Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Parents & grans, please advise them NOT to have children - for their own sake

Expand Messages
  • Patrick Neuman
    Yes, there IS something that you and I can do to help. This article includes: .1 - - NYTimes Conversation With Jerry Mahlman, Listening to the Climate Models,
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 19, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Yes, there IS something that you and I can do to help.

      This article includes:

      .1 - - NYTimes Conversation With Jerry Mahlman,
      Listening to the Climate Models, and Trying to Wake
      Up the World, by CLAUDIA DREIFUS

      .2 - - Global Warming - understanding needed for
      family planning, by Pat Neuman, Minnesota

      I am a parent of two young adults. I think that parents & grans have
      big responsibilities to advise their sons & daughters, grandsons &
      granddaughters to NOT have their own children, for the sake of those
      children they don't have.

      Children born today have a life expectancy beyond year 2070. What
      will the environment by like in 2050 & beyond?

      Families that are well off have the most responsibility to NOT have
      children. Their own offspring would likely use up a higher share of
      Earth's limited fuels, food and water than people from low income
      families and from underdeveloped countries. The higher income family
      offspring would also contribute higher per capita amounts of
      greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere.

      Parents & grans: please advise them NOT to have their own children
      from their own gene pool. Tell them it would be better for them and
      others to have none or adopt. These are just my thoughts. I would
      appreciate seeing your comments.

      Please see the Conversation with Jerry Mahlman that follows, and my
      report on global warming that follows the NYTimes `Conversation with
      Jerry Mahlman'.

      I think the Conversation is missing important questions dealing with
      population growth, lifetimes of greenhouse gas emissions and
      consumption of finite natural resources.

      Conversation with Jerry Mahlman , next ...

      NYTimes Conversation With Jerry Mahlman, Listening to the Climate
      Models, and Trying to Wake Up the World

      December 16, 2003
      By CLAUDIA DREIFUS

      DENVER - In the stormy world of climate science, Dr. Jerry D.
      Mahlman, 63, is considered a giant.

      Until three years ago, Dr. Mahlman, now a senior researcher at the
      National Center for Atmospheric Research here in Colorado, headed the
      federal Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J.

      There he studied how the earth's troposphere and stratosphere work. To
      that end, he developed mathematical models showing how natural forces
      and chemicals interact in the atmosphere. The models consistently show
      that carbon dioxide emissions are likely to heat up the air, water and
      land.

      It was this prediction of an overly warm future that transformed Dr.
      Mahlman into a reluctant activist. He travels the country on his own
      time, warning religious, civic and educational groups about the
      dangers of global warming.

      "I don't like having to talk to people about something they don't
      particularly want to hear," he said in an interview, "but I see what
      the climate models are telling us. I think by ignoring projections on
      global warming, we are making a negative gift to our successors -
      human, animal and plant - of enormous dimension."

      Q. Let's begin with basics. Is there actually a global warming
      phenomenon?

      A. Yes, there really is. We know that the earth's climate has been
      heating up over the past century. This is happening in the atmosphere,
      ocean and on land.

      Q. People often make off-the-cuff jokes about global warming, but why
      would a warmer earth be such a terrible thing?

      A. The serious heat wave in Europe last summer is one example of how
      warming can affect people. Also, if the climate model projections on
      the
      level of warming are right, sea level will be rising for the next
      thousand years, the glaciers will be melting faster and dramatic
      increases in the intensity in rainfall rates and hurricanes are
      expected.

      It means a summer drying out of the interiors of continents, with a
      threat to agriculture systems, planetwide. In the winter, it will rain
      more in our latitudes. There will be a major melting of Arctic Sea
      ice, and therefore a megathreat to life there. That is already
      happening.

      If sea levels rise as fast as we think they will, the Florida
      Everglades are doomed. Low-lying countries like Bangladesh and
      Holland will be in serious trouble. And you can say goodbye to any
      islands that were formed by corals.

