained please let me know. Or, better yet, maybe someone has
already made these plots. I am interested in finding out how long these lag
times can be.
Long lag time is going to be our nemesis - our curse. Our temperatures
are rising, but these current temperatures are not the peak temperatures we
are going to experience as a result of the CO2 we have already added to the
air. Yes, even if we hold CO2 at current levels, we can expect higher
temperatures until there is a balance of heat-in heat-out. It will take a
lag time to reach this balance, lag times can be long, and the longer they
are the higher the peak temperatures will be.
And of course, if we continue to increase CO2 levels we are going to
add more degrees to the final peak temperatures.
The future I see for this planet is extreme high temperatures
rendering many areas unfit for life, nations at war fighting for prime real
estate areas like Siberia, Greenland, Canada, Alaska, and the Antarctic.
Then it will get worst, these areas that now have trees will have most
of their trees removed to make way for farming and living space for
displaced populations. I wonder if Slash and Burn will be used to clear
these lands.
And remember, no matter how hot it gets there is still the Grim
Specter of nothing on the horizon to check the greenhouse gases and make
them and temperatures go down.
I have seen the future, and it is grim. What do you see?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 19:03:39 -0500
From: Bradford Lyttle <blyttle@igc.org>
Subject: Re: The Venus Fly Trap Effect
Dear Donald Davison--Thank you for your post regarding global warming. It
is my impression that many scientists are worried about this, but I am
aware of none of them who are as worried as you. Also, it is my impression
that most scientists believe that there is time for global warming to be
understood, and for appropriate measures to be taken to stop or reverse it.
Why do you disagree with these scientists?--Sincerely, Bradford Lyttle
Donald: I believe that a major part of the current warming of this planet
is being caused by mankind.
I also believe that the worst case scenario is that we will push
our planet into a Venus type greenhouse. If we allow warming to continue,
our future will be that scenario, no other. We would be foolish to merely
think that warming will go up a bit and then come down, without any great
problem.
`Now is the Hour' "...for appropriate measures to be taken to stop
or reverse..." the warming. There is too big of a lag time for us to wait
and take more "...time for global warming to be understood..."
What more is there to understand? We either decrease warming or we
have a Venus Greenhouse.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 21:17:14 -0300
From: Kevin Chisholm <kchishol@FOX.NSTN.CA>
Subject: Re: OT... GLobal warming's dirty secret
The layman can only resort to common sense and first hand experience.
What have I seen over the past few years? Are droughts more frequent?
Are storms more severe? Are Environment related insurance rates going
up? Are the buds coming out earlier? Do I see different birds in the
spring? Are the same birds arriving earlier? Do I see different plants
growing in my area? If I see most of these things happening, then I know
there are fundamental changes at play. They confirm that it is very
likely that there is indeed validity to the claims of a Greenhouse Gas
Effect. The beauty of "first hand experience and observation" is that
all filters and slants, except for those of our own introduction, are
removed. If we see such things happening, then we are quite justified in
taking the position " You prove that there is no Greenhouse Effect"
OK....so if we assume that there is indeed a Greenhouse Effect at play,
what do we do about it? In the case of profound change, we have to be
very careful of what we ask..... we might actually get it. Do we want to
accept a carbon tax? Do we want to restrict our per capita energy
consumption? Do we want to pay twice as much for cars which are more
energy efficient? Do we want to pay 4 times as much for gasoline? Do we
want our electric power rates to double? Do we want laws which require
at least 4 people in a commuting car? Do we want regulations stating
that we have to live within 5 miles of our place of work?
These are some changes that may be necessary to get the Greenhouse Gas
problem under control. These are some of the burdens we will not have to
bear, if we do not control the Greenhouse Gas Problem.
What are we willing to do? Kevin Chisholm
Donald: The Armadillos are moving north out of Texas, but some claim they
are moving in an effort to get away from the Fire Ants. I suppose we should
now observe if the Fire Ants are also moving north.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 09:40:12 -0700
From: Loren Muldowney <loscott@envsci.rutgers.edu>
Subject: Re: OT... GLobal warming's dirty secret
I am an organic gardener mostly for environmental reasons, and one cannot
care about the environment of a 10 X 10 meter piece of ground and remain
indifferent to the big picture. And I am very concerned about my kids and
grandkids yet unborn, and I do not revel in the fact that *I* may be safely
dead by the time the horrible effects of today's actions are at their peak.
Long Lag time is almost ALWAYS the problem in any environmental problem.
