Conference back40::soapbox

    guess Phyl couldn't be happy w/just one topic on this environmental
    mythology, he's gotta proliferate this edition 
    
    how does it go Phyl, say it often enuf, it becomes the truth...

RE: 62.1 by USAT02::WARRENFELTZR

> couldn't be happy w/just one topic on this environmental mythology, 
> he's gotta proliferate this edition

I suspect that this topic is going to get hot in a year or two.  Pun
intended.

Humanity is in the process of doing an experiment.  Well,  we didn't intend
to,  but we are doing it anyway.  We don't really know what the results of 
experiment might be,  but we are doing it anyway.  If we don't like the 
results we can't go back for thousands of years,  but we are doing it anyway.  
We have changed the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from the 260-280ppm range 
that it was in for thousands of years to roughly 360ppm today.  The problem 
with this is that CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas,  largely transparent to the 
Sun's light,  and opaque at wavelengths the Earth is radiating heat at.  More 
CO2 will mean that less heat will radiate away.  That heat is going to go 
somewhere,  and the most likely place it will go is to warm up the Earth's 
surface.  Other truly charming possible places for this heat to go include
melting the ice sheets and expanding the deserts.


Phil

Support your local Space Program.

    heard it argued quite well that as temps go up there ia an increased
    amount of evaporation and therefore more clouds. Clouds can be of
    several different types some block the sun and cause cooling others
    trap the heat. Some climatologist are saying that these 2 forces will
    counter act eachother.
    
    Either way I won't mind it getting 5 degrees warmer,,,,but anyone
    that isn't near water might be concerned.
    
    Brian V
    

                <<< PEAR::DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< SOAPBOX: to seek out strange new opinions >-
================================================================================
Note 100.6                    The Greenhouse effect                      6 of 42
16BITS::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dog face)"            7 lines   1-JUL-1991 12:29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I heard yesterday that the volcanic ash being released into the upper
atmosphere by the Phillipine volcano (Spittatuba? I don't know. . .) is
going to have a cooling effect of something like .5 degree C average worldwide
for the next four years or so.

-Jack

================================================================================

The eruption of MT Pinatubo on 12-June-1991 was a good test of the climatic 
models used to predict future global warming.   As the amount of the sulfur 
dioxide in the stratosphere could be reasonably accurately measured,  these 
climate models predicted about a 0.6 C cooling,  peaking about a year after 
the eruption,  and ending about three to five years later.

Almost four years later,  we see that this prediction was fairly accurate.
The peak cooling was a tad higher than the predicted 0.6 C,  and it did
come fourteen months after the eruption.  While global temperature isn't quite
back to the levels of 1991,  it's getting close.  Once it does we will be 
back to record setting warmth.


Nit:  the cooling mainly comes from the sulfur dioxide from the eruption,  
not from the ash.  SO2 forms a long lived aerosol of sulfuric acid in the 
stratosphere. This aerosol scatters sunlight,  reducing the light reaching 
the earth's surface.  Also makes for red sunsets and sunrises,  and for dark 
total lunar eclipses.


Phil

    Reuters

   BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (10:19 a.m.) - Antarctica's ancient ice shelf
   has begun to break up in warming seas that are slowly destroying a
   barrier that insulates the continental ice cap from melting, Argentine
   scientists warn.

   "The first thing I did was cry," said Dr. Rodolfo del Valle, who
   discovered a 40-mile-long crack in the northernmost part of the Larsen
   ice shelf that runs 600 miles up the Antarctic peninsula.

   The cracking is an even more worrying sign of warming in the peninsula
   than the giant iceberg that British scientists said broke off the
   shelf in January, del Valle, who heads the Earth sciences department
   of Argentina's National Antarctic Direction, said in an interview.
   U.S. scientists predicted in the 1970s that the melting of
   Antarctica's ice shelf would be a clear signal of accelerating global
   warming.

   Del Valle was at an Antarctic camp on James Ross Island in January
   when he was radioed by colleagues at an Argentine base on the Larsen
   ice shelf who were being shaken by constant ice quakes.

   "On the 23rd of January, they called me over the radio and said:
   'Rudi, something's happening, the ice shelf is breaking'. An enormous
   crack had opened from the edge of the shelf on the Weddel Sea up to
   the mountains," del Valle said.

   Flying 6,000 feet overhead in a light plane, del Valle saw that the
   ice shelf, up to 1,000 feet thick in parts, was beginning to break up,
   exposing patches of sea, probably for the first time in 20,000 years.

   "It was spectacular because what once was a platform of ice 40 miles
   wide had been broken up into pieces that looked like bits of
   polystyrene foam ... smashed by a child."

   Argentine scientists predicted that the warming climate in the
   Antarctic peninsula would lead to the beginning of the breaking up of
   the northern ice shelf in 10 years, but it happened much more quickly
   than they had expected.

   The shelves help insulate the continental ice cap from warmer weather.
   While few scientists believe the whole ice cap can melt, even its
   partial disappearance could prove to be catastrophic.

   The Antarctic ice cap covers the continent like a giant wedding cake
   and is on average 6,000 feet thick. It contains 70 percent of the
   world's fresh water and if it all melted, sea levels would rise by
   between 120 and 300 feet.

   Worried scientists around the world are closely monitoring the changes
   in the ice shelf.

   "Everyone has their attention fixed on climate change and on the
   theory that says that the first step towards the destruction of the
   western Antarctic ice cap is the breaking up of the ice shelves," del
   Valle said.

   Measurements in the Antarctic peninsula show its average temperature
   has risen by more than 36 degrees since 1930, with around half the
   warming occurring in the last 20 years.

   Scientists still do not agree on the extent of global warming caused
   by burning fossil fuels. Del Valle thinks warming might be taking
   place naturally but that greenhouse gases might be dangerously
   accelerating the process.

   "I think the process is like a father pushing his child in a swing. If
   the father pushes too hard, the swing twists around, the child falls
   down and the game is over."

    
    sattelite photographs of the ice fields in antartica reveal a
    detailed etching of Christ.
    
    
    
    ; )
    
    Brian V
    

    I'd read that it was a detailed etching of Charles Manson...
    
    ... but seriously, folks, the sky really _is_ falling this time.

RE: 62.7 by STOWOA::JOLLIMORE "In a word: overrun"

> Reuters

Is hardly the best of sources.  Example follows:

>   Measurements in the Antarctic peninsula show its average temperature
>   has risen by more than 36 degrees since 1930, with around half the
>   warming occurring in the last 20 years.

A _change_ of 2.5 C is NOT converted to Fahrenheit by the same formula used
to convert a temperature of 2.5 C to Fahrenheit.

Having said that,  having big chunks of the ice sheets falling into the
oceans and melting is NOT a good thing.  And Reuters didn't get that part
of the story wrong.


Phil

    Mr. Hays is correct.  The temp. rise was not 36 degrees F (if it were,
    many coastal areas would be under water).  I heard the same figure
    2.5 degree C change from another source.
    
    
    -steve

    Call me stupid (not really) but there's something I don't understand.
    If you have a glass of water at the one cup line, and the water has ten
    ice cubes in it, once the ice cubes melt, won't the water level still
    be at 1 cup?
    
    If this be the case, how would the melting of the polar ice caps
    inundate our coastal cities?
    
    -Jack

    Actually, the water level goes down, I think (ice occupies more volume,
    which is why it floats).
    
    But your interrupting the bit about the sky is falling, so shaddup.

    You be quiet you uncircumcribed Philistine!!!!!!
    
    -Jack

    	Jack --
    
    	Perhaps it is because a significant portion of the ice caps are
    	above sea level.  If your glass of water were filled to the brim,
    	and then you balanced a bunch of ice cubes over the top of that
    	on the rim, and then if you made the ice melt, that might simulate
    	what the "melting cap" scenario predicts.

    	<-----re. 
    