      In 1979, a National Academy of Sciences report said the climate was
      likely to warm if you keep putting CO2 into the atmosphere. Though in
      the intervening years, we've gotten much more information proving
      this, little has been done since on the policy side of reducing CO2
      emissions. All of this raises deep ethical questions. For me, the
      biggest one is, Do we accept a responsibility for the welfare of our
      descendants and for life in general 100, 200, 1,000 years from now?

      Q. With many forecasters unable to predict if it is going to rain on
      Thursday, how can you predict the weather in a hundred years?

      A. In some ways, weather prediction is harder because we are
      forecasting detailed short-term events that depend in detail upon our
      current weather. Climate projections are mathematically easier
      because we can only identify changes in averaged weather in the far
      future.

      I've spent most of my professional life using mathematical models to
      calculate weather and climate all over the earth using the basic laws
      of physics. We solve those equations on supercomputers to evaluate
      future climate over many, many places on the world. And we check
      what the climate models give us against data from the real world.
      These models give us the future climate projections I'm speaking
      of here.

      Q. How did the weather become such an important part of your life?

      A. I grew up in the high plains of Nebraska, and we had severe
      hailstorms and blizzards. They were a source of fascination to me as
      a kid. On the prairie, you are marked by the weather. I never took
      weather for granted. I wanted to understand it.

      Q. Could you be wrong with your predictions on global warming?

      A. It would be wonderful to be wrong. Unfortunately, these projections
      are based on strong science that refuses to go away. Oh sure, there
      are people insisting that warming is just a part of natural weather
      cycles, but their claims are not close to being scientifically
      credible. And while there certainly are long climate cycles, the fact
      is that the strong warming we are seeing is happening in an era of
      ever increasing CO2 emissions.

      These people remind me of the folks who kept trying to cast doubt on
      the science linking cancer to tobacco use. In both situations, the
      underlying scientific knowledge was quite well established, while the
      uncertainties were never enough to render the problem consequential.
      Yet, this offered misguided incentives to dismiss a danger.

      Global warming is unpleasant news. The costs of doing something
      substantial to arrest it are daunting, but the consequences of not
      doing anything are staggering.

      Q. One attempt by the international community to get a handle on
      global warming was the so-called Kyoto accords, which the Clinton
      administration supported tepidly, the United States Senate refused to
      ratify and the Bush administration openly opposed. The core of the
      treaty involved a national quota system for fossil fuel use. You've
      said elsewhere that Kyoto wouldn't have solved the global warming
      problem. Why?

      A. Because it was a valid first step, and only that. The best Kyoto
      could have done was lower the increase rate of carbon dioxide in the
      atmosphere, somewhat. Thirty Kyotos might do the job. The real value
      of Kyoto was to start the process of putting a brake on fossil fuel
      use.

      Q. Did you ever see Henrik Ibsen's "An Enemy of the People," about a
      health worker whose life is destroyed after he tells his community
      about typhoid in its water supply?

      A. I am familiar with the story. I too have been under tremendous
      pressure at times to tone down my message, to make the science appear
      less alarming. When I was head of my laboratory at Princeton, I was
      often asked to give Congressional testimony.

      In three events, two senators and a congressman - I won't give you
      their names because I consider that cheap - attacked me in the most
      personal way. They were trying to intimidate me into denying my
      testimony. Also, during my tenure in government, there were three
      instances where people in the government attempted to alter my
      prepared testimony. In each instance, I successfully challenged the
      requested changes as being scientifically insupportable.

      Q. Nonscientists often say that science will come up with something to
      counter global warming. Is this wishful thinking?

      A. So far, most of the alternatives that people are talking about have
      their own problems. We should start by curbing some fossil fuel use,
      of course. One idea you hear a lot about is called capturing carbon,
      where you burn coal and then sequester the CO2 deep under the earth.
      But if you start burying the stuff, you might be inviting other
      environmental problems. Does the CO2 ooze out? Does it leak into
      water systems? People have said, "how about putting the CO2 at the
      bottom of the ocean?" Well, what about the ecosystems there? Yet
      another strategy is nuclear energy, but the reactors can be used for
      making weapons of mass destruction.

