warming ocean

[Les Schaffer]

Michael Pollak wrote: 

> One of the stock objection of greenhouse skeptics (like Herb
> Schmertz or his epigone that's still writing advertorials for Exxon
> now that they've become ExxonMobil) is that there have been large
> variations in global temperature over the last 3 millennia, and that
> variation during the "medieval warm period" (circa 1000 years ago)
> and the "little ice age" (circa 400 years ago) were both more
> extreme and happened more quickly than the variation we've
> experienced over the last century. 

yes, climate has changed in history (for carrol: climate is its
history). 

there are a number of changes which can be correlated with natural
causes, like enhanced volcanism, wandering of the earth's spin axis,
etc. when those causes disappear, climate will change again, perhaps
even back to its orginal state prior to the event.

There is quite a lot of work being done now to look at these known
climate shifts in prehistory and see if one can match causes. This
project will take some good time. 

We face here a different situation, where its pretty clear human
energy use has created climate change as well. and we assume our
interest lies in a continuation of the species, having lights at
night, running some machinery, etc... 

so we don't have a situation where the cause can be expected to fade
out like many of the historical causes, unless something drastic
changes in the way we live energetically.

i've heard all kinds of things: the earth has been wrmer (colder) in
the past and yet here we are. but again, these don't address the
current situation, whcih is energetics of life by billions of people
for whom, in a warm fuzzy world, it'd be nice to have us all stick
around.

[one can envision nightmare scenarios where instead of an Earth First!
organiation 100 years from now, we have a USEarthFirst!, where
presidential candidates promise swift destruction of lesser-developed
nations that can't curb their CO2 production.].

but there is a lot more literature on this subject. i havent looked at
in in a year or so. it will be good to go back and try to find some
responses to these Exxon political hacks. i had a conversation with a
climatologis at UMass last year, i'll see if i can dig it up asi think
we went over some of this stuff.

to sum up this section: climate change happens, yes. the question is,
are we putting the change on a permanent trend basis, and in a
direction bad for sustaining life [broadly defined].

> The implication is that there are chaos-like structures leading to
> global temperature variation that are as yet unaccounted for in our
> theories, and that might well swamp the effects of human industry --
> in which case, if we have to spend billions of dollars either way,
> we are better off spending them adapting to climate chage than
> trying to prevent it. Is there any truth to this position?  Does it
> have an obvious flaw?

is this business about chaos your take or was it explicated by the
Exxon goons? if the latter, i gotta something to say about bringing
chaos into this conversation, but i will hold my toungue till i hear
its source.

les schaffer