    	You are correct about that. Much of the ice cap is over the land
    area of the continent and not really in the sea at this time. As to the
    ice cubes in the cup, the water level does stay they same. It neither
    rises nor falls. Check out Archimedes (sp) law some time. Ice does take
    up more space then water but it only diplaces the same amount of water
    as it weighs. Some of the ice will always be above water. When it
    melts, the water produced will exactly fill the space that was
    displaced by the ice cube.
    
    
    							Mr. Wizard

    Cool!  I'll have to try that.
    
    ME

    I think that the estimate of sea-level rise if the entire ice cap
    melted is around 150-200 feet.  That would do some serious flooding, I
    imagine- if these scientists are correct.
    
    Though I doubt the whole global warming scenario (at least as far as it
    being a man-made phenomina), the fact remains that warm currents and
    increased temperatures caused a significant portion of ice to break
    off.
    
    I don't think the sky if falling- yet.  8^)
    
    
    -steve

1) What is the total surface area of the icecap? What percentage of the
   earth's surface does that represent?
2) What is the total surface area of the contiguous oceans/seas? What
   percentage of the earth's surface does that represent?

    Off the top of my head....
    
    1) I have no idea...
    
    2) see 1), though if I were to guess, I'd say that 3/4 of the earth's
    surface is covered in water.
    
    
    8^)

    .16
    
    erm ... i think there may be a small diff cos ice is fresh water and
    sea water has a slightly different density. so the volume of sea water
    displaced by the fresh water iceberg will be slightly different from
    the volume of the melted iceberg. but in terms of flooding lowlands
    the difference is insignificant.
    
    ric
    
    ps we've had this debate in EF95 already nyah nyah
    8^)

RE: 62.18 by CSOA1::LEECH "Go Hogs!"

> Though I doubt the whole global warming scenario (at least as far as it
> being a man-made phenomina), 

So why is that?

Is it that you doubt that humanity has made significant changes to the
atmosphere?

Or is it that you doubt that these gases have the optical properties of
absorbing and reradiating outgoing heat?

Or do you have some magical place that this extra ~3 Watts per square meter
to disappear into?


Phil

    re:  .22
    
    
    >So why is that?
    
    
    As of yet, it has not been proven scientifically to my satisfaction.  I
    tread wearily when the environmental extremists take up any given
    cause.
    
    Some scientists *think* that global warming exists and is man-made, but they
    have yet to prove this.  Other scientists doubt a) that global warming
    is indeed fact, and b) that if it is fact, that it is caused
    specificalldy by man and not a natural occurance.
    
    
    My personal take on this lies in the middle somewhere.  I don't doubt
    the possibility of global warming, there is evidence to support such a
    thing.  I don't doubt that mankind has _contributed_ to this, if global
    warming is fact.  What I doubt is the scare tactic propaganda that has
    been spread around so thickly in the last decade or so.  I don't buy
    into the "fact" that mankind is completely at fault (if we are warming
    up).  
    
    
    -steve

    But seriously, folks...
    
    My reason for not moving to high groung quite yet is that I am not
    convinced that man has made an impact that would be significant
    compared to natural events.  Chlorine in the oceans, volcanoes,
    earthquakes, meteors, sun cycle (which to date we know zippo about
    that), etc., etc...
    
    ...these things have impact on our environment that far exceed what we
    have been demonstrated to do.  Sure, we may have global warming, but
    that's happened before.  Maybe we'll even have an ice age, but that's
    been done before.  Maybe the poles will shift, but, gee, that't been
    done before, too.  How 'bout a bomb?  How 'bout Krakatoa, Mr. Amateur
    explosives maker.
    
    I enjoy nature, and the environment, and I conciously try to leave
    anyplace nicer than when I got there (except my cube).  But I don't buy
    into 99.9% of the greenie crap.
    
    Here's a good story fer y'all.  Back in my FOE daze, when I grazed upon
    grass and was a macrobiotic/vegetarian, I saw this HUGE mass of forest
    that was totally destroyed, ravaged, and scoured from the face of the
    earth on Prince of Wales Island in SE Alaska.  Man, I got lit up, and
    just went on a rampage against the logging industry, and man in
    general.  After I petered down a bit, somebody pointed out to me that
    on Thanksgiving day, 1967, a single storm blew down over 200,000 acres
    of Sitka Spruce.
    
    This amounts to way way WAY more than the total amount of logging done
    in the state in some ungodly long time - I forget the totals.  Anyway,
    it was kindly pointed out to me what an idiot I was, because how on
    earth could anybody have cut down that much wood anyway?  So, everybody
    had a chuckle at the long hair.
    
    So, before I go blaming every stinking little thing on the activities
    of man, I've now learned that often you'll find that we have little to
    do with a lot of "global" activities.  
    
    Now, as far as destroying hatcheries, leeching the soils, and in other
    specific ways having local (but widespread) impact on certain systems,
    I concur that we can do a lot of damage.  Just don't go getting carried
    away with stuff...

RE: 62.24 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog"

> My reason for not moving to high groung quite yet is that I am not 
> convinced that man has made an impact that would be significant
> compared to natural events.  

CO2 in the atmosphere has gone from about 260 PPM to about 360 PPM in the past
150 years.  This is a larger change than any other similar period in the past
120,000 years that we have good (ice core) records of.


> Chlorine in the oceans,  volcanoes,  earthquakes,  meteors,  sun cycle 
> (which to date we know zippo about that), etc., etc...

In terms of climate,  chlorine in the oceans has no effect that I know of. 
Volcanic eruptions have been suspected of causing short term cooling ever
since Ben Franklin speculated on the effect of Mt Laki's eruption. 
Earthquakes,  zippo.  A big meteor,  sure.  Sun cycle?  The effect of the
Solar sunspot cycle has been measured,  directly by measuring solar output
over a sunspot cycle,  and indirectly by measuring global temperature over
the past 100+ years,  and even more indirectly by various ice core,  tree
ring and such what.  The sunspot cycle probably causes less than 0.1 K of 
variation.

    
> ...these things have impact on our environment that far exceed what we
> have been demonstrated to do.  Sure, we may have global warming, but
> that's happened before.  Maybe we'll even have an ice age, but that's
> been done before.  Maybe the poles will shift, but, gee, that't been
> done before, too.  How 'bout a bomb?  How 'bout Krakatoa, Mr. Amateur
> explosives maker.

Nit:  Krakatoa was smaller than the largest H-bombs in total energy
released.  Want a better example?  Use the Chicxulub meter strike.

The eruption of Mt Tambora caused the "year without a summer",  which was a
short term climate change of the rough order of a couple of degrees Kelvin.
This caused a lot of people in New England and Northern Europe,  and
probably elsewhere,  to starve to death,  as crops failed.  As you point
out,  climate change has happened.  A couple of more extreme examples are
at the beginning of the Triassic,  probably due to some outrageous volcanic
eruptions,  and at the end of the Cretaceous,  probably due to a meteor
strike.  Both of these geologically short term climate glitches killed well 
over half of all species of life,  implying individual death rates well over 
99%.

Sure,  nature has done worse that humanity has done so far.  So what? 
That's not justification for doing something rather stupid.

    
Phil

    How long do you think it will be before under water communities become
    a reality?

Briefly, what is the technique used for aging ice core samples, and within
what tolerance is it reliable?

RE: 62.27 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)"

> Briefly, what is the technique used for aging ice core samples, and within
> what tolerance is it reliable?

Out to about 20,000 to 30,000 years,  counted annual layers.  Tolerence can 
be crossed checked by cross checking with nuclear fallout to 1945,  with known 
volcanic eruptions back 2000+ years,  etc.  Expected errors of a few years
at 20,000 years.  Beyond that,  cross correlations between the isotopic 
record of temperature with sea floor isotopic records and ice flow models 
are used.  Expected errors are much larger:  plus or minus several thousand 
years at the bottom of the deepest cores (roughly 130,000 years old).