      Frankly, I don't have a quick-fix answer. I do know we have a very
      serious problem, but one that won't impact our entire planet
      dangerously until you and I are safely dead - which is perhaps why so
      few people care about it.
      http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/16/science/earth/16CONV.html?
      ex=1072776185&ei=1&en=7dfa833878d57e34

      FYI... My discussion group at:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate
      Mike's discussion group at:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Climate_Water_Resources/


      > Article for public discussion at:
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate/
      >
      > Global Warming - understanding needed for family planning
      >
      > by Pat Neuman, Minnesota
      > - - - - - - - - - -
      >
      > OUTLINE
      >
      > A. GLOBAL LAND TEMPERATURES (GLT)
      > .. TABLE 1: GLOBAL LAND TEMPERATURES(1880-2002)
      >
      > B. EARLIER SNOWMELT RUNOFF: MIDWEST & GREAT PLAINS
      >
      > C. CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE
      > .. TABLE 2: CARBON DIOXIDE MEASUREMENTS(1800-2002)
      > .. INTERACTIVE PROCEDURE TO VIEW CO2 SAMPLED DATA
      >
      > D. DETECTION OF HUMAN INFLUENCE ON CLIMATE
      >
      > E. UNDERSTANDING NEEDED TO HELP IN FAMILY PLANNING
      >
      > - - - - - - - - - -
      >
      > A. GLOBAL LAND TEMPERATURES (GLT)
      >
      > From Table 1, below: GLTs have been increasing
      > since the mid 1970s. The GLT average for the
      > 10 year period from 1993-2002 increased at 12̊F
      > per century over the previous GLT average for
      > 1983-1992.
      >
      > TABLE 1: GLOBAL LAND TEMPERATURES(1880-2002)
      >
      > - - Annual ̊F
      > 1880 46.90
      > 1881 47.02
      > 1882 47.11
      > 1883 46.66
      > 1884 46.41
      > 1885 46.67
      > 1886 46.87
      > 1887 46.81
      > 1888 46.66
      > 1889 47.28
      >
      > Rate of Change(CH) in GLT (̊F) per century
      > by 10 year averages from 1890 through 2002
      >
      > - - Annual 10yrAv(Intervals) 10yrAvCH/CHx100
      > 1890 47.06 46.85 (1881-1890) : / .01 / + 1
      > 1891 46.78 46.83 (1882-1891) : / .02 / - 2
      > 1892 46.62 46.78 (1883-1892) : / .05 / - 5
      > 1893 46.43 46.76 (1884-1893) : / .02 / - 2
      > 1894 46.98 46.82 (1885-1894) : / .06 / + 6
      > 1895 46.81 46.83 (1886-1895) : / .01 / + 1
      > 1896 47.03 46.85 (1887-1896) : / .02 / + 2
      > 1897 47.21 46.89 (1888-1897) : / .04 / + 4
      > 1898 47.01 46.92 (1889-1898) : / .03 / + 3
      > 1899 47.13 46.91 (1890-1899) : / .01 / - 1
      >
      > 1900 47.32 46.93 (1891-1900) : / .02 / + 2
      > 1901 47.31 46.99 (1892-1901) : / .06 / + 6
      > 1902 46.91 47.01 (1893-1902) : / .02 / + 2
      > 1903 46.81 47.05 (1894-1903) : / .04 / + 4
      > 1904 46.59 47.01 (1895-1904) : / .04 / - 4
      > 1905 46.88 47.02 (1896-1905) : / .01 / + 1
      > 1906 47.22 47.04 (1897-1906) : / .02 / + 2
      > 1907 46.41 46.96 (1898-1907) : / .08 / - 8
      > 1908 46.67 46.93 (1899-1908) : / .03 / - 3
      > 1909 46.77 46.89 (1900-1909) : / .04 / - 4
      >
      > 1910 46.99 46.86 (1901-1910) : / .03 / - 3
      > 1911 46.88 46.81 (1902-1911) : / .05 / - 5
      > 1912 46.77 46.80 (1903-1912) : / .01 / - 1
