----- Original Message -----
From: "L.M. Dangutis" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: Lomborg, was Re: Patrick Moore


> <(A)  If (a big IF) the human contribution to global
> warming is
> relatively
> small in comparision with "natural" causes,>CP?
>
> Do we know an estimate of impact of climate change
> by man? (I'm not arguing for or against) It would
> just be easier to draw a rational conclusion
> if we knew the actual impact of climate change
> by man. If man's impact is large enough then this
> A,B,C argument by Lombard becomes invalid.
>
>
> Lisa

There are some very good estimates that have been made. For instance the
coal that is used in the generation of electricity is easy to estimate CO2
releases. At least 50% of the carbon emissions produced by humans and added
to the environment each year would not be released into the atmosphere if
coal was not being used. Coal does not burn by itself. Records kept for over
75 years on the Hawian Islands demonstrate that CO2 concentrations have been
rising each year, and at a much greater rate than recorded in well over 100
million years. There is relatively little uncertainty either about the
sources of those emissions within the scientific community. Over 50% of coal
is carbon, and when it is combusted it releases tremendous amounts of
atmospheric CO2. Scientists are studying ways to trap that CO2 by storing in
the ground, in the bottom of oceans and by injecting it into the deepest
parts of oceans, but the disturbing fact comes out that even if the CO2 was
trapped in the depths of oceans it would take over 1000 years to have any
real positive effect on atmospheric levels. This is because the carbon cycle
is linked directly to the concentration of carbon stored in ocean waters.
When the levels of CO2 rise in the atmosphere a natural, homeostatic
mechanism functions in the ocean through the precipitation of carbonates on
the ocean floor. When CO2 levels fall in the atmosphere these carbonates are
dissolved, and CO2 is released back into the atmosphere. If it were not for
the oceans, then there would be very high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere
right now, much higher than we could actually estimate. Forests are
ultimately limited as to how much CO2 they can fix. They are declining in
area too, so that forest is now contributing to net release of CO2 of about
40%. If we were to halt net deforestation on earth today, then there would
be an approximately 40% decline in the rate of CO emissions. And if massive
reforestation of deforested areas was to occur this would offset much of the
CO2 released by fossil fuels. Of course that should be a priority, and so
should the reduction of coal for combustion.

One other thing about coal combustion is that it has other polluting and
ecosystem disruptive effects such as acidification, deposition of heavy
metals, impairment of aquatic ecosystems throughout it's cycle of useage.
The stockpiling of flyash is itself a growing economic and ecological
problem because these stockpiles leach and transfer substantial amounts of
arsenic into groundwaters. The combined economic costs and ecological
effects of the coal industry is and has been quantified. Well over 500
coal-fired electric plants are currently operating in the US for instance.
There is the human cost to health for miners, and one estimate recently made
was that up to 250,000 Americans are suffering silicosis and black lung
disease. In addition to that it should be known that the coal we will be
using in the future will be have a even higher carbon content. This is
because much of the best coal has been combusted already. If there is one
rather economical and relatively quick method of reducing anthrogenic
contributions to CO2 to the atmosphere, then it would be reducing and
virtually eliminating the combustion of coal for electricity purposes. This
could be accomplished without impacting the economy. However if there is no
reduction, and it is likely that the releases and transfers of transboundary
pollutants will increase because China is busy building up enormous capacity
of it's coal resources, then the worst case will unfold very certainly.

One of the features of coal combustion is that the science or knowledge base
is really adequate. Coal is a local and regional polluting source as is well
known even during the early stages of the industrial revolution. The first
epidemiological finding on a environmental cause of cancer was published in
the 1800's after chimney sweeps were assessed for skin cancer. The finding
demonstrated that it was the soot containing Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons which were causally linked to skin cancer. In England the rate
of skin cancer was very high compared to the incidence of skin cancers in
sweep of continental Europe. The reason was demonstrated that the sweep in
England were not washing after they performed their tasks, whereas in
European countries outside England the sweeps were bathing and removing the
soot and tar from their bodies. Then you have the 'black smogs' of London
which were finally stopped by regulations pertaining to how the emissions
were released (don't know the details), but the science regarding coal
combustion and effects is demonstrative, and there is no uncertainty about
that issue.

Other areas where there is a lack of uncertainty include some aspects of
deforestation and ozone depleting chemicals and associated atmospheric
effects of increased release of 'infrared absorbing' substances associate
with increased 'forcing'. There are some uncertainties about the role of
deforestation especially at the political level, even though the scientist
are currently in general agreement on that, viz Jerry Franklin and others.
The findings are consistent about the destruction and deforestation of old
growth forests and that effect on increased releases of CO2 into the
atmosphere; however countries like Canada with large tracts of boreal
forests are claiming that reforestation is a 'preventative measure' but that
does not eliminate the release and transfer of heat trapping gases. It
appears that some uncertainties exist, but that is because no one can
predict what levels of releases and transfers will occur due to anthropic
causes. This is because releases and transfers are linked to world economic
consumption and population growth, and therefore there is uncertainty
concerning predictions; however the predictions are generally that the
consumption of coal, oil and gas, and deforestation will actually increase
substantially. For instance the consumption of wood products in the US has
grown on average about 2.7% per capita over the last decade and is projected
to remain at this level for the next decade. This rate of consumption
therefore makes it less likely to use boreal and temperate forests as
'sinks' if the harvest of wood actually increases over the next ten years.
Instead of actually making some positive changes here it looks like we will
be facing the 'status quo' on consumption rates. There are a few countries
which have reduced their per capita emissions, but these reductions are
offset negatively by countries like the US, China, Canada, etc. The highest
per capita releases are of course coming from the worlds' fastest growing
economies: Canada, the US, China, Australia, et cetera. Russia in fact has
experienced a decline, a very substantial decline since the fall of
communism there. However and perhaps unfortunately it has resorted to
increased levels of forest harvesting to obtain foreign currency and also it
has increased it's export of oil and gas, so it does not actually matter
where the sources are located, if there is a market for coal, timber, oil
and gas, then it will be used and the products will be released and
transferred into the environment.

There are also uncertainties about other gaseous substances, the effect of
shrinking cap ice, clouds and other factors associated with an array of
atmospheric physics; however in many cases the discovery of new science on
this topic reveals a new disturbing set of facts which re-inforces much of
the earlier worst case scenarios.

In large and major part the uncertainties are really 'probabilities' which
are dependent on 'real world' conditions such as future releases and
transfers associate with consumption of CO2 emitting products and forests.
Of course there are releases naturally from volcanoes but statistically
these releases are generally constant over long time periods. Volcanoes are
not the major source of CO2 into the atmosphere...and when they occur they
actually cool off the earth as was the case when Pinutabo erupted.

chao

john foster




>
> >
> >and
> >
> >(B) if (another big IF) most/all the money that could
> possibly be
> spent by
> developed countries to reduce the human contribution
> to climate change
> would be wasted if non-anthropogenic warming continues
> to accelerate,
> >
> >then
> >
> >(C) would it not make sense to at least *consider*
> what Lomborg here
> has
> suggested?  i.e. that it would be better to spend that
> money helping
> other
> countries to cope with (possibly inevitable) climate
> change?
>
>
> =====
> Lisa Dangutis
> [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]
>
> The Sunshine Environment Link
> http://www.thesunshineenvironmentlink.org
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
> http://launch.yahoo.com