Phil

Reading this topic reminds me, of the story of the blind(visually challenged) me
and the elephant.  We have recorded 150-200 years of weather, and sampled ice
cores, and other items going back say 150,000 yrs.  The data on weather dating
back past our recorded history is obtained by extrapolation using our theories,
on what the samples show us.  Yet this world has experienced billions of years
of weather since life began.  

I am not by any means an advocate of dirty water, air, etc.  What I don't hear
from the proponents of imminent global warming is what we should do about it. 
Oh yes some of the radicals have suggested moving back to third world
technology, and living conditions.  (Aren't a lot of these people the same ones
who advocate animal rights.  How in the world would they stand hunting just to
eat!).  Let's look towards finding ways not to foul our nest.  A lot of current
technology came about as a means of adapting our enviroment to improve our
standard of living.  Is there any reason that we can't continue to learn how to
live better without so much pollution.  

BTW,  if all mankind were stood shoulder to shoulder, they would occupy less
than 100 sq miles!  

That's my say FWIW

:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}
:^}Mikey:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}
:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}
:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}
:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}:^}

 

	Here's another interesting point.  One of the cleanest forms (in terms of
pollution) of energy is nuclear.  Nobody on the clean air side advocates this.

	Of course, there is the minor problem of what to do with the waste.

ME

Well, you can isolate the waste in a highly concentrated form in a secure 
location.

Or you can take the fossil feul approach, and dump zillions of tons of waste
in a less concentrated form into the environment, and hope for the best.

    .30
    
    however, the results of any disaster would be rather more long-term
    
    ric

RE: 62.29 by DECLNE::SHEPARD "Bubba Roll Model"

> What I don't hear from the proponents of imminent global warming is what 
> we should do about it. 



1)  Shift taxes from income and sales to carbon content of fuels.  

2)  Restart nuclear power.  


Phil

RE: 62.32 by RDGE44::ALEUC8

> however, the results of any disaster would be rather more long-term

A climate disaster would be longer term than a nuclear power disaster.


Phil

    .34
    
    point taken
    
    hmm... an interesting choice - run the risk of Chernobyl-style
    disasters and the effects like genetic disorders for generations
    and radiation pollution of the environment, or the risk of large-scale
    climatic change
    
    doh!!
    
    i think planet-wide systems have a bit more buffering than the
    global-warming lobby maintain and therefore i prefer the
    still-not-quite-imho-proven climatic change risk to the undeniable
    risks of nuclear fuel and waste
    
    glad i don't have much influence either way as i wouldn't like the
    consequences, if any, of either choice on my conscience
    
    ric

RE: 62.35 by RDGE44::ALEUC8

> - run the risk of Chernobyl-style disasters 

We don't need to run the risk of Chernobyl-style disasters unless we
operate nuclear plants like Chernobyl.  

Chernobyl had the following major defects:  
1) No containment vessel.
2) Positive void coefficient.  In simple words,  in a well designed reactor,
   any significant loss of cooling will stop the nuclear reaction. 
   Chernobyl was designed so the loss of cooling water would speed up the
   reaction:  loss of cooling for several seconds resulted in core
   scattered around the countryside.  In contrast,  the reactor in accident
   at Three Mile Island was without cooling for almost an hour,  and no
   significant radioactive material was released.  
3) Positive temperature coefficient.  Just like a good bomb,  and unlike a
   good reactor,  Chernobyl was designed to react faster at higher 
   temperatures.


> i think planet-wide systems have a bit more buffering than the 
> global-warming lobby maintain and therefore i prefer the
> still-not-quite-imho-proven climatic change risk to the undeniable
> risks of nuclear fuel and waste

There are undeniable geologic records of major rapid climate change.  Why
did the "buffering" fail to prevent such changes?

As examples,  at the beginning of the Eocene,  roughly 55 million years
ago,  there was a gradual warming trend turning in to a short,  extreme
pulse of warming,  as much as 10 C to 18 C,  peaking over a period just 
a few thousand years long.  At the end of the Eocene,  roughly 33.5 million
years,  on top of a gradual cooling trend that had been going on for 20
million years,  was a short,  extreme pulse of cooling,  of at least 13 C, 
with the sudden appearance of an ice sheet in Antarctica at least 70% of 
the size of the current ice sheet,  followed by the ice sheet's complete 
disappearance,   all of this happening in at most a few hundred thousand 
years.


Phil

re: .36, Phil

>with the sudden appearance of an ice sheet in Antarctica at least 70% of 
>the size of the current ice sheet,  followed by the ice sheet's complete 
>disappearance

Is there any record, or way of knowing, what the conditions were at various
places on the surface of the earth at these times when the ice sheet was
absent? Do we have any evidence of the continental make-up at those times?

    >> - run the risk of Chernobyl-style disasters 
    
    i shouldn't've been quite so specific and quote that event. what i was
    driving at was - are you completely confident in Mankind's ability to
    make totally safe reactors? i'm not - cos i'm a programmer 8^)
    
    
    >There are undeniable geologic records of major rapid climate change.  Why
    
    >disappearance,   all of this happening in at most a few hundred thousand 
    >years.
    
    rapid - sure, geologically speaking. but i'm not convinced that we
    should be *that* concerned on a human timescale
    
    don't get me wrong - if we can avoid fouling things up, of course i'm
    in favour of that but i perceive the risk of an imperfect nuclear
    reactor as being the greater.
    
    as an aside, have you read Janet Raymo's theories about the Tertiary
    climate changes being caused by the uplift of the Tibetan plateau,
    which then resulted in 1) disturbance of the wind patterns causing
    monsoons, 2) extra weathering resulting in more SO2 and NO2 in the
    system - though the exact link of that with the Ice Ages escapes me at
    this moment. all very interesting and makes me think we still don't
    know even 10% of how it all hangs together!
    
    ric

RE: 62.37 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)"

> Is there any record, or way of knowing, what the conditions were at various
> places on the surface of the earth at these times when the ice sheet was
> absent? Do we have any evidence of the continental make-up at those times?

Sure,  we can tell a lot about conditions at such times.  Look at the
fossils found at various places.  And fairly good continental maps can be
drawn back some 500 or so million years.  If you are trying to learn what
the greenhouse world a century from now is going to be like,  the period 12
to 18 million years ago is probably a better guess than throwing darts at a
dartboard.  The continental map isn't that much different,  other than the
fact the sea level is was a few hundred feet higher,  the mountains were
about the same size in about the same places,  etc.


Phil

> The continental map isn't that much different,  other than the
> fact the sea level is was a few hundred feet higher,  the mountains were
> about the same size in about the same places,  etc.

Where would that have put the coastlines? On average, how far inland?
What was the flora and fauna of this period? (I'm sorry I don't know
my geology and prehistory better. I'm trying to sort out where in
history this was.) 

RE: 62.38 by RDGE44::ALEUC8

> i shouldn't've been quite so specific and quote that event. what i was
> driving at was - are you completely confident in Mankind's ability to
> make totally safe reactors? i'm not - cos i'm a programmer 8^)

Wrong standard to judge by.  NOT is nuclear power completely totally
absolutely safe,  as nothing is that safe.

The correct standard should be "Is nuclear power the lowest risk known
alternative?",  and I think it's clear that it is.

Now,  of course fusion might replace it.  Might not,  as well.  If someone
invents some real cheap way to store solar energy AND current progress in
reducing the cost of solar cells continues,  solar has a shot at the big
time.  Solar is usable now as supplemental power,  as is wind power at some 
locations.  Or maybe orbiting solar power stations.  Or maybe cracking quarks. 