      > 1913 47.05 46.82 (1904-1913) : / .02 / + 2
      > 1914 47.49 46.91 (1905-1914) : / .09 / + 9
      > 1915 47.49 46.97 (1906-1915) : / .06 / + 6
      > 1916 46.92 46.94 (1907-1916) : / .03 / - 3
      > 1917 46.34 46.94 (1908-1917) : / .00 / . 0
      > 1918 46.86 46.96 (1909-1918) : / .02 / + 2
      > 1919 47.05 46.99 (1910-1919) : / .03 / + 3
      >
      > 1920 47.07 46.99 (1911-1920) : / .00 / . 0
      > 1921 47.50 47.05 (1912-1921) : / .06 / + 6
      > 1922 47.16 47.09 (1913-1922) : / .04 / + 4
      > 1923 47.15 47.10 (1914-1923) : / .01 / + 1
      > 1924 47.06 47.06 (1915-1924) : / .04 / - 4
      > 1925 47.29 47.04 (1916-1925) : / .02 / - 2
      > 1926 47.53 47.10 (1917-1926) : / .06 / + 6
      > 1927 47.26 47.19 (1918-1927) : / .09 / + 9
      > 1928 47.38 47.24 (1919-1928) : / .05 / + 5
      > 1929 46.86 47.22 (1920-1929) : / .02 / + 2
      >
      > 1930 47.50 47.27 (1921-1930) : / .05 / + 5
      > 1931 47.57 47.27 (1922-1931) : / .00 / . 0
      > 1932 47.48 47.31 (1923-1932) : / .04 / + 4
      > 1933 47.07 47.30 (1924-1933) : / .01 / - 1
      > 1934 47.60 47.35 (1925-1934) : / .05 / + 5
      > 1935 47.31 47.35 (1926-1935) : / .00 / . 0
      > 1936 47.39 47.34 (1927-1936) : / .01 / - 1
      > 1937 47.59 47.37 (1928-1937) : / .03 / + 3
      > 1938 47.87 47.42 (1929-1938) : / .05 / + 5
      > 1939 47.64 47.50 (1930-1939) : / .08 / + 8
      >
      > 1940 47.52 47.50 (1931-1940) : / .00 / . 0
      > 1941 47.56 47.50 (1932-1941) : / .00 / . 0
      > 1942 47.49 47.50 (1933-1942) : / .00 / . 0
      > 1943 47.54 47.55 (1934-1943) : / .05 / + 5
      > 1944 47.69 47.56 (1935-1944) : / .01 / + 1
      > 1945 47.32 47.56 (1936-1945) : / .00 / . 0
      > 1946 47.48 47.57 (1937-1946) : / .01 / + 1
      > 1947 47.56 47.57 (1938-1947) : / .00 / . 0
      > 1948 47.56 47.54 (1939-1948) : / .03 / - 3
      > 1949 47.40 47.51 (1940-1949) : / .03 / - 3
      >
      > 1950 47.04 47.46 (1941-1950) : / .05 / - 5
      > 1951 47.39 47.45 (1942-1951) : / .01 / - 1
      > 1952 47.44 47.44 (1943-1952) : / .01 / - 1
      > 1953 47.75 47.46 (1944-1953) : / .02 / + 2
      > 1954 47.22 47.42 (1945-1954) : / .04 / - 4
      > 1955 47.22 47.41 (1946-1955) : / .01 / - 1
      > 1956 46.69 47.33 (1947-1956) : / .08 / - 8
      > 1957 47.41 47.31 (1948-1957) : / .02 / - 2
      > 1958 47.68 47.32 (1949-1958) : / .01 / + 1
      > 1959 47.51 47.34 (1950-1959) : / .02 / + 2
      >
      > 1960 47.37 47.37 (1951-1960) : / .03 / + 3
      > 1961 47.58 47.39 (1952-1961) : / .02 / + 2
      > 1962 47.55 47.40 (1953-1962) : / .01 / + 1
      > 1963 47.56 47.38 (1954-1963) : / .02 / - 2
      > 1964 46.97 47.35 (1955-1964) : / .03 / - 3
      > 1965 47.11 47.34 (1956-1965) : / .01 / - 1
      > 1966 47.32 47.41 (1957-1966) : / .07 / + 7
      > 1967 47.28 47.39 (1958-1967) : / .02 / - 2
      > 1968 47.11 47.34 (1959-1968) : / .05 / - 5
      > 1969 47.31 47.32 (1960-1969) : / .02 / - 2
      >
      > 1970 47.41 47.32 (1961-1970) : / .00 / . 0
      > 1971 47.15 47.28 (1962-1971) : / .04 / - 4
      > 1972 47.08 47.23 (1963-1972) : / .05 / - 5
      > 1973 47.79 47.25 (1964-1973) : / .02 / + 2
      > 1974 47.02 47.26 (1965-1974) : / .01 / + 1
      > 1975 47.41 47.29 (1966-1975) : / .03 / + 3
      > 1976 46.84 47.24 (1967-1976) : / .05 / - 5
      > 1977 47.71 47.28 (1968-1977) : / .04 / + 4
