Mark Hickey wrote:
Specialized wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 12:57:31 -0700, Mark Hickey
wrote:

That's why I would be opposed to spending
trillions of our hard-earned dollars trying to reduce CO2 emissions,
when there's very little evidence that it's more than a very, very
minor part of the problem.
One must wonder how the emissions from a million SUV's compare to a
single volcanic eruption-St. Helen's, Pinatubo, etc..

Great example. Remember the uproar over CFCs? They were gonna
destroy the ozone 'cuz our air conditioners might leak occasionally.
Thing is, a single small volcano released many, many times more of the
compounds than mankind has ever produced. So what was our "solution"?
We replace the efficient R12 in our air conditioners with R43. Now
our cars burn more gas to keep us cool, thereby adding REAL pollutants
to the atmosphere.

This is untrue. From the FAQ
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/stratcl/

"In summary:

* Older indirect _estimates_ of the contribution of volcanic
eruptions to stratospheric chlorine gave results that ranged
from much less than anthropogenic to somewhat larger than
anthropogenic. It is difficult to reconcile the larger estimates
with the altitude distribution of inorganic chlorine in the
stratosphere, or its steady increase over the past 20 years.
Nevertheless, these estimates raised an important scientific
question that needed to be resolved by _direct_ measurements
in the stratosphere.

* Direct measurements on El Chichon, the largest eruption of
the 1980's, and on Pinatubo, the largest since 1912, show
that the volcanic contribution is small.

* Claims that volcanoes produce more stratospheric chlorine than
human activity arise from the careless use of old scientific
estimates that have since been refuted by observation.

* Claims that a single recent eruption injected ~500 times a year's
CFC production into the stratosphere have no scientific basis
whatsoever."


We can repeat the same mistake with CO2 and spend trillions of dollars
(and cause more "real problems" than we solve) if we adopt the Kyoto
protocol.

It was not a mistake. It was an example of world agencies recognizing a
problem, confronting the economic realities, instituting global policy
agreements and getting some progress on the problem. It's an example of
what can be done -- not a counter-example.

This is a all very reminiscent of the debates that raged over automobile
pollution control in the late 60's - early 70's. There was an uproar
over the impact on vehicle cost and efficiency, despite the horrific air
quality of the time. The right choice was made, nobody debates that now.


Another parallel to the current global warming debate - some
scientists were convinced that our CFCs were depleting the ozone, and
that this was going to cause horrendous changes in our planet. We
were going to be forced to become mole people to avoid the sun.
Others pointed out the "volcano conundrum", and the fact that the hole
over the south pole was much bigger than the one over the north pole,
even though the industrial / automotive impact would have been a small
fraction of that of the northern hemisphere. Fast forward to today
and scientists have figured out that the ozone hole wasn't really
shrinking as much as they thought, and naturally shrinks and grows.

You are exaggerating and distorting. You are representing sensationalism
as fact and marginal opinion as science. You've really got to move past
Fox News. The atmospheric chemistry is pretty well understood, and most
of the world's leadership came to relatively quick agreement to phase
out CFC's. The economic consequences haven't been as dire as the
hysterics predicted and atmospheric CFC levels have stabilized. It's a
success story, as is that (mostly) of pollution control in the
industrialized West. We could use a few more.