If I meet in person a scientist who is unconcerned about the buildup of
CO2 in the atmosphere, I'll post it right here. 10 years ago there were
still some who had doubts. Mounting scientific evidence has convinced
most that this problem is real and is not going away. It is getting
worse, and there is no reason to expect a gradual, linear progression of
effects. That means that unexpected positive feedbacks could make our
"worst case" scenarios look positively rosy.
What exactly to do about it remains highly controversial.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 11:51:03 -0400
From: "Frederick S Hill, Jr." <hilljr_fs@juno.com>
Subject: Re: The Venus Fly Trap Effect
I don't believe the Earth is warming. Where is the proof? We've only
been measuring temperature for the last 100 years. How do we know what
the temperature was 200-250 years ago? What if it was hotter then than
now? I know scientists at NASA who say that the proof is simply not
there and that there is much more research to be completed before we
scare the hell out of everybody (which I'm afraid is happening). I
believe it is a conspiracy of the "radical left," plain and simple.
Temperately Yours, Fred Hill
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 16:26:38 -0400
From: "Donald Irvin-DR" <irvin.dr@pg.com>
Subject: Re: The Venus Fly Trap Effect
Just for the record, I don't believe in the global warming threry. There is
no proof no #1. There is no evidence #2
There is no evidence that man can cause global warming either #3. And finally,
if we were warming up there is nothing man could do to stop it.
In summary, I would like global warming.
My suggestion to you is to vote for AL Gore the environmental nut.
I will continue to trust God, not man to look out for the needs of [H]is planet.
Don D: It is God that is trusting us to look out for His planet.
If we don't do a good job, He doesn't need us.
How are we doing?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 09:00:00 -0700
From: "Tucker, Tom N" <tom.n.tucker@intel.com>
Subject: RE: First replies to the Venus Trap letter
Donald,
Regarding Venus's climatic history, you should check recent editions of
Scientific American which featured a scholarly article on just your
concerns. Turns out that Venus did once have a watery climate but due to
it's proximity to the sun and an increase in the solar output, the water
soon boiled-off and was list to UV disintegration and ejection in the upper
atmosphere.
CO2 can be removed from the atmosphere, you know, just as plants turn CO2
and H2O into wood, and the oceans turn CO2 into carbolic acid and deposit it
as calcium carbonate (e.g. the white cliffs of Dover, England), however,
nature's extraction rate is only about 1/3 the emissions rate of humans.
Technology could be used to augment this extraction rate.
Global warming results from an imbalance between influx and re-radiation of
heat by about 2% increase. So, what if a 2% reduction in solar influx could
be devised?
Regards, Tom Tucker, Olympia WA
Donald: Dear Tom, about one point you make. In my thinking and writing I
depend and use numbers supplied by others. I would like to depend and use
your statement that nature's extraction rate of CO2 is only about 1/3 the
emissions rate of humans. May I ask where you found this number? If true,
it is a big revelation to me. I did not realize that the imbalance was as
large as that.
Thank you, Donald
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 14:57:17 -0400
From: Stephen Childs <slc18@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: VEG-PROD> The Venus Fly Trap Effect
Just a couple of questions. What was earth like when all that carbon now
held in fossil fuels was up in the atmosphere? Things obviously were
growing well??? Where did you get the idea Venus was ever cooler than it
is now??? Steve
Dear Steve, All the carbon now held in fossil fuels never was in the
atmosphere at the same time.
CO2 has been leaking out of our planet since it was formed, and is
still leaking CO2 now and will continure to do so far into the future. In
order for us to have stable conditions on the surface of our Earth, every
year this planet needs to put into storage an average amount of carbon
equal to the average amount of CO2 that is leaking out of the earth each
year. We must think of this as a savings account, an account that will
safeguard life on Earth. Life as we know it cannot survive unless carbon is
safely saved in storage.
But, mankind is making large withdrawals on this savings account.
Venus and Earth were formed at the same time from the same dust cloud.
We have every right to believe that Venus has gone through the same type of
events as Earth, including life, but Venus has reached the `Final Solution'
quicker because it is closer to the Sun, Earth will take a bit longer.
Mankind's actions will insure that Earth will reach this Final Solution,
but most likely, not in our lifetime, lucky us.
Donald,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:31:43 -0400
From: "Stephan A. Schwartz" <saschwartz@earthlink.net>
Subject: NEWS REPORT: Neuroscience and Climate Change
List member David Stoney,Ph.D. a Neuroscientist, and Associate Professor at
the University of Georgia Medical School sent in the following commentary
on the recent post about climate change. -- Stephan
COMMENTARY - A link between climate and human consciousness?
As the West Antarctic Ice Shelf threatens to collapse under the
influence of rapidly increasing global warming, mind-body dualism - as a
viable philosophical basis for understanding self and world - has collapsed
under the heat and light of a massive amount of new scientific evidence.
