September 2006 Newsletter
Page Number Three

One cannot expect the lay public to read, much less absorb and understand, the scientific literature, given the poor state of science education in the US. Further, there is enough debate in the scientific community about most issues to confuse complex issues beyond the lay grasp. Nonetheless, no one is exempt from the consequences of human activity on a global scale. Denial is not a river in Africa.

At a June 15 meeting convened by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a prestigious scientific organization that publishes the journal Science, ten of the world’s leading experts on climate change presented some scary thoughts.

You have experienced the greenhouse effect if you have left your car closed for an hour in the heat of a Texas summer. The temperature inside the car upon your return was a lot higher than the outside temperature because the infrared radiation (heat) from the sun that passed through the windows into the car were reflected around the inside of the car and did not escape. This made the car hotter than you expected. That’s what happens when those same heat rays can’t escape the earth’s atmosphere and are reflected back to earth again by the "greenhouse gasses" in the atmosphere to do more heating. The greenhouse gasses that reside in the atmosphere and reflect those heat rays include water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2), the products of burning carbon-based fuels, oil, gas, wood, lignite, coal, etc. The more CO2 we put into the atmosphere, the more the heat rays we will absorb and the hotter we, and our earth, will be.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is now 380 ppm, higher than at anytime since 36 – 55 million years ago. That’s when palm trees grew in what is now Wyoming, crocodiles lived in the Arctic, and Antarctica was a pine forest. Sea level was more than 300 feet higher than it is today. At the present rate of CO2 production, its concentration could rise to 800 – 1000 ppm; average global temperature could rise 2 – 10 degrees Fahrenheit; and sea level could rise two feet by 2100. We won’t be here, but that leaves a big mess for our progeny. A large portion of Bangladesh and South Florida will be inundated, leaving millions homeless.

Some argue that trees convert CO2 into oxygen (O2); therefore we have little to fear. But the greatest depletion of our forests is for firewood in such places as Haiti, and other destitute locales around the globe. They are becoming deserts, with too many people, creating another set of problems.

Even the Defense Department’s climate wizard is concerned that after a sufficient rise in global temperature, the Atlantic current that warms Labrador and Great Britain could rather suddenly (over a decade) collapse owing to the decrease in salinity caused

To argue that these projections are just hypothetical and are not proved, and therefore no action is necessary, is at best foolish, and at worse, a death sentence for our progeny. As Science editor Donald Kennedy said, " We are in the middle of a large, uncontrolled experiment on the only planet we have".

The time is here when we must recognize that the great economic engine based on carbon-containing fuel will choke us, or our grandchildren. Development of alternative means of generating power is just as important for our future as is the solving the problems of terrorism. We Americans generate more atmospheric CO2 than any other country, about 20% of the world’s total. We certainly ought to be in the vanguard of developing solar and nuclear energy.

We could all do more to reduce the effects of our bringing about the phenomenon of global warming.

(After Bob sent this article to me, I asked him for some practical suggestions that the ordinary person could do to help alleviate this worldwide problem. The following is his response.)

Here's an experiment I recommend: More cars run better on super than on regular gasoline. Rather than figure the cost of a tank of gas; figure how many miles per dollar you get with each grade of gasoline. I'll bet that most of us will get the most miles per dollar with super. That means I would pay a bigger price for a fill up; but I would drive farther and reduce cost by using the higher grade gasoline. Probably would reduce pollution as well, I don't know.

Encourage the commitment to the development of mass transit. Trains must be the way of the future; the sky is already full of airplanes. The price and availability of oil (therefore gasoline) will most likely continue to increase, and I suspect we will soon long for the good old days of $3 gasoline. Our cities and towns that were built based on accommodation of cars will sooner or later pay the price for having not had the vision to see the end of oil. Longview is among those that have denied the end of oil for so long that I hate to envision the days of $10 gasoline. Few will be able to afford personal cars unless they are fueled by non-carbon based fuel (and what will that be?). We'd better begin to think of a way to connect this town by some kind of mass transit now; or when the fan is covered with you know what, the town will die because others will be so far ahead.

              3 David Stipp, Fortune Magazine, January 26, 2004.

go to page 4