> rapid - sure, geologically speaking. but i'm not convinced that we
> should be *that* concerned on a human timescale

Major changes on a global scale are all old enough in time that they can't
be dated to closer than about a thousand years.  That is "rapid,  on a
geologic time scale".  The only record we have that shows rapid climate
changes shorter than this is the ice cores and other records (coral annual
rings) of the Younger Dryas period.  Now the Younger Dryas was called this
because of the drayas flower:  a tundra plant.  In Europe,  about 10,800
years ago,  tundra plants such as drayas had been slowly replaced by
warmer climate plants and trees,  and much of the ice sheet that had
covered Europe had slowly melted from the peak of the ice age.  From the 
ice core data,  over a period of about three years,  the climate of Europe,
Greenland and much of Eastern North America dropped roughly 7 C.  The trees 
and other warm climate plants died,  and were replaced by drayas flowers 
and other tundra plants,  but the change in vegetation can only be dated 
to +- 100 years or so.  Roughly a thousand years later Europe reversed
back to warm climates again.

Three years is abrupt on a human timescale.

Now,  the Younger Drayas was mainly a North Atlantic event.  What happened? 
Perhaps fresh water from the melting ice sheet on North America upset ocean
currents that carry heat to the North Atlantic.  Or perhaps something more
bizarre.  But sudden climate change happens.  There is no magic buffer to
climate change.


> as an aside, have you read Janet Raymo's theories about the Tertiary
> climate changes being caused by the uplift of the Tibetan plateau,
> which then resulted in 1) disturbance of the wind patterns causing
> monsoons, 2) extra weathering resulting in more SO2 and NO2 in the
> system - though the exact link of that with the Ice Ages escapes me at
> this moment. all very interesting and makes me think we still don't
> know even 10% of how it all hangs together!

Weathering of rocks is the main process for removing CO2 from the
atmosphere.  Uplift of the Tibetan Plateau and the Great Basin (much of 
Western North America) is believed to be one of the main causes of the large 
reduction in atmospheric CO2 over the past ~50 million years.  I don't recall 
the name Janet Raymo associated with this,  however.


Phil

RE: 62.40 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)"

> Where would that have put the coastlines?  On average, how far inland?

Get a topographic map of the world.  A picture is worth...


> What was the flora and fauna of this period? 

Close enough to modern that you wouldn't be very shocked by anything.


Phil

    >If someone invents some real cheap way to store solar energy AND
    >current progress in reducing the cost of solar cells continues,  solar
    >has a shot at the big time.  Solar is usable now as supplemental power, 
    
    there's something about this on Reuter's today! spooky, ay
    
    thanks for the info about the climate changes. interesting thing to me
    is that after a while it changed back! although obviously it would be
    foolish to assume this would always happen.
    
    another thought is, so what if things get bad? ok, it's a bit tough on
    the current coastal settlements if there is a major sea-level shift.
    but concomitant climate change could make large areas of the globe
    which are currently un- or barely habitable much more so and that might
    balance things out.
    
    i still think the down-side of a nuclear disaster is too horrible to
    risk.
    
    ric

A lot of debate about the safety of nuclear reactors centers around the
existing designs:

- We know the Chernobyl-style graphite reactors are dangerous, besides Russia's
  lack of containment structures.

- Western designs for boiling water and pressurized water reactors are safer,
  but the proverbial "meltdown" is still anything but impossible.

- I understand that the Canadian style heavy water reactors are safer. Don't 
  know much about them.

- A proposed US future generation reactor design is the high temperature gas
  reactor. I know even less about that one, but I understand that a 
  loss-of-coolant meltdown is impossible with these.

Existing reactor designs are basically 20-30 year old technology. A concerted
effort to improve the design of the reactor could probably improve safety to 
a large degree.

RE: 62.43 by RDGE44::ALEUC8

> there's something about this on Reuter's today! spooky, ay

I popped over to EF and think I found the Reuter's bit.  Reuter isn't known
for accuracy,  if you post it over here I'll point out a few glaring
errors.
    

> another thought is, so what if things get bad? ok, it's a bit tough on
> the current coastal settlements if there is a major sea-level shift.

It's interesting to note that both of the large climate changes I noted 
before,  and many other known large climate shifts,  are associated with 
extinction events in the fossil record.  Look at the impact on people living 
in places already hot and humid.  Heat and humidity kill people:  bump up 
the temperature enough and big sections of the tropics would be unlivable.  
Rainfall and disease patterns would shift on a smaller change.  


> but concomitant climate change could make large areas of the globe
> which are currently un- or barely habitable much more so and that might
> balance things out.

Oh?  Most of the land too cold to be habitable has very poor soils.  Soils
take lots of time to develop,  and are not very portable.
    

> i still think the down-side of a nuclear disaster is too horrible to
> risk.

Like,  for example,  Chernobyl?  It's hard to picture a nuclear disaster
much worse than Chernobyl.  A reactor about that was about to be shut down 
for refueling,  with no containment,  with a government that took no action 
to protect people for days.


Phil

RE: 62.44 by DECWET::LOWE "Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng.,  DTN 548-8910"

> - Western designs for boiling water and pressurized water reactors are safer,
>   but the proverbial "meltdown" is still anything but impossible.

...mainly impacting the shareholders of the utility,  as at the Three Mile
Island meltdown.


> - A proposed US future generation reactor design is the high temperature gas
>   reactor. I know even less about that one, but I understand that a 
>   loss-of-coolant meltdown is impossible with these.

Chernobyl lost cooling for 15 seconds and exploded,  killing many.  Three 
Mile Island lost cooling for almost an hour,  and the core melted,  killing 
nothing but the stock price of General Public Utilities.  A passive safe 
reactor can lose cooling forever and suffer no damage.  Let's also keep
this as a problem for the shareholders only,  and require containment 
vessels.


Phil

    >if you post it over here I'll point out a few glaring
    
    not sure if i'm allowed to do that 8^\
    
    >It's interesting to note that both of the large climate changes I noted 
    >before ...  are associated with  extinction events in the fossil record.  
    
    were these events global?
    
    >Most of the land too cold to be habitable has very poor soils.
    
    shifts might not be simple cold lands -> hot lands. i envisage
    something much more complex whereby all the current environmental
    "bands" move around. true, it would take a while for the entire
    ecosystem to sort itself out, and during that time there would be a lot
    of hassle.
    
    at a more general level, can we expect to maintain the global status
    quo? that would seem to be what you are implicitly suggesting we
    (Mankind) should try and do. climate will always be changing, but maybe
    not quite as rapidly if the man-made global warming theories are true.
    
    ric

RE: 62.47 by RDGE44::ALEUC8

>> It's interesting to note that both of the large climate changes I noted 
>> before ...  are associated with  extinction events in the fossil record.  
    
> were these events global?

The climate changes seem to be global.  The extinction events are more
interesting:  The event at 33.5 million years has some 60% of European 
mammals went extinct in a geologic instant,  along with some types of marine 
life.  North America,  while not seeing much change at 33.5 million years,  
got hammered at the 55 million year event,  along with different forms of 
marine life.


> at a more general level, can we expect to maintain the global status quo? 

Complex question.  I'm more suggesting we not be making major and abrupt 
changes to the climate system,  rather than suggesting we try to maintain 
the current climate exactly as it is.  In the future,  if we were not 
changing global climate,  and a major climate change started to happen on 
it's own,  then we would need to try to slow or reverse the change.  

Also,  the "best" climate for the Earth isn't an answerable question at the
current point in time.  If our knowledge gets good enough to make this a 
reasonable question,  then perhaps modifying and maintaining the climate 
at that optimal temperature would be realistic.

As for this sort of global engineering,  I'd rather we start with Mars.


Phil

So far 1995 has been rather warm,  on a Global Average basis.  So warm that
if the second half of the year is just the same as the first half of the
year it will be the warmest on record.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/Data/GISTEMP/GLBann1850.gif

Do enjoy.


Phil

>So far 1995 has been rather warm,  on a Global Average basis.  So warm that
>if the second half of the year is just the same as the first half of the
>year it will be the warmest on record.

oh no.  Gimme my rain and fog back!!!!

Chris.

    ohhhhhh nooooooooo, I'mmmm mmeeeeeeeeellllltiiiiiiiiiing!!!!