This new research shows that what we can know and perceive is very dependent
on our brains, and on the cultural milieu in which we develop. The
neuroscientific and anthropological data show that we are smarter today
than we were 50,000 years ago because we have created a smarter environment,
not because our brains are any better.
While there is a powerful lobby in Neuroscience for assigning mind to
brain on a 1:1 basis, this approach is actually contrary to experience,
which is that we can and do actually come to know a real world. The
alternative to the mind = brain notion is to consider mind to be a dynamic
singularity of the interaction of self, brain, body, and world, in which
case mind is actually a distributed function of brain, body, and world.
This dynamic systems approach is, in my judgement, the best we have right
now.
However, if mind is a dynamic, distributed process, then a serious
problem for modern culture and consciousness, a problem that could be
related to rapid global climate change, may be present. The problem is
this: The interdependence of mind/consciousness on brain and world (culture
& society) means that a major disruption of society & culture (as would
occur if Nature delivers a rapid, unexpected 1 - 2 punch of rapid warming
and cooling) could disrupt our modern mode of consciousness. To appreciate
the seriousness of this problem, a passing familiarity with the history of
the development of human beings is helpful. In particular, recall the
following points:
> The hominid line has developed during the current 3 million year
long ice age with its cycles of long, cold (glacial) periods and short, warm
(interglacial) periods;
> Our brains have been about as big as they are now for the last
100,000 years or so;
> A more participatory (tribal), less individuated mode of
embodied human consciousness persisted and presumably flourished for many
tens of thousands of years under the oral tradition (before the advent of
literacy midway in this interglacial period),
In view of this history, it seems quite possible that rapid, unexpected, and
abrupt global climate change could propel us back to a less differentiated
mode of consciousness that could, under a worst case scenario, persist for
all of the next glacial period. In a nutshell, I am suggesting that, like
the climate system, embodied human consciousness may also be bi-stable. The
default mode for our consciousness, the mode that may persist over long
periods, especially following an unprecedented physical and emotional shock,
in conjunction with very difficult living conditions and greatly reduced
habitable land area, may be quite different from the variety that we take
for granted today.
In any case, the specter of a possible collapse not only of
civilization, but also of the mode of consciousness that it supports - the
type that accounts for our experience as self-aware, free individuals - is
not just scary for me, it is horrific. I believe that our society should
take the lead in beginning to make preparations for dealing with the
possibility of an imminent 1 - 2 punch from Nature. There should be no
doubt that we can hold together as a society and a nation, while maintaining
critical aspects of consciousness, freedom, and liberty, as well as setting
an example for the world, if we are willing to work together toward a shared
vision. The alternative of our failure produces a world we will scarcely
recognize.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 01:41:07 -0400
From: "Stephan A. Schwartz" <saschwartz@earthlink.net>
Subject: NEWS REPORT:
In response to numerous requests, this is the latest information I can find
about the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Many climatologists feel this is not a good
sign. Note the last sentence. -- Stephan
SOURCE: http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/05/10/icebergs.02/index.html
Three massive icebergs break off Antarctic ice shelf
May 10, 2000, Web posted at: 6:41 p.m. EDT (2241 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Three enormous icebergs have broken free of Antarctica's
Ronne Ice Shelf and are now floating free.
The three icebergs, each roughly rectangular and with a combined surface
area slightly smaller than the state of Connecticut, are believed to have
broken loose sometime between May 4 and May 6, according to observers at the
National Ice Center.
The Ronne Shelf is located in the Weddell Sea, which is in the portion of
Antarctica nearest to the continent of South America.
The past several years have seen an unusually rapid calving of icebergs from
the Ronne Ice Shelf and from the Ross Ice Shelf, which is located on the
part of Antarctica closest to New Zealand. Some scientists believe that the
increased activity could be an early sign of global warming.
Mariners are concerned that these enormous bergs could break up and drift
northward into the foggy waters of the South Atlantic Ocean, creating
navigation hazards.
The center, which is operated jointly by the U.S. Navy, Coast Guard and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, gave the bergs alphanumeric
identification numbers.
The largest iceberg, A-43A, measures 107 miles by 21 miles (211 kilometers
by 33 kilometers); A-43B is 53 miles by 23 miles (85 kilometers by 37
kilometers); and A-44 is 41 miles by 20 miles (65 kilometers by 32 kilometers).
Despite their size, the three icebergs will not contribute to the
anticipated sea level rise associated with predictions of global warming.
