The Competitive Enterprise Institute has produced two advertisements promoting carbon dioxide (C02) — that’s right promoting C02 — for American television. To watch the video’s click here.
The key theme is that C02 is life giving and not a pollutant. The fact that we breathe C02 out, and plants breathe C02 in, is repeated.
No reference is made to the elevated levels of C02 in the atmosphere as a consequence of the burning of fossil fuels. Is it on this basis that C02 has been labelled a pollutant? What is the definition of a pollutant? According to my dictionary it is something that “contaminates”.
I think I could mount an argument for both sides of this debate.
Beyond the elevated levels of carbon dioxide are going to change climate argument, it could be argued as long as it comes out of a car exhaust or chimney stack it is unnatural and therefore a pollutant regardless of concentration.
On the C02 is natural, “we call it life” side, I would ask the question what is the “correct” concentration of atmospheric C02?
Is climate change a moral issue, as much as a scientific issue?
Over at Real Climate the response to the videos has been more emotional than analytical, click here for the post. Though they make some good points regarding the second video and what’s happening to the world’s glaciers:
“They only discuss one scientific point which relates to whether ‘glaciers are melting’. Unsurprisingly, they don’t discuss the dramatic evidence of tropical glacier melting, the almost worldwide retreat of other mountain glaciers, the rapid acceleration of fringing glaciers on Greenland or the Antarctic peninsula. Neither do they mention that the preliminary gravity measurements imply that both Antarctica and Greenland appear to be net contributors to sea level rise. No. The only studies that they highlight are ones which demonstrate that in the interior of the ice shelves, there is actually some accumulation of snow (which clearly balances some of the fringing loss). These studies actually confirm climate model predictions that as the poles warm, water vapour there will increase and so, in general, will precipitation. In the extreme environments of the central ice sheets, it will not get warm enough to rain and so snowfall and accumulation are expected to increase.
To be sure, calculating the net balance of the ice sheets is difficult and given the uncertainties of different techniques (altimeters, gravity measurements, interferometers etc.) and the shortness of many of the records, it’s difficult to make very definitive statements about the present day situation. Our sense of the data is that Greenland is probably losing mass – the rapid wasting around the edge is larger than the accumulation in the center, whereas Antarctica in toto is a more difficult call.”
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Glaciers advance and recede. When they recede on the Antarctic Peninsula this is evidence of AGW. When they advance in Greenland it is called acceleration and is evidence of AGW.
Walter – Suggest you read these
“Science 17 February 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5763, pp. 986 – 990
DOI: 10.1126/science.1121381
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Reports
Changes in the Velocity Structure of the Greenland Ice Sheet
Eric Rignot1* and Pannir Kanagaratnam2*
Using satellite radar interferometry observations of Greenland, we detected widespread glacier acceleration below 66° north between 1996 and 2000, which rapidly expanded to 70° north in 2005. Accelerated ice discharge in the west and particularly in the east doubled the ice sheet mass deficit in the last decade from 90 to 220 cubic kilometers per year. As more glaciers accelerate farther north, the contribution of Greenland to sea-level rise will continue to increase.
1 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Mail Stop 300-319, Pasadena, CA 91109–8099, USA.
2 Center for Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets (CReSIS), University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA. ”
“Science 22 April 2005:
Vol. 308. no. 5721, pp. 541 – 544
DOI: 10.1126/science.1104235
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Reports
Retreating Glacier Fronts on the Antarctic Peninsula over the Past Half-Century
A. J. Cook,1* A. J. Fox,1 D. G. Vaughan,1 J. G. Ferrigno2
The continued retreat of ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula has been widely attributed to recent atmospheric warming, but there is little published work describing changes in glacier margin positions. We present trends in 244 marine glacier fronts on the peninsula and associated islands over the past 61 years. Of these glaciers, 87% have retreated and a clear boundary between mean advance and retreat has migrated progressively southward. The pattern is broadly compatible with retreat driven by atmospheric warming, but the rapidity of the migration suggests that this may not be the sole driver of glacier retreat in this region.
1 British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ET, UK.
2 U.S. Geological Survey, 926A National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA 20192–0002, USA. ”
You are right they are both evidence of AGW however the glaciers in Greenland are accelerating toward the sea.
I wrote a counter-ad :
http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com/2006/05/carbon-dioxide-spot-they-call-it-ad-we.html
… they call it a spot, we call it a stain.
If you think it’s any good, it would be great if you could post a link.
If CO2 is a pollutant, then so is water.