From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Scientists Say El Nino Can Be Predicted in Advance
Date: 22 Sep 1995 20:37 UT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Message-ID: <22SEP199520370268@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>

Brian Dunbar
Headquarters, Washington, DC                September 22, 1995
(Phone:  202/358-1547)

Ernie Shannon
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD
(Phone: 301/286-6256)

RELEASE:  95-159

SCIENTISTS SAY EL NINO CAN NOW BE PREDICTED A YEAR IN ADVANCE

      Recent advances in computer models and how they use 
ocean data now allow predictions of El Nino -- a dramatic 
climate shift that can affect weather and economies worldwide 
-- to be made more than a year before the event, new NASA, 
NOAA and university research indicates.

      "Certain aspects of El Nino, such as equatorial Pacific 
sea-surface temperatures and related changes in precipitation 
patterns can now be predicted with confidence more than one 
year in advance," said Dr. Antonio Busalacchi of NASA's 
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD.

      The new study used data from the ten-year Tropical Ocean 
Global Atmosphere (TOGA) project, an international research 
program that studied how Earth's oceans and atmosphere affect 
one another.  The team's paper will be published today in the 
journal "Science."  Busalacchi's co-authors are Dr. Dake Chen, 
University of Rhode Island, and Dr. Stephen Zebiak and Dr. 
Mark Cane of Columbia University's Lamont Doherty Earth 
Observatory, Palisades, NY.

      TOGA has successfully completed its decadal mission and 
the world legacy of the Topical Atmosphere Ocean array and all 
the research infrastructure is in place.  New programs will 
continue to move this research into operational application 
mode.  In November, an "International Forum on Forecasting El 
Nino" will be held in Washington, DC.  The forum will launch 
an International Research Institute for climate prediction.

      El Nino, which can occur every two to seven years, 
originates in the tropical Pacific ocean and causes global-
scale disruptions in normal weather patterns.  When an El Nino 
occurs, torrential rainfall and flooding is common along the 
coasts of Ecuador, Peru and southeast Brazil. At the same 
time, Australia, Indonesia, northeast Brazil and southeast 
Africa experience extreme drought and famine conditions.

      The impact of El Nino on the continental United States 
is less direct than in the tropics, but still distinct.  
Increased precipitation over the Gulf Coast states and warmer 
winter temperatures over the north-central tier of Gulf Coast 
states are common, with important implications for the 
agricultural sector of the economy.

     A common indicator of El Nino occurs when the warmest 
water of the global ocean shifts from the International 
Dateline in the Pacific eastward by 3,100 miles (5,000 
kilometers), increasing sea-surface temperature by 4 to 7 
degrees Fahrenheit (2 to 4 degrees Centigrade).  This eastward 
migration of a heat source critical to the atmosphere changes 
global weather patterns, including precipitation and 
temperature, far beyond the equatorial Pacific.

     Forecasts of El Nino have commonly started with 
scientists introducing ocean-wind data models into a computer 
model of the ocean, which is then used separately to "force" a 
model of the atmosphere.  At that point the two models are 
joined, and the likelihood of an El Nino is forecast.  The new 
approach mathematically joins the models before introducing 
the data.  Since the real ocean and atmosphere are closely 
linked, this approach yields results that lead to a more 
accurate forecast.

      "That's the breakthrough," said  Busalacchi.  "This is 
the first time data are being assimilated into a coupled model,
and that's what gives us this expanded forecasting capability.

      "Developing and developed countries are getting this 
data through one-on-one contacts and through NOAA.  They're 
beginning to use these forecasts to adapt to these events and 
to mitigate their dangers.  Advances such as these suggest 
that it is time to implement a process to issue El Nino 
forecasts on a routine basis, so that the affected countries 
may benefit from this information," Busalacchi said. 

      This kind of computer model, and its use to predict 
changes in the Earth's environment, is the heart of NASA's 
Mission to Planet Earth and the U.S. Global Change Research 
Program.  A long-term, coordinated research program, Mission 
to Planet Earth is designed to provide near-term benefits.  
The program provides improved forecasting of economically 
threatening climate changes such as El Nino, with improved 
understanding of the Earth's climate and how it changes.

       Mission to Planet Earth combines surface measurements 
and computer models with space-based measurements to provide a 
view of the Earth's global environment.  Busalacchi's model, 
for example, will increase in importance when the NASA 
Scatterometer begins returning worldwide data on sea-surface 
winds.  The instrument is scheduled for launch in August 1996 
aboard a Japanese satellite.

                        - end -

   Freon Hot in Miami : Smugglers find big profits in soon-to-be-banned gas
    (11/2/95 Boston Globe, by Brian McGrory, Globe Staff)
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MIAMI - Down at the port here, down on the docks that were once the most
  notorious battleground in the nation's war on drugs, some smugglers have
  gone the way of the rest of 1990s America : They have become more domestic.

    Federal officials say that a multimillion dollar industry has cropped up
  in the last year around the smuggling of CFC-12, better known by its
  trademark name of Freon - the compressed gas that cools automobile air
  conditioners and household refrigerators.

    Massive cargo ships arrive with the Freon under the cover of dark.
  Captains hide it in the bowels of their boats.  Importers disguise shipping
  manifests to make their cargo appear to be something else.

    The reason : Environmentalists concerned that CFC-12 is harming the ozone
  layer have persuaded the government to impose a hefty environmental tax
  on the gas through the remainder of this year.  And beginning in January,
  CFC-12 will be banned outright in the United States, except in rare
  medical cases and for use on the space shuttle.

    "There are people who think the problem of smuggling will be like
  Prohibition all over again, only with CFC-12 instead of alcohol," said
  Thomas Watts-Fitzgerald, the assistant US attorney here who heads up the
  cases. "Already this year, the smuggling of CFC-12 was the second-highest
  smuggled product in South Florida, second only to the drug trade."

    Said Keith Prager, a special agent in charge for the US Customs Service,
  "It's smuggling the old-fashioned way, with a different cargo."

    Though lacking the sheer profits that drug smuggling offers, CFC-12 is
  still a lucrative trade, a point made clear when a federal jury convicted
  the manager of Caicos Caribbean Lines Inc., 50-year-old Irma Henneberg
  of Fort Lauderdale, on charges she falsified shipping documents from
  December 1993 to March 1995 to allow 4,000 tons of CFC-12 to be brought
  into Miami.

    Federal agents said the street value of the illegal cargo - 209 shipping
  containers filled from top to bottom with 30-pound cylinders - was
  approximately $52 million, and the scheme allowed Henneberg to evade
  approximately $32 million in import taxes.  She is scheduled to be
  sentenced Wednesday, and Watts-Fitzgerald predicted she will draw a
  five-year prison term, the longest for anyone yet charged in a Freon
  smuggling scheme.

    Anyone, anywhere with a car can understand the rising value of Freon.
  Here in Miami, at AAA Air Conditioning and Radiator, Alan Kromsteadt said
  he has seen the price of a 30-pound cylinder rise from $19.95 a few years
  ago to $265 today.  Much of that increase is the result of the
  $5.35-per-pound federal import tax.  That cost has been passed on to
  motorists, who are now paying upwards of $100 to recharge their air
  conditioners, when it was only a fraction of that in the 1980s.

    "They're saying the price is outrageous, but there's not a whole lot we
  can do about it," said Kromstadt.  Cars built after 1994, meanwhile, use
  R-134A, a different refrigerant that is less harmful to the atmosphere.
  Older cars must be retrofitted to accomodate it for a price between $200
  and $600.

    For now, Freon is smuggled in from overseas manufacturers to avoid the
  federal tax, as well as to sidestep strict allowances on how much companies
  may bring into the country.  Next year, smuggling will be the only choice
  for those who want to bring it to US shores.

    The smugglers themselves are often shipline operators, common criminals
  who sense an opportunity to turn a quick buck and dabblers in the
  automotive industry, federal officials said.  The product is distributed
  around the country, to a loose network of automotive radiator shops that
  seem constantly in short supply of Freon or are eager to buy it cheaply
  on the black market, officials said.

