This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------030105050003030309070009
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The following article indicates we must reduce atmospheric CO2 to 350
ppm (parts per million) if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change
(ie, sea level hundreds of feet higher, or worse) for our descendants.
We are currently at 385 ppm. The article says this can only be achieved
by immediate and drastic reductions in the use of fossil fuels.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174930
I followed the embedded links in the article to the following two
articles:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=10657
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf
The first, by Jim Hansen (a NASA scientist), deals with some of the
political realities that will have to be tackled to get people to
understand the problem and then to force their "leaders" to take
action. The second is the scientific paper by Jim Hansen and 8 others,
which is the basis for the other two articles. I don't pretend to fully
understand everything in the scientific article, but I was able to get
the gist of it, and it's very frightening. These guys have been very
thorough. I used to be a proponent of burning coal to get us through
the critical period of peak oil. No more. I see now that we must stop
burning coal
Recently there have been articles in the lay press pooh-poohing the
affects of CO2 on global warming, pointing out that historical increases
in CO2 levels have lagged behind the initial trend reversals. Hansen et
al explain that as follows:
"GHG (Greenhouse Gas) and surface albedo changes are mechanisms
causing the large global climate changes in Fig. 1, but they do not
initiate these large climate swings. Instead changes of GHGs and sea
level (a measure of ice sheet size) lag temperature change by typically
several hundred years (6, 7, 21, 22).
"GHG and surface albedo changes are positive climate feedbacks.
Major glacial-interglacial climate swings are instigated by slow changes
of Earth's orbit, especially the tilt of Earth's spinaxis relative to
the orbital plane and the precession of the equinoxes that influences
the intensity of summer insolation (23, 24).... a warming climate
causes net release of GHGs. The most effective GHG feedback is release
of CO2 by the ocean, due partly to temperature dependence of CO2
solubility but mostly to increased ocean mixing in a warmer climate,
which acts to flush out deep ocean CO2 and alters ocean biological
productivity (25).
"GHG and surface albedo feedbacks respond and contribute to
temperature change caused by any climate forcing, natural or human-made,
given sufficient time."
In other words, natural climate change is initiated by the Earth's orbit
and tilt (and to a lesser extent by the Sun's output), but is then
amplified by feedback from the absorption or release of GHG caused by
the initial trend reversal. But the feedback mechanism works whether
the initial trend reversal is due to the Earth's orbit, or due to our
dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere through human activity.
What I find most frightening about this article is that the initial
temperature change human activity has already forced may cause enough
GHG release from the ocean and permafrost to cause further climate
change that's irreversible except on a geological scale, and the amount
of GHGs thus released could swamp our own initial contribution.
Up until now, I have seen US military and foreign policy as the single
most im****tant political issue. To be sure, the billions we are
spending on war and the military, along with Greenspan's monitizing of
the resultant debt, are what's behind both the weakness in the dollar
and the formation and then collapse of the housing bubble. And whatever
we spend on military hardware is unavailable for education, health care
and tranforming our economy to carbon neutrality.
After reading these articles, I have a new awareness of the criticality
of CO2 emission. Much has been made of the fact that China now emits
more CO2 than the US. However, they have 4 times our population. The
US emits far more CO2 per capita than any other country. We are truly
the low hanging fruit on this issue, and it's time for us to start
providing leader****p by example. We must not wait for other countries
to make adjustments. We must act now, unilaterally. The recent CAFE
standards enacted by Congress are woefully inadequate. They should be
much higher. Our state legislatures need to mandate higher percentages
of wind and solar electrical generation. to encourage homeowners to
install state of the art solar panels and to require utilities to
purchase excess energy generated by residential solar and wind. We can
put unemployed Americans to work converting our economy to a
sustainable, carbon neutral model.
One beneficial effect of such a course of action will be to reduce the
perceived need to control the energy resources of the Middle East.
Billl
--------------030105050003030309070009
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
The following article indicates we must reduce atmospheric CO2 to 350
ppm (parts per million) if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change
(ie, sea level hundreds of feet higher, or worse) for our
descendants.