‘RealClimate’ has it’s own one-sided perspective on climate change – not a place to visit for an objective view. Does the Earth have a ‘set’ temperature or level of CO2? Roger Pielke Sr has calculated the fraction of ‘global warming’ that is due to the radiative forcing of increased CO2, with generous reference to the IPCC perspective, to be about 26.5%. About half the 0.6C rise in global temperature occurred before any significant rise in CO2. So, 26.5% of 0.3C is about 0.08C. Scary? There are other non-GHG anthropogenic climate forcings that have contributed to temperature. The focus on CO2 as a way to ‘tackle’ climate change is a non-starter.
Paul, you can’t take out the pre-40’s warming from Pielke’s calculation, he is considering the whole time period when he comes up with 26.5% so you are double discouting. CO2 did indeed have a warming effect in the early 20th century, though not as much as today.
As for the “is CO2 a pollutant” question, it depends on the definition you want to use that’s all, but a rose by any other name…
A common enough definition is “any substance introduced into the environment that adversely affects the usefulness of a resource or the health of humans, animals, or ecosystems” which makes no distinction between a naturally occuring substance or not. That makes sense, mercury is naturally occuring but clearly a pollutant anyway. CO2 added in sufficient quantities either in the air or the oceans seems to qualify as a pollutant.
BTW, how can water be considered a pollutant?
Regarding the post’s question “what is the ‘correct’ concentration of CO2” I think a reasonable answer would be whatever range the biosphere happens to be adapted to. What do you think it is?
Coby,
” CO2 did indeed have a warming effect in the early 20th century, though not as much as today”
How much of an effect and how do you know this to be true?
Can you to direct me to a link that explains the 40’s to mid 70’s cooling then – the one that caused some prominent scientists to ” offer up scary scenarios” about a new ice age?
Folks,
The “Global Warming Watch” counter-ad is a flat bust, you can tell when the first line is an ad hominem argument. If the folks at GWW find that sort of thing persuasive, they can be persuaded of anything.
The illogic doesn’t stop there; then GWW goes on to use the straw-man fallacy to create a straw-man fallacy! Wow. Quite clever, though. The credulous will love it.
It continually amazes me that people think they can control something they don’t understand, like, for instance, *the whole climate all over a planet!*
At least the opponents of CO2 have all the convenience of looking like “they care.”
But they don’t care, actually. They’re just a bunch of hate groups under the CO2 umbrella. They hate oil companies, fast food, modern agriculture, George Bush, whatever. If they don’t like it, they put a “CO2 Emitter” sticker on its butt.
This is all so tiresome.
Schiller.
Sounds like you are part of your very own hate group Schiller.
A case of the Thurkettle calling the pot black.
*boom tish!*
Jim, have a look at this graph of 20th century observed and hindcasted temperatures along with the four major forcings over that period: solar, CO2, ozone, volcanic and antropogenic sulphates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
Here is a more detailed graph of how the various forcings progressed over the 20th century:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/
(please note that these are not model output, they are derived from observations and calculations and used as input to GISS model E)
As for why the warming paused mid-century:
“No one supporting the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming claims that CO2 is the only factor in the ocean-atmosphere climate system. It is complex, responsive on many different timescales, and subject to numerous forcings. AGW only claims that CO2 is the primary driver of the current warming trend as seen over the last 100 years. If you look at the temperature record for the 90’s you’ll notice a sharp drop in ’92, ’93 and ’94. This is the effect of massive amounts of SO2 ejected into the stratosphere by Mount Pinatubo’s eruption. That doesn’t mean CO2 took a holiday, it was just temporarily overwhelmed by another opposite forcing.
The situation is similar to the cooling seen in the 40’s and 50’s. During this period the CO2 warming (a smaller forcing at the time) was temporarily overwhelmed by an increase in human particulates and aerosol pollution. Pollution regulations and improved technology saw a decrease in this different kind of emissions and as the air cleared, the CO2 signal again emerged and took over.
This opposing effect is often referred to as “Global Diming” and Real Climate has a couple of articles on that effect:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=105
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=110
One emerging concern is that as the pollution causing this effect is gradually cleaned up, we may see even greater greenhouse gas warming.”
– http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/what-about-mid-century-cooling.html
Pielke’s calculation was generous to the IPCC perspective on climate forcings (most of which are rated as having a ‘very low’ level of scientific understanding), so the true figure could be much less than 26.5%. Even applying it to 0.6C gives 0.16C.