    For a majority of scientists and environmentalists, next year's ban on
  CFC-12 in the United States - stipulated in the landmark 1987 Montreal
  Protocol - marked a major victory, but the black market Freon trade has
  significantly dulled their celebration.

    "Everyone in Washington had their little charts," said John Passacantado,
  executive director of the Washington-based advocacy group, Ozone Action.
  "They were thinking they would be pushing people into the alternative."

    When CFC-12 was invented in 1928, it was hailed as somewhat of a miracle
  chemical - nontoxic, entirely breathable and bringing relief from even the
  worst heat.  But nearly a half-century later, in the mid-1970s, a group
  of scientists began theorizing that CFC-12, though stable on the ground, was
  causing damage in the stratosphere to the crucial ozone layer.  In October,
  three scientists, Drs. F. Sherwood Rowland, Mario Molina and Paul Crutzen,
  won the Nobel Prize for chemistry for their research on ozone depletion
  cause by humans.

    Scientists have argued that when CFC-12 reaches the stratosphere between
  15 and 30 miles above the earth's surface, it is broken down by the sun
  and releases chlorine.  That chlorine then destroys the ozone layer, and
  the result is that more harmful sun rays reach Earth, causing greater risk
  of skin cancer and cataract problems among humans and damage to plant and
  animal life.

    "There are many layers, many levels, in which it does damage,"
  Passacantado said.

    To be sure, there are abstainers.  Sallie Bauliunas, a physicist with the
  George C. Marshall Institute in Washington, said the government measures
  over CFC-12 seem more severe than the problem itself.  "It's proper to go
  on a schedule of phaseouts," Baliunas said.  "But I question whether that
  needs to be this rapid or draconian."

    And here in Miami, some lawyers are incredulous over the stiff sentences
  handed down to CFC-12 smugglers, as well as the high-minded rhetoric used
  by federal prosecutors.

    "Big Brother is overstepping his bounds," said lawyer Jeffrey Feldman,
  who represented a smuggler sentenced to two years.  "They are putting
  people in jail for selling something that for years was sold in Kmart."

    Regardless, a task force of US Customs agents, Environmental Protection
  Agency investigators, IRS agents and US Commerce Department officials scour
  South Florida and parts of California for any sign of smuggling.  Customs,
  for example, has a team of agents dedicated just to CFC-12 investigations.

    "Mostly, it's just hard work," said Prager, of Customs.  "We have
  intercepted deliveries and followed paper trails until we came up with
  evidence.  The money is there.  It's shocking.  It's incredible."

    Already, more than 1 million pounds of CFC-12 has been confiscated by
  federal authorities.  In South Florida, eight people have been convicted
  in the last year, and another two await trial.  Much of the CFC-12
  originates in Northern Europe and India, and arrives either in ports here,
  in New York, or in New Jersey.

    But despite some success, officials hesitate to gauge the problem.  More
  than 10 cargo ships arrive at the Port of Miami every day bringing in or
  picking up 24,000 cargo containers.  Within an hour's drive, another
  12,500 containers are moved each day.

    "If you want to engage in classic smuggling where you misidentify the
  product, everything is not going to be inspected," said Watts-Fitzgerald,
  who heads the environmental enforcement section of the US Attorney's office
  here.  "It's just like drug smuggling."

    Ozone Action estimated that 24,000 tons were brought into the United
  States illegally in 1994, but others question how such a figure can be
  stated with certainty.

    "Any number has to be taken with a grain of salt," Watts-Fitzgerald said.
  "But they are significant numbers that pose a significant problem."

    And the moral of the story is: the government can ban anything it
    wants; that just creates black markets, siphons law enforcement from
    more pressing duties, and makes smugglers rich. Great solution.

>            <<< Note 62.54 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "mucks like a fink" >>>
>    And the moral of the story is: the government can ban anything it
>    wants; that just creates black markets, siphons law enforcement from
>    more pressing duties, and makes smugglers rich. Great solution.

Yep. People always have and always will pretty much do whatever they want to
do, regardless of laws and regulations. Banning inanimate objects does
nothing except stir up a lot of trouble, and changes people's behaviour
little.

Will anyone in power learn anything important from this? I doubt it.

    Time, Inc.
    
    According to a new study, 1995 was the hottest year on record. The
    British Meteorological Office and the University of
    East Anglia reported that the earth had an average temperature of 58.72
    degrees last year, seven hundredths of a
    degree warmer than the hottest previous year. The past five years have
    also been the hottest half-decade since records
    were first kept in 1856. With temperature records only going back for
    the past 139 years, an eyeblink compared to the
    total age of the earth, Science writer Michael Lemonick cautions the
    report by itself doesn't prove anything other that it
    was hot in 1995. "That the earth was warmer this year really doesn't
    tell us anything by itself," says Lemonick. "This bit
    of news may or may not mean that over the long term, the earth is
    continuing a warming trend." 
    

    
    
    Let's assume for the moment that this high temperature is actually the
    result of what is being called "Global Warming".  This then results in
    a few questions:
    
    What would the temperature be without people around?  (i.e. is global
    warming a manmade thing or is it natural.  Remember, 20,000 years ago
    there was an ice age.  That ice age ended and has been retreating ever
    since.  Could this still be the natural cycle of that?)
    
    Is global warming really bad?  There are predictions of wide spread
    desertification due to increased evaporation from the land.  But, since
    the oceans cover 3 times the surface area compared to land, the
    increased evaporation could result in increased precipitation. 
    (Considering all the snow in the east, that could be bad.)
    
    If it is bad and it is caused by pollution, who should pay to clean it
    up?  For example, USA cars are the least polluting around.  Reducing
    their polution level another 50% would have marginal world wide effect
    yet cost thousands, maybe tens of thousands per car to achieve. 
    Reducing European cars pollution by 50% would have a larger impact
    (since they pollute more) and yet only cost several hundred to maybe a
    couple of thousand per car.  Yet the EU is slow to adopt something as
    simple as catalytic converters because of the intercountry competition
    and soverienty issues.
    
    Also, what do you do about places like Brazil, where the economy
    demands jobs - and hence the slash and burn of the forest.  The
    solution would be to send a bunch of factories from the USA (and other
    industrial nations) to Brazil to enhance their enconomy and reduce the
    need to slash and burn.  But when that happens, there are huge protests
    because of lost jobs in USA or other countries.  So, how do you jump
    start an emerging economy to the point where they can afford pollution
    control and land management without bankrupting the established
    economies?
    
    This results in the last question, the one that is the one that will
    really guide this issue - What are the economic consequences of trying
    to do something (that may not help) versus not trying to do something
    (which may not hurt)?  
    
    	Skip

RE: 62.58 by TRLIAN::MIRAB1::REITH "One Size Doesn't Fit All"

> What would the temperature be without people around?  

About .5 C cooler.


> 20,000 years ago there was an ice age.  That ice age ended and has 
> been retreating ever since.  

Well,  err,  not.  Climate is still cooler than at 8,000 years ago.


> Is global warming really bad?  

Might be.  Depends on how much and how fast.


> There are predictions of wide spread desertification due to increased 
> evaporation from the land.  

Well,  err,  no.  Evaporation will increase,  so rainfall total will
increase.  What goes up,  comes down,  remember?  The only problem is that
the predicted location of the rainfall changes with warming.  Computer
models predict that rainfall will increase from the equator to 5 north, 
and from 45 North to the pole,  and decrease from 5 North to 45 North,  and
the same thing in the South.  This effect shows up in modern rainfall
records as well as in proxy records of the climate 8,000 years ago.


> If it is bad and it is caused by pollution, who should pay to clean it
> up?  For example, USA cars are the least polluting around.  

CO2 is a "clean" byproduct of burning fossil fuels.  As USA cars burn more
fossil fuels per mile than the cars of other countries,  USA cars are NOT
the least polluting around.