      > 1978 47.43 47.32 (1969-1978) : / .04 / + 4
      > 1979 47.66 47.35 (1970-1979) : / .03 / + 3
      >
      > 1980 47.75 47.38 (1971-1980) : / .03 / + 3
      > 1981 48.13 47.48 (1972-1981) : / .10 / +10
      > 1982 47.53 47.53 (1973-1982) : / .05 / + 5
      > 1983 48.15 47.56 (1974-1983) : / .03 / + 3
      > 1984 47.43 47.60 (1975-1984) : / .04 / + 4
      > 1985 47.49 47.61 (1976-1985) : / .01 / + 1
      > 1986 47.77 47.70 (1977-1986) : / .11 / +11
      > 1987 48.09 47.74 (1978-1987) : / .04 / + 4
      > 1988 48.24 47.82 (1979-1988) : / .08 / + 8
      > 1989 48.03 47.86 (1980-1989) : / .04 / + 4
      >
      > 1990 48.54 47.94 (1981-1990) : / .08 / + 8
      > 1991 48.29 47.96 (1982-1991) : / .02 / + 2
      > 1992 47.82 47.98 (1983-1992) : / .02 / + 2
      > 1993 47.91 47.96 (1984-1993) : / .02 / - 2
      > 1994 48.35 48.05 (1985-1994) : / .09 / + 9
      > 1995 48.61 48.16 (1986-1995) : / .11 / +11
      > 1996 48.03 48.19 (1987-1996) : / .03 / + 3
      > 1997 48.51 48.23 (1988-1997) : / .04 / + 4
      > 1998 49.15 48.32 (1989-1998) : / .09 / + 9
      > 1999 48.69 48.39 (1990-1999) : / .07 / + 7
      >
      > 2000 48.44 48.38 (1991-2000) : / .01 / - 1
      > 2001 48.82 48.43 (1992-2001) : / .05 / + 5
      > 2002 49.03 48.55 (1993-2002) : / .12 / +12
      > 2003 not available
      > - - -
      >
      >
      > B. EARLIER SNOWMELT RUNOFF: MIDWEST & GREAT PLAINS
      >
      > Annual spring snowmelt runoff from 1980-2003 occurred
      > 3-4 weeks earlier than average for the period 1900
      > through spring, 1979. [Article presented at 28th
      > Annual NOAA National Weather Service(NWS)
      > Climate Prediction Center(CPC) & Desert Research
      > Institute Workshop in Reno, Nevada, 22 Oct. 2003.
      >
      > The poster presentation can be viewed from:
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/
      >
      > The article and figures can be accessed through:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/264
      >
      > Presently there are four figures shown on the
      > article web site, showing the timing of snowmelt
      > runoff from 1900 to current, and average dewpoints
      > from 1948 to current for January through April.
      >
      > Three figures that were presented at the NOAA NWS CPC
      > October 2003 Workshop can be viewed from by selecting
      > 'Full Size' image, after selecting 'Photos' from the
      > left side of the ClimateArchive website.
      > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/)
      >
      > The three figures show annual average temperatures
      > from 1898 through 2002 for NWS climate stations at
      > Jamestown ND, Leech Lake Dam MN, and Spooner
      > Experimental Farm WI. These areas have had declining
      > populations in recent decades, therefore any urban heat
      > island effects on temperature measurements would have
      > been minimal or nonexistent. These 105 year plots of
      > annual mean temperatures show obvious warming trends,
      > especially from the early 1980s, increasing to current.
      >
      > Although a non member can view the climateArchive
      > messages & homepage image in regular size, the Full
      > Size images in the 'photo albums' can only be viewed
      > by members only. However, there is open membership to