The mid 40’s to 70’s cooling is blamed on aerosols, but the temperature rise prior to the 1940’s took place aginst a background of man-made aerosol emissions.
A harmless trace gas is not a pollutant. Throughout half of the Earth’s geological record, CO2 and temperature go in opposite directions. Where the association is tighter, temperature seems to have driven CO2, not the other way round.
As I said the focus on CO2 ignores other anthropogenic effects, for example:
Evidence for influence of anthropogenic surface processes on lower tropospheric and surface temperature trends
A. T. J. De Laat *, A. N. Maurellis
Netherlands Institute for Space Research (SRON), EOS, Utrecht, Netherlands
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/112510967/ABSTRACT
“These findings suggest that over the last two decades non-GHG anthropogenic processes have also contributed significantly to surface temperature changes. We identify one process that potentially could contribute to the observed temperature patterns, although there certainly may be other processes involved. Copyright © 2006 Royal Meteorological Society.”
We don’t know anywhere near enough to be able to control climate change or global/regional temperatures, predictably or otherwise. We certainly can’t do it with CO2 alone.
Coby,
As a genuine amateur – it appears the first link doesn’t support your argument.
From the graph – between approximately 1940 and the early to mid 70’s there was about a four-fold increase in GHG’s ( interestingly what portion of GHG’s was anthropogenic doesn’t seem to be differentiated) ,anthropogenic sulfate emissions declined substantially and the other forcings didn’t trend significantly one way or another,
Yet temperature declined sharply over a few years and remained that way for a couple of decades.
The trend to increased GHG’s is shown as consistently rising since about 1945 yet temperature didn’t take off until the nineties??
As to the second graph – shouldn’t temperature be overlayed for this to make any sense?
With regard to your comments re SO2 – does that mean that increased admissions would be a more effective response to AGW than reducing man made CO2??
Jim, I interpreted the first graph as showing sulfate emissions INCREASING (i.e., a rise in negative forcing) in the 1940-75 period.
That’s right, the dropping in the sulphate line indicates increasing amounts, as it is a negative forcing.
Jim, I think the volcanic forcing trended quite a bit down as well, which represents an increase in volcanic activity and the aerosols that result. There was also a small decrease in solar forcing as well. It is that combination that masked the positive influence of GHG’s.
It is a common mistake on both sides of this debate to look for an all or nothing climate control when it is really a very complex system with many influences. CO2 is not the whole story, nor can it possibly be irrelevant even if cosmic rays are an influence somehow. So while I am sceptical of Pielke’s numbers, his point is still valid: there are other influcencing factors, and indeed other anthropogenic factors, and we should consider any and all in addressing climate change dangers.
Someone up thread made the derisive comment that it is ridiculous to think we can control the climate. This is a strawman, no one says we can or are. We are, however, clearly influencing it in a variety of ways.
No-one says we can control the climate???
I’m afraid they do, ad nauseum, in the UK at least:
Isn’t Kyoto aimed at reducing CO2 emissions in order to ‘tackle’ climate change?
It’s been suggested that two-thirds of ‘global warming’ is due to cosmic rays/solar/low-level cloud cover effects (Shaviv and Veizer), which leaves about a one-third for other forcings, including CO2.
‘Sunspotting and climate,’ May 14th on this blog, suggests a possible new ‘Maunder Minimum’ for 2022.
If anyone has an alternative calculation to Pielke’s, and can show how it is derived, I’d be interested.
Quite correct Ian and coby – my mistake.
As just a layman layabout I dont understand the scientific argument much, but having worked in various cities and industrial areas, smog is bad whether if fills the high levels of atmosphere or not. Do goodies argue second hand smoke but ignore diesel smoke in crowded areas or yellow sky over multi million inhabited cities of people. Greenies will argue species all of them except man which is treason against their own species.
And as an everyman who has listened to a new scare hot or cold or both terror campaign by the so called environmental elite every five years I’ve had a gutful.
The everyday person had had a gutfull of enviromental hot air, mostly CO2 from a crowd who dont want us to have normal lives thru lies and half arsed projections.
Back to the everyday greenhouse programming schedule and the sponsors of a green earth without humans.
Friends,
Assuming CO2 is going to bake the planet, at least I can say I’m not part of the problem. I’m part of the solution! You see, I live in the USA, which absorbs more CO2 than it emits. If everyone followed our example, CO2 levels would drop.
Schiller.
If humanity can cause a degradation of climate, then it can also cause a gradation of climate.
To assert one view but to reject the other means internal contradiction.