We need to get the basics down before we try to look at the overall
economics.


Phil

     BOXORN::HAYS >
    >> 20,000 years ago there was an ice age.  That ice age ended and has
    >> been retreating ever since.
    
    >Well,  err,  not.  Climate is still cooler than at 8,000 years ago.
    
    Hey, the ice age ended, the ice started to retreat.  Yes there were
    'mini' ice ages between then and now (like the most recent was in the
    1700's).  My point was that since the big ice age, the temperature has
    more or less risen.  Maybe it was warmer 8000 years ago, but it was
    also cooler 300 years ago.
    
    The basic point is that the climate changed significantly before there
    were people around.  It would change now even if there were no people
    around.
    
>> There are predictions of wide spread desertification due to increased 
>> evaporation from the land.  
>
>Well,  err,  no.  Evaporation will increase,  so rainfall total will
>increase.  What goes up,  comes down,  remember?  The only problem is that
>the predicted location of the rainfall changes with warming. 
    
    Sorry - but there are predictions of wide spread desertification due to
    increased evaporation from the land.  This has been one of the big
    rallying cries of the liberal media talking about how bad global
    warming is.  Note, I fully understand that global warming will actually
    lead to increased precipitation since there will be more evaporation
    and thus more water in the air to precipitate.
    
    Note - one meteorolgy professor I talked to mentioned that it is
    potential that global warming might actually bring about an ice age. 
    For example Antartica has a minimal amount of precipitation, and thus
    the ice packs can't grow very fast.  But, an increase in evaporation
    may bring more precipitation to Antartica, which will cause the ice
    packs to grow faster and to eventually expand.
    
>> If it is bad and it is caused by pollution, who should pay to clean it
>> up?  For example, USA cars are the least polluting around.  
>
>CO2 is a "clean" byproduct of burning fossil fuels.  As USA cars burn more
>fossil fuels per mile than the cars of other countries,  USA cars are NOT
>the least polluting around.
    
    Yeah, and so is water vapor (since fossil fuels are HYDRO-carbons). 
    What's your point?  Also, where else in the world do they have as
    strick a set of laws on car emmissions as in the USA.  Okay, maybe
    Tokyo, but definitely not in the rest of Asia, Europe, Africa, South
    America, Australia, Mexico, and probably not in Canada.
    
    Another question - how much polution is put out by an electric car?  If
    you say none - Buzzzzzzzzt sorry wrong answer.  In fact, electric cars
    actually use more energy then gas cars - because of the multiple steps
    in converting from fuel to electricity to storage to motion and all the
    inefficiencies in all of those steps.
    
    Here's another irony - solar power may not be all that great in
    reducing global warming.  How much of the sun's visible light gets
    reflected back out into space?  40%? 50%?  How much would get reflected
    out of a solar panel - 5%? 10%?  The rest stays and is converted into
    heat for use on earth.  If there are any greenhouse gases around, then
    the heat (in the form of Infrared) is trapped.  Thus, where a major
    portion of the suns visible energy (which is higher then infrared
    energy) is reflected away - lots of solar panels would reverse that.
    
    >We need to get the basics down before we try to look at the overall
    >economics.
    
    The whole problem with this is that the basics are so fuzzy and the
    ramifications are so unsure.  (Before flaming - remember that there is
    not yet a climate model good enough to predict weather out over the
    next year or two now, let alone predict what will happen with global
    warming.)  Yet the costs are staggering, and the expenditures do not
    really guarrentee results.  In fact, some of the solutions may be more
    damaging then others.  (For example - use hydrogen instead of
    hydrocarbons for a fuel.  Problem is - water vapor is more of a green
    house gas then CO2.)  Also - Methane is much more of a green house gas
    then CO2.  Maybe we just need to eat more beef.
    
    We are so far from getting the basics down - and yet there is such a
    large cry to do something....  So many of the solutions are "feel good"
    solutions that effect others and not the person proposing the solution
    that it is hypocritical in the extreme.
    
    When an environmental group proposes to raise a billion dollars to
    start a bunch of "clean" industries in Brazil so they won't have to
    burn down the rain forest - Then I will know that they are starting to
    look at the true problems and are not looking for the quick "feel good"
    solution.
    
    	Skip

    
    
    	re: clean running cars
    
    	Check out Germany's junkyards sometime.....they're littered with
    5yr old BMWs. Reason? They won't pass the emission test. I think
    Germany is quit a bit tougher than the U.S..
    
    
    	jim

    But other EEC countries have much lower emissions standards, so there
    would be plenty of markets for pre-owned BMWs.  If there are junkyards
    full of them, it's probably because Merc's & Bimmers are also the fleet
    cars & taxi cabs of Europe and there are a lot of very high mileage
    junkers around.

    
    
    	I happen to have a friend that lived in Germany for many years
    (married a german woman). He is the one who informed me of Germany's
    tough emission tests. Any Germans out there that can confirm or deny
    such a statement?
    
    
    jim

Germany has _very_ tough tests.

The standards are lower, however.

/john

Oh, and the reason there are 5-yr old cars in the junkyards is that you
can't find a buyer for a used car which doesn't run on unleaded gasoline.

There is a significant tax incentive for using unleaded, only introduced
about seven years ago, over EXTREME objections from other European
countries (especially France) which didn't want to have to reengineer
their cars.  (Didja ever notice that France stopped selling cars in
the U.S. in 1976?)

/john

    
    
    	thanks John....good explanation.
    
    
    jim

>There is a significant tax incentive for using unleaded, only introduced
>about seven years ago, over EXTREME objections from other European
>countries (especially France) which didn't want to have to reengineer
>their cars.  (Didja ever notice that France stopped selling cars in
>the U.S. in 1976?)

How much reengineering is needed to get the cars to simply run on unleaded?
Hardened valve seats and hardened valves are about all that's needed, and
any competent machine shop in the US can do this to an older engine, so
it can hardly be much bother for them.  Even French.

(To take advantage of the lead-free gas for cat converters etc. to
pollute less is more work, is that their objection?)

I'm pretty sure that Peugeots were sold in the U.S. well after 1976.
Maybe even Renaults.

Yes, Renaults were even marketed as AMC cars.  I guess they were the only
cars available to live up to the lofty levels of reliability expected by
Rambler owners nationwide (with respects to Mike).

    Fiat and Citroen as well.  

Fiat's Italian.  Citroen went off the market in the U.S. well before Renault
and Peugeot.

    DOH!  I knew that too!  Renault made a car that looked a lot like a
    Jetta and was introduced in the same timeframe the Alliance, 1980/81.  
    Peugeot had the 505 in several flavors in the mid 80's as well.  Their 
    R5 (?) turbo was the hot rally car for a few years.  Small car, big 
    power, lots-o-fun and expensive.  
    
    

 I thought the last of the Citroen models (can't remember what they were
 called) were great looking cars, and as I read were also good cars.



 Jim

    
    	Renault Encore, Brian.
    

    Double DOH!  That too......

I don't think Renault _imported_ any cars (except from Canada)
after ~1976 or so.

re .76

Correct.  France produced no cars capable of being fitted with catalytic
converters.

When Germany first passed a law requiring all new cars sold in Germany to
be fitted with catalytic converters, France went to the European Court
and got the law overthrown, as an illegal trade barrier.

/john

So John, what about Peugeot?

Can you find a non-Diesel Peugeot sold in the U.S. with a model year later
than 1976 and earlier than 1990?

/john

    mid 80's 505 STI - Turbocharged gas

What happened in 1990?

> What happened in 1990?

I celebrated one year of distance from my ex-?