We are currently at 385 ppm. The article says this can only be
achieved by immediate and drastic reductions in the use of fossil
fuels.<br>
<a
href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174930">http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174930</a><br>
<br>
I followed the embedded links in the article to the following two
articles:<br>
<a
href="http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=10657">http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=10657</a><br>
<a
href="http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf">http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf</a><br>
<br>
The first, by Jim Hansen (a NASA scientist), deals with some of the
political realities that will have to be tackled to get people to
understand the problem and then to force their "leaders" to take
action. The second is the scientific paper by Jim Hansen and 8
others,
which is the basis for the other two articles. I don't pretend to
fully understand everything in the scientific article, but I was able
to get the gist of it, and it's very frightening. These guys have
been
very thorough. I used to be a proponent of burning coal to get us
through the critical period of peak oil. No more. I see now
that we
must stop burning coal <br>
<br>
Recently there have been articles in the lay press pooh-poohing the
affects of CO2 on global warming, pointing out that historical
increases in CO2 levels have lagged behind the initial trend
reversals. Hansen <i>et al</i> explain that as follows:<br>
<br>
"GHG (Greenhouse Gas) and surface albedo changes are
mechanisms
causing the large global climate changes in Fig. 1, but they do not
initiate these large climate swings. Instead changes of GHGs and sea
level (a measure of ice sheet size) lag temperature change by typically
several hundred years (6, 7, 21, 22).<br>
"GHG and surface albedo changes are positive climate
feedbacks.
Major glacial-interglacial climate swings are instigated by slow
changes of Earth’s orbit, especially the tilt of Earth’s
spinaxis
relative to the orbital plane and the precession of the equinoxes that
influences the intensity of summer insolation (23, 24).... a warming
climate causes net release of GHGs. The most effective GHG feedback is
release of CO2 by the ocean, due partly to temperature dependence of
CO2 solubility but mostly to increased ocean mixing in a warmer
climate, which acts to flush out deep ocean CO2 and alters ocean
biological productivity (25).<br>
"GHG and surface albedo feedbacks respond and
contribute to
temperature change caused by any climate forcing, natural or
human-made, given sufficient time."<br>
<br>
In other words, natural climate change is initiated by the Earth's
orbit and tilt (and to a lesser extent by the Sun's output), but is
then amplified by feedback from the absorption or release of GHG caused
by the initial trend reversal. But the feedback mechanism works
whether the initial trend reversal is due to the Earth's orbit, or due
to our dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere through human activity.<br>
<br>
What I find most frightening about this article is that the initial
temperature change human activity has already forced may cause enough
GHG release from the ocean and permafrost to cause further climate
change that's irreversible except on a geological scale, and the amount
of GHGs thus released could swamp our own initial contribution.<br>
<br>
Up until now, I have seen US military and foreign policy as the single
most im****tant political issue. To be sure, the billions we are
spending on war and the military, along with Greenspan's monitizing of
the resultant debt, are what's behind both the weakness in the dollar
and the formation and then collapse of the housing bubble. And
whatever we spend on military hardware is unavailable for education,
health care and tranforming our economy to carbon neutrality.<br>
<br>
After reading these articles, I have a new awareness of the criticality
of CO2 emission. Much has been made of the fact that China now emits
more CO2 than the US. However, they have 4 times our
population. The
US emits far more CO2 per capita than any other country. We are
truly
the low hanging fruit on this issue, and it's time for us to start
providing leader****p by example. We must not wait for other
countries
to make adjustments. We must act now, unilaterally. The recent
CAFE
standards enacted by Congress are woefully inadequate. They should
be
much higher. Our state legislatures need to mandate higher
percentages
of wind and solar electrical generation. to encourage homeowners to
install state of the art solar panels and to require utilities to
purchase excess energy generated by residential solar and wind. We
can
put unemployed Americans to work converting our economy to a
sustainable, carbon neutral model.<br>
<br>
One beneficial effect of such a course of action will be to reduce the
perceived need to control the energy resources of the Middle East.<br>
<br>
Billl<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------030105050003030309070009--
|