Hi Schiller,
You are 100% incorrect in your assessment of the United States net emissions. You should check whatever source it was that gave you this line and if it was not your misinterpretation, you should apply a sceptical eye to anything else you think you learned from there.
Please see this post of mine for the source of that confusion and some correct figures, none of which are controversial in the least.
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/us-is-net-co2-sink.html
Coby,
Your “source of confusion” is not mine. See
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/282/5388/442
“The spatial distribution of the terrestrial carbon dioxide uptake is estimated by means of the observed spatial patterns of the greatly increased atmospheric carbon dioxide data set available from 1988 onward, together with two atmospheric transport models, two estimates of the sea-air flux, and an estimate of the spatial distribution of fossil carbon dioxide emissions. North America is the best constrained continent, with a mean uptake of 1.7 ± 0.5 Pg C year-1, mostly south of 51 degrees north.”
You will note the use of an actual atmospheric CO2 data set, in contrast to the DOE’s stitched together extrapolations.
Schiller.
Schiller – so assuming this report is accurate you think that it is alright to be the world’s largest emitter of CO2 because through no action or forethought on your part you happen to be a large carbon sink? What about the future. Has the US made any progress on keeping these sinks. What about the with climate change perhaps this situation will not stay the same.
Ender,
Thank you for your thoughful comments. What needs to be studied is how the USA became the world leader in sequestering CO2 and how other countries can emulate our ecological success.
Because of our adoption of GM crops we have vastly reduced CO2 emissions in the course of crop production–and crops grab the carbon they can, and then we eat the carbon-based crops and put ourselves in cemeteries in concrete vaults later on.
Surely that is a quite appropriate way to sequester that terrible, noxious plant-food we’ve had the gall to exhale during a lifetime.
Human bodies, the ultimate carbon-sequestering scheme.
Please don’t imagine I take this topic seriously. Sure, the hysteria over the topic merits serious attention, but CO2 itself?
If CO2 was the terror it was reputed to be, we’d be well-advised to turn the Amazon into a parking lot. As the “lungs of the Earth,” the Amazon rain forest is the largest emitter of CO2 on the planet. The microbes which digest the decaying vegetation consume oxygen and breathe out CO2. For a vastly net increase in CO2.
The rain forest is so huge that General Motors ande all the oil companies can’t come close to CO2 emissions from the Amazon. But the Amazon doesn’t have enemies, so nobody wants to slap a “CO2 Emitter” label on its butt.
At least, not yet.
Schiller.
Schiller.
Schiller,
That study is quite an outlier, and a bit discredited. I note it relies on “atmospheric transport models”, do you believe in computer models?
Here are a couple of opposing views on that issue:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/283/5409/1815a
==============================
S. Fan et al. (1) suggest that 1.4 ± 0.4 petagrams of carbon per year (Pg C year1) is taken up by the forests in North America, in contrast to 0.1 Pg C year1 taken up in Eurasia. Fan et al. invoke reforestation and regrowth, fertilization by anthropogenic N deposition, global warming, and CO2 fertilization to substantiate their inverse-model calculation. However, mechanistic models and measurements in terrestrial ecosystems do not agree with either the magnitude or spatial distribution of the CO2 sink proposed by Fan et al.
Direct estimates of forest C uptake–which reflect the interacting effects of rising CO2, N fertilization, climatic changes, as well as reforestation and regrowth–indicate that forests in 28 eastern U.S. states during the late 1980s to early 1990s had an estimated net C uptake of only 0.17 Pg year1 aboveground (2). This estimate includes the southeastern forests, which are among the most productive forest in the United States. European and Russian forest inventories (3) suggest comparable C uptake, which contradicts the North American distribution of the sink proposed in the report (1).
Anthropogenic N deposition stimulates C uptake in North America by 0.29 to 0.35 Pg C year1 with significantly more uptake in Eurasia (0.67 to 0.86 Pg C year1) according to model calculations (4). Moreover, recent field experiments by Nadelhoffer et al. (5) suggest that even this estimate of fertilized CO2 uptake may be too high. Modeled CO2 and climate effects generate a Northern Hemisphere sink with no significant east-west bias and a magnitude of ~0.58 Pg C year1 (6).
A robust understanding of the global carbon budget requires reconciliation of ecological mechanisms with inverse estimates of the spatial distribution of the so-called missing sink. Fan et al. concede that their analysis approaches the limits of uncertainty, but the lack of corroboration from independent observations suggest that they may have overextended these limits.
