Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gao seng who wrote (140761)	4/27/2001 12:34:13 AM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Gao, Try again. Hansen Strongly Re-Asserts Carbon Dioxide Focus Equal in Importance to Other Greenhouse Gases, Refutes Some Accounts Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies was an author of a recent National Academy of Sciences paper (August 29, 2000) on scenarios for forecasting the impact of greenhouse gases. Hansen has been widely quoted on global warming issues in the media since his 1988 testimony before Congress. This most recent study has been widely quoted by groups and individuals as evidence that prompt action on carbon dioxide emissions is unwarranted. Dr. Hansen has published a lengthy open letter in Natural Sciences (October 26, 2000) sharply refuting the interpretation that his study implies that a focus on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is not important. The full text of Dr. Hansen's letter can be found at: ems.org or naturalscience.com Several relevant excerpts follow: Recently, with several colleagues, I wrote an article "Global Warming in the 21st Century: An Alternative Scenario", which was published August 29 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Some reports on this paper have been inaccurate or misleading. It is practically impossible to respond to each interpretation of our paper. Therefore, I attempt to clarify some of these issues in this open letter. - - - - - The ‘Alternative Scenario' implicitly outlines a framework that may be helpful in thinking about how to deal with global warming over the next several decades. The aim of the scenario is to limit additional human-made climate forcing to about 1 Watt in the next 50 years, by halting the growth of non-CO2 forcings (‘air pollution') and limiting the additional CO2 forcing to about 1 Watt. - - - - - The most accurate summaries of our paper, in my opinion, were an article in the Rolling Stone and an editorial in The Washington Post. The Rolling Stone article included a recorded interview and the Post editorial followed a substantive telephone conversation and reading of our paper. The Post editorial concluded: "Dr. Hansen and a team of colleagues wrote that most of the global warming so far observed actually comes from other greenhouse gases such as methane, chlorofluorocarbons and gases that combine to create ozone in smog. They suggested a strategy of focusing first on cutting those gases and black particles of soot that also trap heat. Some of the gases involved are already in decline because of other international restrictions; going after others amounts to an attack on air pollution, which the scientists argue should be attractive action in all parts of the world, independent of concerns about warming, because of health benefits of cleaner air. "That optimistic scenario immediately caused some environmentalists to worry that the report would become a weapon for those who are skeptical about warming - who oppose any action. Dr. Hansen himself said it undoubtedly will be used that way, but that would be a misreading of the study. The new report does not challenge either the evidence that surface temperatures are going up or the growing consensus that human activities are contributing to the increase. It continues to cite the need for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. There is no suggestion, nor should there be, that response to global warming should wait until the science is more certain. "What it does do is remind us that climate issues are complex, far from fully understood and open to a variety of approaches. It should serve as a caution to environmentalists so certain of their position that they're willing to advocate radical solutions, no matter what the economic cost. It suggests that the sensible course is to move ahead with a strong dose of realism and flexibility, focusing on approaches that are economically viable, that serve other useful purposes such as cutting dependence on foreign oil or improving public health, and that can help support international consensus for addressing climate change. If the Hansen report pushes the discussion in that direction, it will turn out to be good news indeed." Would that every scientist could, at least once in their career, have an editor read one of their papers with such understanding and insight! And to think, as I was speaking to her, that I felt she was leaning toward the negative construction of our paper. However, there are two borderline misinterpretations of our paper even in the Post editorial, which indicates that we must accept some responsibility for not making a subtle point more clear. First, we did not mean to convey that the non-CO2 gases caused more warming than CO2. In fact, they have contributed equally, 1.4 Watts for CO2 and 1.4 Watts for non-CO2 gases. The confusion arose from our observation that fossil fuel burning is responsible for aerosol cooling as well as CO2 warming, so the net effect of fossil fuels was probably less than 1.4 Watts. We noted that fossil fuel use also produced some of the non-CO2 gases (a portion of CH4 and O3, for example), but that these were not essential products of fossil fuel burning. We considered this comment to be an interesting observation, but it is not essential to the thesis of our paper, so perhaps it would have been better to avoid that subsidiary discussion. The second possible misinterpretation is the statement that we "suggested a strategy focusing first on cutting those gases and black particles of soot". Later she does write that our paper "continues to cite the need for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions". Actually, we expect that equal emphasis is needed on non-CO2 and CO2 forcings to keep the net forcing at 1 Watt. Perhaps we could have made this clearer. But it is not obvious that there really is a misunderstanding. After all, we are saying that by eliminating air pollution growth and taking common sense steps to slow CO2 growth we can buy several decades with little increase of the net climate forcing. This time can be used to develop understanding of exactly how and why each of these forcings is changing, as well as to develop the technologies that will allow us to minimize longer term change. ems.org

To: gao seng who wrote (140761)	4/27/2001 12:44:55 AM
From: hamsandwich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

You wrote: I pay them taxes they better damn well do something for me. You are getting that beeeeeeg tax cut. Isn't that enough for you? If you want more, you should be donating large amounts to the RNC. See, e.g., MBNA, Enron, etc. I guess the president didn't read this part of the statement: "In the long run, fossil fuels will be the issue," so greater energy efficiency and more reliance on renewables will be needed. Or perhaps he did read that, and determined that it meant he should be drilling more. edit: I'm assuming he can read. sandwich