| OCR Text |
Show PAGE 12 THEZEPHYRMAY 1991 somewhere left of right by Jane S. Jones In Its latest direct mall solicitation for new members, the Sierra Club Is again U. S. Forest Service. Its still the old growth timber and the logging problems the attacking of the Northwest that has them up In arms. Uke any other problem, each side has some good arguments. In a perfect world, I would not want to destroy any natural resource that someone else thought was special. But It seems to me that practicality would necessitate some cooperation here. If a large representative area of old growth forests was preserved, as It has been done In the Northwest, Id fed a solution had been found for all concerned. But the Sierra Club Is digging Its heels In, deckling that all remaining old growth forests need to be set aside and removed from production of timber, along with a lot of previously logged acreage. Its the lack of acknowledgement by environmentalists that the Umber Industry and the Forest Service have done any good for this country that Irritates me. You get the Impression from reading their propaganda that the Sierra Club cant stomach the concept of growing and harvesting timber at any time, on any national forest lands. If s hard to Judge what the actual majority view of America Is on ecosystem protection versus the economics of raw materials, manufacturing and consumer products getting to the marketplace. To return to the Sierra Clubs recent mailing, after the slightly hysterical rhetoric tacts of which I am still trying to sort outthere Is one attacking the timber Industry-t- he I statement that already have enough Information to refute. Namely, that our world Is gravely threatened by the greenhouse effect from the burning of fossil fuels. There Is a lot of theory that has been bandied about In the news media over the last few years about the greenhouse effect And the medta has emphasized sensational claims by a few scientists, to the point that up until a few months ago, I would have believed the statement But It Is Incorrect on two counts. After recently doing research on this subject, I have learned that there Is no actual evidence Just conjecture to show that we are In any way "threatened by the greenhouse effect Also, there Is no scientific evidence that proves the burning of fossil fuels Is the cause of the greenhouse effect; again. Just conjecture and theory. The earth Is similar to a greenhouse because of Its surrounding atmosphere. This layer acts as a filter, only letting about 50 of the Incoming solar radiation reach the earths surface. The rest Is absorbed by the atmosphere or reflected back Into outer space. Now, the warming of the earths surface causes emission of Infrared radtatlon. The carbon dioxide (C02) In the atmosphere, along with water vapor, methane, hydrocarbon and a few other gases, acts to absorb this radiation, and the warming "greenhouse effect Is produced. Without this effect, If everything else remained constant, the temperature would be a lot cooler, like 55 Fahrenheit cooler. There Is at present an atmospheric Increase In C02 level of 25, and the other major greenhouse gases are on the rise, Increasing about 1 per year In concentration. We know the levels present since the last Ice age from studying air bubbles trapped In gtaclal Ice and from carbon Isotopes In tree rings and ocean sediment cores. It Is Imperative that we keep studying this Increase until we determine the cause. So we have these Increases In greenhouse gases. From what scientists know and understand, these Increases should already have produced a global warming of about 2 to 4 Fahrenheit ey have not According to recorded temperature patterns since 1880, temperatures have either risen overall by no more than one degree, or there might have THIS IS A SPROCKET-HEAD- . been a slight cooling depending on whose computer model you look at Trying to determine average temperatures In the past Is an Imprecise science so tar. When NASA scientist James Hansen scared us all In June of 1988 by claiming he was 99 sure that the greenhouse effect was changing the climate right now, we all watched for 1988 to be the warmest year on record. Well, It wasn't Why? Because Mr. Hansen's computer model, on which he based his warming prediction, didn't take Into account the La El Nino, or warm Nina phenomenon (not to be confused with the more commonly-know- n It has done 19 In of as latter the a La 1988, Just Nina caused This part cooling current). In 102 times the last years. So the point Is, climate Is a tremendously complicated result of many known, and many more as yet unknown factors. The science of climatology Is In Its Infancy. There are lots of theories and little quantitative statistical data. The start of the current rise In C02 coincided with the beginnings of the Industrial age a few hundred years ago, so the theory that fossil fuel burning has caused the rise Is difficult to avoid. But Ifs almost certainly not that simple. In fact, unexplained rises In C02 have happened before, and there was no Industrial revolution and fossil fuel burning that we know of to blame It on. Scientists are looking at everything as possfole cause and effect phenomenon. The effects of ocean currents and these giant bodies of water acting as heat sinks are being looked at The effect of the ocean on climate Is not known, except that most agree that the effect Is major. During 1980, the volcanic eruption of Mount St Helens released Into the atmosphere at least 910.000 metric tons of C02, 220,000 metric tons of sulfur doxlde, unknown amounts of aerosols, plus methane, water vapor, carbon monoxide and many sulfur compounds. And It was a relatively small eruption based on past volcanic activity. And then there Is the sun. Some astronomers believe that shifting positions between the sun and earth over the last 500.000 to one million years are related to the starting and ending of glacial cycles. Also, sunspots and solar activity are being studied. So, the burning of fossil fuels appears to be linked to the Increased C02 levels, from what I have read. But It Is still Just a theory, not proven fact I actually want It to be true, so we'll have a really good Incentive to kick the oil addiction. 0 Another thing I found out while reading about the greenhouse effect deals with theories that the earth Is cycling, not toward higher temperatures, but toward another Ice age. Many scientists believe that a cooling trend Should have begun several hundred years ago. For several 10,000 year cycles In earths most recent history, there has been a very gradual natural cooling preceding each Ice age, and that time may be overdue. But this time, the strangest thing happened the earth dldnt cool down on schedule, It stayed about the same temperature. Why? Because something caused the greenhouse gases and C02 to Increase starting about 300 years ago, which counterbalanced the earths natural cooling cycle. Yes, It was the Industrial revolution! So the theory goes. -We may have to say Thank you, fossil-fu- el development-craz- y burning Industrial-ag- e humans. I love tills one! Maybe we should be burning more, to make sure It doesn't start to get too cold but then Saddam Husseins burning oil well legacy has already taken care of that..... Gosh, Jj$a! Were mV Into.... FLAMINGO Go s". n.m THE HAPPY BELLY DELI has been invited to join HONEST OZZIES look for our deli opening injuly VISIT OUR GREATLY EXPANDED NEW SHOWROOM. 94 KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. ORGANIC W. 259-533- 3 1st No. |