========================
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/285/5427/574
===========================
The rates at which lands in the United States were cleared for agriculture, abandoned, harvested for wood, and burned were reconstructed from historical data for the period 1700-1990 and used in a terrestrial carbon model to calculate annual changes in the amount of carbon stored in terrestrial ecosystems, including wood products. Changes in land use released 27 ± 6 petagrams of carbon to the atmosphere before 1945 and accumulated 2 ± 2 petagrams of carbon after 1945, largely as a result of fire suppression and forest growth on abandoned farmlands. During the 1980s, the net flux of carbon attributable to land management offset 10 to 30 percent of U.S. fossil fuel emissions
==========================
plus the DoE report I cited.
There are additional questions of why carbon is sequestering and if it will continue and if it is a matter of chance or the result of efforts that deserve credit in some way.
The silliest comment I ever saw about CO2 was that ‘there is no safe level.’ Clearly spoken by a Professor who is no fan of Photosynthesis or Carbon based life forms.
Schiller – before going to far out in your praise of the US consider these things from the paper you cited. Firstly the data range is quite limited and old:
“The atmospheric CO2 data we used cover
the 1988 to 1992 period at a subset of 63
sampling stations (20) taken from the
GLOBALVIEW database (21) compiled with
methods as described by Masarie and Tans
(22) (Fig. 1). Before 1988 there were fewer
sampling stations; a separate study indicates
that even with optimal placement, which the
present data set does not have, a minimum of
about 10 stations per region is necessary to
obtain estimates with useful accuracy (23).”
Secondly with all the distrust of climate models from skeptics posting here I find it slightly ironic to find you basing an argument on result modelled in a computer.
“The two atmospheric models and two patterns
of sea-air CO2 flux gave us four possible
combinations. To calculate in each case, we ran
the atmospheric model with the prescribed pattern
of sea-air flux for five annual cycles until
the annual average spatial distribution of atmospheric
CO2 reached a steady state.
To calculate O(x), we used data on national
fossil fuel consumption distributed with the
same spatial distribution as population density
(18). Using this pattern of release at the
surface, we ran each atmospheric model to its
steady state as above.”
Again it is not whether a country sinks CO2 it is an observation that the carbon cycle is out of balance due to us releasing fossil CO2. This is confirmed by the measurements of atmospheric CO2 which is rising. If the carbon cycle was in balance then the CO2 would be neither rising or falling.
Paul – In sufficient concentrations of course CO2 is a poisen. Only plants use CO2 so I am not sure what you mean.
Ender dismisses Schillers argument because Schiller uses Enders basis for argument – only in Enders World is this rational.
rog – not sure where you get this one however it is obviously rosy and nice in rog’s world.
Ender,
Perhaps you could identify for me a time in history when the carbon cycle was “in balance” and what the CO2 concentration was back then. And what the temperature was. And then justify why those are ideal conditions.
The fact is, the carbon cycle is *never* “in balance” and never was; and nobody knows what Earth’s “ideal” temperature is.
But let’s assume it’s possible to decide on an ideal. Would this ideal be what is most suitable for humans or, for reasons of “objectivity,” must we avoid taking our needs into account?
It may well be that what is ideal for the planet–temperature and CO2 concentrations that maximize biodiversity, for instance–might make this a planet a much less comfortable place for us to live than it is now.
Issues such as these need to be resolved before we begin instituting climate controls, I would think. In his home, a man generally considers whether it’s too hot or too cold, and for whom, before getting up to adjust the thermostat.
Schiller.
Schiller,
CO2 was stable at 280ppm +/- 30 or 40 ppm over the entire Holocene period, which is the entire history of human civilisation and agriculture.
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/20000yrfig.htm
Natural changes in CO2 levels are generally *much* slower than the perturbation we are causing. There is some historical precedent for such a sudden and large pulse of carbon into the atmosphere as we are doing, but it is a very dire warning, not a reassurance. Check out the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum event.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_thermal_maximum
Your “ideal temperature” challenge is a red herring. The problem is rapid change.
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/whats-wrong-with-warm-weather.html
Similarily, your “let’s not adjust the thermostat yet” argument has the issue bass ackwards. The climate was relatively stable on the time scale relevant to human society, the normal variability of even the ice ages was slow enough for the biosphere to adapt, we were due for another 30-40K yrs of stability before a new ice age may have caused a problem. We have now blindly started twisting the knob on the thermostat. We should *stop* influencing the climate until we know what we are in for, not your framing of we should wait before trying anything. We *are* mucking around with it right now, this is where your message of caution should apply.
