Re: [Marxism] Doomsday And Its Effect on the Left: WAS Re: WorstEnvironmental Problem? Overpopulation, Experts Say

[Jeff <meisner@xxxxxxxxx>]

At 15:34 23/04/09 +0100, you wrote:
>..... I continue to be appalled at how so much of left discussion just 
>echoes that of the media doomsday forecasts

I agree that it is easy to get swept up by sensationalistic headlines and
"doomsday" predictions, and that misinformation can easily adopted by those
who judge (as we ALL tend to do) the validity of something by how many
times it is repeated. Especially when repeated by politically-friendly
sources.

On the other hand, I think there are some flaws in, or at least strong
doubts about, your assertions arguing that global warming should not be
considered as a danger.

Plus, I don't think you have at all addressed the political ramifications
of these questions (after all, this is a MARXIST list!). I will address the
political issues in a separate email (if I get around to writing it!).

But first on the scientific/factual issues, I have a few comments. And with
the admission that I my professional qualifications are not in the area of
climatology or environment (nor are most writers on the subject!), only in
physics.

>First we had the over-population scenario, ...acid-rain .....
>forecast of a new Ice Age...... Global Warning....
>....and the forecasts get worse and worst - though we all 
>seem to survive as humanity has done for millennia
That is absolutely no argument at all. That is like saying that I walked
into a busy street blindfolded 5 times without getting hurt, so I'll just
do it again. Like saying the last 5 hurricane warnings turned out to be
unneeded so I won't worry about Katrina.....

>The latest media, government, and doomsday-merchant concentration on CO2 
>.... suggests that all industry, all that all 
>civilisation has achieved in the last couple of thousand years
of course it's been mainly since the industrial revolution, and mainly in
the last century. If global warming (as it has been measured) actually WERE
to continue for a "couple of thousand years" then the house where I am
sitting would be deep under the north sea.  

> is just 
>producing a "pollutant" 
Lots of industrial processes created pollutants (no quotes) which were only
recognized later (often after great suffering and damage), and so those
pollutants were controlled and the industries had to CHANGE in order to
CONTINUE without producing them. Such an outcome is eminently feasible with
respect to the case of CO2 producing processes.

>CO2 really is a trace gas in the atmosphere now
"Trace" is a relative term, and misrepresents the effect of CO2. Yes, it is
only .04% of the total atmosphere, but that's just because there is a LOT
of oxygen and nitrogen, which are totally transparent in the infrared (and
visible). On the other hand the "trace" amounts of CO2 are totally opaque
in parts of the spectrum, and its relative concentration in the air is thus
irrelevant.

>; with only narrow bands of 
>infra-red absorption;
Well "narrow" is also a relative term, but I can tell you most
spectroscopists would not call a 10% relative bandwidth "narrow." One "air
mass" of atmospheric CO2 is completely opaque in a not-so-narrow band
around 4.3 microns, and an even wider band around 15 microns. The latter
wavelength in particular is in the region of thermal (black body) emission
from terrestrial temperatures (the reason it acts as a "green house").
Increasing CO2 concentrations deepen the absorbtion in and around these
spectral regions where it is not completely opaque, thus reducing (yes, by
a relatively small amount) the amount of thermal radiation escaping earth.

But the important point here is that you only NEED a small increase in
opacity to lead to what is regarded as a LARGE (by human/environmental
standards) temperature increase. Consider a 1% increase in opacity as a
(weighted) average over the thermal emission spectrum. On the basis of
physics alone, that will lead to between 1/4 % and 1% increase in absolute
temperature [1/4% according to the Steffan-Boltzman law on the basis of
straight black-body radiation cooling, 1% if the cooling were all at long
wavelengths where the Raleigh-Jeans law applies]. But with an absolute
(Kelvin) temperature of around 300 degrees, a 1/4% increase is .75 degrees
(1.4 degrees to you Americans), which is considered quite worrying to
climatologists.

Calling CO2 a "trace gas" affecting "narrow spectral bands" is a misleading
characterization. It's like saying that radioactive  iodine from the
Chernobyl accident was in "trace" amounts which affected only "narrow"
sections of the human body.

> and it is NOT at the highest level the earth has eve 
>known - far from it.  
And I believe the earth was quite warmer at those times! At temperatures I
don't think we'd want to return to anytime soon....

>It is quite clear that CO2 preceded oxygen as a major 
>component of the atmosphere
Yes, before life. Again: so what?

>Vast amounts of CO2 have been stored 
>...... and the main 
>current reservoir are the oceans
Yes, and one worry is that increased temperatures will lead to release of
some of that CO2 into the atmosphere = positive feedback :-(

>It seems to me, as was quite evident to all the 20th-century scientists who 
>taught me, that the main controller of the earth's climate is the sun - 
Yes of course a major change in the sun's output would lead to similar
changes in terrestrial temperature......

>which varies its output century by century
But not by that much! It may be the "main controller" in some sense, but
certainly not the main VARIABLE factor!

>raise water vapour from the oceans - whcih result in clouds, obscuring the 
>rays of the sun [thus preventing over-heating] (and incidentally reducing 
>heat loss at night, and thus over-cooling).
patently irrelevant.....

>Let us be pleased with the current climate we experience - forget gloomy 
>forecasts of future changes
Just because you told me?

>concentrate on the fight for peace and the end to poverty 
The people on THIS list ARE concentrating on those things.... maybe you
sent this to the wrong list!

>As a final word, I suggest that computer forecasts of climate change are 
>likely to prove as wrong and futile as forecasts of the capitalist economy 
They are almost surely likely to prove wrong in detail, but I object to the
comparison. As difficult as it is to model, I'd say that a sufficiently
quantitative model of global temperature trends is MUCH simpler than an
equally accurate model (which no one has) of the international capitalist
economy (which involves countless sociological, legal, and political
factors in addition to the economics per se).

In conclusion I'd have to mention that by the paucity of your arguments,
you have only increased my trust in the widely-accepted analyses which have
confirmed the existence of human-caused global warming.

- Jeff

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu