Eric J. Korpela wrote:
We might not know exactly what the effects of
pumping vast amounts of CO2
into the atmosphere will be, but we know there will be effects. Isn't that
a good enough reason to exercise caution?
No. It's unlikely that we simply stop producing CO2. More likely we
replace processes that produce CO2 with processes that produce other
waste products.
Not quite. The main trick is to stop using sources of carbon dioxide that
are outside of the carbon cycle. Once you get to renewable hydrocarbon
sources, the CO2 problem goes away.
The environmental impact of those
other waste products
is even *less* understood.
Hell, even nuclear is better than fossil fuels. (A fairly simple risk
assesment shows that nuclear power plants save a lot of lives.)
I think you
also underestimate the quality of the data regrading the effects
of stratospheric chlorine compounds on the ozone layer. No one claims
that it is the only thing affecting ozone concentrations, but very few
would deny that it is having an effect.
Some of them do deny that it's having an effect. The actual measurements
do not back up the claim that decreased use of CFCs will reduce the ozone
hole.
Nor do the measurements indicate that decreased use of CFCs will not reduce
ozone depletion. The link between antarctic ozone depletion and CFC emissions
is pretty well established by in-situ measurements. The effects at lower
latitude are not so obvious. There is no data corresponding to decreased
CFC use given that the effects of decreased CFC use will take 20-30
years to show up in the ozone levels.
The point isn't that the hypothesis is wrong, but
that it's not sufficiently
tested, and that there is in fact counterevidence. So it's foolish to
rush out and change from using CFCs with well-known properties to other
chemicals with less known effects.
The "counterevidence" is probably wishful thinking. Antarctic ozone levels
have been dropping since the 70s, the reactants and the catalysts have been
measured in-situ, and the link to CFCs is well established. Researchers
don't even use "may" in their papers, prefering to now use statements like
"The depletion is caused chiefly by ozone reacting chemically with chlorine
and bromine from industrially manufactured gases."
I promise this my final entry to this discussion. I'm sorry I couldn't let
the rants of those who feel differently go unopposed. My next message will
be about a broken jumper wire on the one of the boards in my Tandy 6000.
Eric