Only land-bound ice, adding its volume to ocean waters, would contribute to
the one to three foot rise in sea levels which climate scientists predict
for the coming century.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 13:50:04 -0500
From: "Raymond R. Weil" <rw17@umail.umd.edu>
Subject: Carbon Sequestration
I wish I had time to go into the details, but alas I do not. However, I do
want to state that many soils have been degraded by cultivation, and that
increasing organic matter contents of these soils to levels close to what
they were under natural vegetation represents a major potential
contribution to the improving the global carbon imbalance over a period of
25 to 50 years. Beyond that time, the new soil organic matter levels would
be about as high as they are going to get, so no further net carbon
sequestration would be possible in that soil.
Soil organic matter is not a trivial part of the global carbon cycle. In
fact soil organic matter accounts for about 3 times as much carbon (1500 to
2400 Pg) as found in ALL of the worlds forest trees, grass, marches, crops
and all other vegetation (total of about 550 Pg). Some of the carbon added
to soils will remain in the soil for only a few years before it is respired
and returned to the atmosphere, but some will be humified or protected in
soil aggregates so that it lasts in the soil for centuries. Forest tree
growth can also make a contribution to carbon sequestration, but again only
over a few decades while the forest is regenerating. Once it has matured,
carbon losses pretty much equal the gains in new growth, so there is little
further net sequestration.
There can be no question that soil and land management, along with
fossil fuel burning, have played a big role in increasing the atmosphere's
CO2 concentration during the past century or so. The big culprits have been
the burning of forest land, mainly to clear it for agriculture, and
cultivation of agricultural lands by methods requiring soil tillage. Fruits
and vegetable production plays a minor role in this balance globally,
because so little land is devoted to these crops. But the production of
grains, staple foods and forages involves huge expanses of land, and so the
management of these enterprises is of material importance to the global
warming equation.
Generally, less tillage is better than more tillage. Better for the soil
and for the environment (global warming, erosion, etc.). And, by the way,
many studies have clearly shown that reducing tillage reduces the amounts
of fossil fuel energy used in farming. Ray Weil
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 ,
From: Kangas <kangas@ultranet.com>
Subject: Re: 5/10/00 Digest from the Venus Greenhouse
I hope it is enough of a reply to simply state that I agree with your
assessment that it is humankind who is causing the current rise in global
temperature. --Jeanne
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 08:47:50 -0700
From: "Tucker, Tom N" <tom.n.tucker@intel.com>
Subject: RE: You hinted that technology could be used.
Donald,
Conservation and efficiency are important, but they are clearly not a
solution as is commonly presented by consultants. The day of doubling of
atmospheric CO2 will merely be put off by a decade or two at best if the US
adopted strict conservation measures. They all ignore the simple fact that
with the US population doubling every 50-70 years, that if we all cut our
energy consumption by 50%, then by 2070 our CO2 emissions would be exactly
where they are now.
Regarding the CO2 absorption of 1/3, this figure is from one of many
scientific reports that I can't cite since it has not been properly indexed
yet, but perhaps the following will suffice. CO2 is absorbed by the ocean
which creates carbolic acid H2CO3, which, being mildly acidic, reacts with
calcium salts to form calcium carbonate or CaCO3 (e.g. the white cliffs of
Dover, England). The wind swept seas is an excellent mixing boundary
between the atmosphere and ocean. Some refer to this natural regulation rate
as the Gia or goddess phenomena which has the Earth acting as a natural
regulator of climate for the benefit of humanity. The steady state is the
pre-industrial level of CO2 which researchers often use as a baseline. If
CO2 levels deviated up or down, then the ocean would release or absorb as
needed.
Regards, Tom Tucker
Donald: The current CO2 levels are now thirty percent above the baseline
and the oceans do not seem to be able to `absorb as needed'. You, yourself,
have said that nature's extraction rate is only abut one third the
emissions rate of humans. Somebody should wake up Gia, the goddess, and
tell her to start regulating.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Subject: Humor to lighten up
Morris was removing some engine valves from a car on the lift
when he spotted the famous heart surgeon Dr. Michael DeBakey, who
was standing off to the side, waiting for the service manager.
Morris, somewhat of a loud mouth, shouted across the garage, "Hey
DeBakey . . . . Is dat you ? Come over here a minute."
The famous surgeon, a bit surprised, walked over to where Morris
was working on a car.
Morris in a loud voice, all could hear, said argumentatively,
"So Mr. fancy doctor, look at this work. I also take valves out,
grind 'em, put in new parts, and when I finish this baby will
purr like a kitten. So how come you get the big bucks, when you
and me are doing basically the same work?"
DeBakey, very embarrassed, said softly to Morris,..
"Try doing your work with the engine running."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@cals.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@cals.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 : Mon Jul 03 2000 - 12:00:36 EDT