      > this group thus anyone that Submits for membership
      > will be approved almost instantaneously.
      >
      >
      > C. CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE
      >
      > Air bubbles trapped in ice from Antarctica
      > and Greenland have been analyzed to reconstruct
      > the atmospheric composition at the time when
      > the ice formed. Measurements of the amount of
      > greenhouse gases in these bubbles show that the
      > "pre-industrial" amount of carbon dioxide (CO2)
      > in the atmosphere was about 280 parts per
      > million (ppm), almost 100 ppm below today's
      > value. The figure below show results of CO2
      > measurements of air trapped in ice cores taken
      > at the Law Dome site in Antarctica, along with
      > present day measurements at the CMDL Mauna Loa
      > Observatory in Hawaii. CO2 amounts have
      > increased about 35% in the last 200 years.
      > Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory
      > (CMDL, NOAA).
      >
      > Table 2 shown below was constructed using data
      > from the CMDL figure from their website at:
      > http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/faq ... based on
      > Law Dome ice core & Mauna Loa CO2 data.
      >
      > TABLE 2: CARBON DIOXIDE MEASUREMENTS(1800-2002)
      >
      > Key:
      > Amount(AMT) in parts per million(ppm)
      > Change(CH) in CO2 by 50 yr intervals since 1800
      >
      > YEAR AMT
      > 1800 280 CH : Percent increase since 1800
      > 1850 285 05 : 2
      > 1900 295 15 : 5
      > 1950 315 35 :12
      > 2000 370 90 :32
      > 2002 375 95
      >
      > As shown below, CO2 amounts have increased about
      > 35% in the last 200 years. ... From TABLE 2:
      > 375 ppm divided by 280 ppm = 34%.
      >
      >
      > INTERACTIVE PROCEDURE TO VIEW CO2 SAMPLED DATA
      >
      > a) Click: http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/iadv/
      > b) Map of the world(at right) click a red circle.
      > c) Left side of page, arrow down & click Submit.
      > d) The atmospheric plot of CO2 appears.
      >
      >
      > D. DETECTION OF HUMAN INFLUENCE ON CLIMATE
      >
      > ... Most of the observed global-scale warming
      > over the last 50 years is believed to have been
      > due to the increase in atmospheric greenhouse
      > gas concentrations. ...
      >
      > The observed trends over the second half of the
      > century for all indices are consistent with the
      > response to anthropogenic forcing in these
      > models. ...[Detection of a Human Influence on
      > North American Climate (Karoly, et.al. 2003).
      > In Science, November 14, 2003].
      >
      > E. UNDERSTANDING NEEDED TO HELP IN FAMILY PLANNING
      >
      > Global land temperatures are increasing rapidly.
      > Fuel, food and water shortages are great concerns.
      > Understanding global warming is needed to help
      > in family planning.
      >
      > For more information, please join the public discussion
      > group called:
      > Paleontology_and_Climate, at:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate/
      >
      > Pat Neuman
      > Hydrologist
      > Minnesota
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.