>> potential that global warming might actually bring about an ice age. 
>> For example Antartica has a minimal amount of precipitation, and thus
>> the ice packs can't grow very fast.  But, an increase in evaporation
>> may bring more precipitation to Antartica, which will cause the ice
>> packs to grow faster and to eventually expand.
>
>Let's first assume that this is true and see if we like the outcome.  Global 
>warming causes increased snow on the ice sheets,  which would cause ice sheets 
>to expand,  which causes global cooling,  which would cause decreased snow,  
>which would cause ice sheets to contract,  which would cause global warming.  
>A world alternating between a hothouse and an icehouse.  Sound like fun? 
>No?

That's just one possibility.  The other is the ice sheet expands to the point
where the global cooling caused by the expansion offsets the increased
precipitation, and the somewhat larger ice sheets just sit there and don't
grow or shrink.  All depends on the hysteresis, damping etc. that are a part
of any such dynamic system.

The ice ages show that at least the "icehouse" part can and does happen.
But I believe there is a theory that these are caused by orbital dynamics,
when the 26,000 year precession of the earth's axis cycle and some other cycle
(I forget what) line up just "wrong", we get an ice age.

    Phil,
    
    Let us say for the sake of argument that we are heading towards a day
    of doom, when you head to the north pole for a tropical vacation, when
    all the ice sheets melt and they put diving boards on the Empire State
    Building for all the swimmers swimming in New York City.
    
    Okay - the worst possible scenario is going to happen.  How do we
    prevent that?  Where are the economic resources going to come from to
    reduce CO2 and methane polution?  Where are the resources going to come
    from to reverse the burning of forests in Brazil?  Who is going to pay
    for all of this?
    
    You once pointed out (outside the 'Box) that fusion power would help a
    lot.  But this is a country that went so far overboard on the nuclear
    power issue that it has been years since a new nuke has even been
    proposed.  How are you going to get fusion plants opened up?
    
    Also, what good will fusion in the USA do for the Brazillian who still
    don't have jobs.  How will reducing our output by whatever amount
    reduce the output in Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, or South America?
    
    The problem with this problem is that it is global in extent.  More
    effective use of the world resources can be made then in the USA. If it
    was going to cost $10 billion to reduce CO2 output by x tons per year,
    that $10 billion sent to Brazil would probably reduce the CO2 output by
    2 or 3x.  In Eastern Europe - probably 2X maybe more.  In Western
    Europe - probably 1.2X  In China probably 4X.
    
    The world has limited resources with which to tackle this problem. 
    They should be applied to where they will do the most good. 
    Unfortunately politics will get in the way.  So I am not sure of what
    the answer is.
    
    Note one potential problem - let's say that the USA unilaterally
    imposes a standard on a manufacturer of reducing CO2 output by 20% at
    an increase of 15% to the cost of manufacturing.  Will that company
    stay in the USA to comply or move to someplace cheaper?  If they move,
    could the new factory be actually worse then the current one with the
    net result of an increase in CO2 production?
    
    If nothing is done - then what.  A country like Canada and Soviet Union
    may actually prefer a little global warming.  Their tundra now becomes
    viable land.  Thier lower latitudes would become similar to the USA's
    midwest.  It may be difficult to get a consensus on this one.
    
    	Skip

    Just to throw a few logs on the fire, I'd like to point out that the
    weather/climate over the past 10,000 years, since the last major ice
    age, is the steadiest it's been since humankind first stood up and
    whacked each other with a stick.
    
    This steady, temperate climate over most of the planet is largely
    responsible for the development of civilization.  Without it, we'd be
    spending too much of our time trying to keep warm (or cool) and fed -
    we'd have no time for leisure activities like learning to read and
    write.  There is strong evidence that more severe climate was partly
    responsible for the failure of Homo neandertalensis to make it on the
    world stage.
    
    Global warming, which is a real documented thing, will eventually
    result in the melting of the polar ice caps, which will in turn raise
    the mean sea level all over the globe by about 250 feet.  I live on the
    highest point in Nausea, but in that future my house will be under 100
    feet or so of salt water.  Oceanfront property in Vermont will be the
    going thing.  Florida, much of America's present coastal real estate,
    and most of the Mississippi valley will become ocean.  To find out what
    it will look like, consult a map of North America during the late
    Cretaceous period, about 70 million years ago.
    
    It's going to happen anyway, whether we do anything either to speed it
    up or to slow it down.  But it'll happen a lot sooner if we go on the
    way we're going.  The Earth's ecosystem is like a large ocean liner -
    once you get it going, you have to steer for a while to change its
    course.  And you won't see that course change immediately.  But if you
    don't change course you're going to end up sleeping with the fishes.
    
    Where are the economic resources going to come from to slow down
    greenhouse-gas production?  Out of your pocket.  And out of mine. 
    We're going to have to realize that the USA, with only 5% of the
    world's population, has no moral right to put into the air 35% of all
    the greenhouse gases that are going there.  We're going to have to
    tighten our belts - learn to live a little more like our neighbors who
    put on two or three coats when it gets cold, or like the ones who ride
    a bicycle to the store instead of driving that mile in a pollution
    factory.
    
    Reversing the rainforest destruction won't happen overnight - it'll
    take centuries.  But it'll NEVER happen if we don't start before the
    resources are completely lost to us.  I don't relish the idea of living
    on a planet like Arrakis - but that's where we're headed.

RE: 62.84 by EVMS::MORONEY "Operation Foot Bullet"

>>> potential that global warming might actually bring about an ice age. 

>>Let's first assume that this is true and see if we like the outcome.  Global 
>>warming causes increased snow on the ice sheets,  which would cause ice sheets 
>>to expand,  which causes global cooling,  which would cause decreased snow,  
>>which would cause ice sheets to contract,  which would cause global warming.  
>>A world alternating between a hothouse and an icehouse.  Sound like fun? 
>>No?

> That's just one possibility.  The other is the ice sheet expands to the point
> where the global cooling caused by the expansion offsets the increased
> precipitation, and the somewhat larger ice sheets just sit there and don't
> grow or shrink.  All depends on the hysteresis, damping etc. that are a part
> of any such dynamic system.

This sort of possibility is of the type "And then a miracle occurs."

Based on the ice core and other records of the last ice age,  a cooler
Earth has a much less stable climate than current.  Based on lake sediments
and other records of the Cretaceous,  the climate then was more stable than
current.

Also,  ever think about the time frame?  East Antarctica has an ice sheet
over a mile thick.  Current precipitation is a few millimeters a year. 
Even if this increases by a hundred times (an outrageous assumption),  it
would take thousands of years to double in size.  Even then,  the East
Antarctic ice sheet is largely hemmed in by mountains that both protect it
from melting and limit it's expansion.  BTW,  it is likely that the East
Antarctic ice sheet will grow at least somewhat with warming.

There are two other ice sheets.  Greenland,  which gets a lot of snow and
melts a lot,  is likely to melt over hundreds of years with a  warming. 
It's also contained by mountains.  West Antarctica is an unstable  mass of
ice resting on ocean floor.  The joker in the deck.  Might melt slowly over
centuries.  Might collapse in a few years,  even without climate change.

If we increase the amount of greenhouse gases enough,  we melt it all to
bedrock.  Check out Venus.  


> The ice ages show that at least the "icehouse" part can and does happen.

The Cretaceous shows that the hothouse part can and does happen.


> But I believe there is a theory that these are caused by orbital dynamics,

Yes,  amplified by changes in greenhouse gases.


> (I forget what) line up just "wrong", we get an ice age.

We get an ice age when the volcanic production of CO2 is at a minimum.  Our
current climate is a brief warm spell in a continuing ice age.


Phil

Note 548.1237                 The Winter of '95/'96                 1237 of 1244
CSSREG::BROWN "Common Sense Isn't"                     1 line   8-APR-1996 08:38
                    -< Ask Algore about global warming... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Must be all that global warming, that brings us this endless sn*w...
================================================================================
Note 548.1280                 The Winter of '95/'96                 1280 of 1280
GRANPA::KBRENNAN                                      6 lines  10-APR-1996 11:24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Must be the greenhouse effect.
================================================================================

Might just be.


Phil