Ender
CO2 would have to reach 5% to be a ‘poison.’ Yes, of course plants use CO2, and produce Oxygen. I think both plants and oxygen are useful to us! My point was that saying there is ‘no safe level’ implies that neither 280ppmv or 380ppmv are ‘safe.’
Schiller – thats not quite true. Al level of 250ppm or so seems to be about right. Our civilisation has prospered in the interglacial period of the last 8000 years. Without the huge climate extremes of the glacial period where CO2 was 150ppm or so humans have managed to build up quite a society due in part to the relitivly stable warm temperatures.
The carbon cycle seems be pretty well balanced until something perturbs it.
hey there.
am new to all this, but anyways.
do we agree that planet earth is a ‘system’?
do we agree that we can get ANY system out of balance? – we just have to try hard enough.
do we agree that with the beginning of the petrochemical age, somewhere around the last 60odd years, our life on planet earth has changed DRAMATICALLY!!!!
just look at what world population is doing at the moment. for hundreds (thousands) of years, we were below 1billion, and now we are, over the last couple of decades, aproaching 7 billion. exponential systems are NEVER good.
look at any small scale system e.g. your garden pond. if it gets too hot, and the water becomes hypoxic (low level of oxygen in water) and the system tips, you are looking at a exponential graph, just like we are entering right now…
no good!!
i mean, really. dont you all see the bigger picture. who is producing co2? it is our economy. everything we do/consume is related to co2 production. and guess what, the big companies and corporations make a s****load of money from it. so is it not quite natural, that there are many people with even more money out there who do not want to agree to us ALL having a problem? they would not make any more money if they would accept the fact that we cant go on like this for much longer.
no-one can say whether co2 is the only factor, or what else is contributing to GW. earth is a system WAY too complicated to understand. fund any scientist’s research, and tell them what you want them to find out, and they will be able to do so. numbers never lie, but which numbers do you choose to look at.
I guess all i am trying to say is this:
sit back,
think about your actions,
if you REALLY think that your doing will not jeopardise your children’s future, then go ahead and keep driving your 4wd,
BUT
please
think
My children face a better future than my grandparents ever could dream of.
read lomborg.
Oh dear! Not the ‘4×4’s control the climate argument again.’ Here’s the ‘bigger picture’ –
Climate factors:
+ Cosmic ray flux;
+ Solar magnetic cycles;
+ Sunspot cycles;
+ Meteorite impacts;
+ Cosmic dust;
+ Changing shape of the Earth’s orbit (eccentricity);
+ Changing axial tilt of the Earth (obliquity);
+ Shorter duration ‘wobbles’ of the Earth upon its axis;
+ Axial orientation of the Earth (precession);
+ Orbital inclination of the Earth;
+ The changing shape of the Earth (mean dynamic oblateness [J2]);
+ The changing rotational velocity of the Earth’s core;
+ Changes in the Earth’s magnetic field;
+ Tectonic movements of the Earth;
+ Volcanic eruptions;
+ Changes in the circulation patterns of the oceans;
+ Changes in ocean salinity and chemistry;
+ Changes in ice-sheet stability (mass-balance of glaciers) and sea-ice thickness;
+ Changes in atmospheric water vapour, the most important ‘greenhouse’ gas of all;
+ Clouds and cloudiness;
+ Natural variations in atmospheric gases, including carbon dioxide and methane
+ Changing albedo (reflectivity of Earth) through landscape change, natural and human;
+ Overall surface radiative energy fluxes;
+ Changing vegetation;
+ Natural biomass fires, agricultural and industrial fires, and their emissions;
+ The emission of aerosols and particulates, both natural and human;
+ The emission of tar balls;
+ Human-induced emissions of ‘greenhouse’ gases;
+ Known factors not listed;
+ Unknown factors;
+ Chaotic attractors;
+ Non-linear feedback links for all of the above
Coby and Ender,
Now that you have established the ideal parameters for the climate, and since “we” know enough about climate to “adjust the thermostat,” what are your recommendations? Bear in mind, you mentioned that humanity flourished at a low-tech, high-mortality level.
Is low-tech, high-mortality the answer?
Bear in mind, most people’s models assume that the ideal state is where the planet has no humans on it.
Schiller.
Schiller.
But then what is the relevance to climate of ‘carbon’? CO2 has specific properties, carbon has differing properties, and conversion simply to garner a mass is thus relevant why and how also?
CO2, as example, is the classic Quantum Photon ‘pump’, with large dipole Positive charges positioned with a strong negative (O=C=O). The large positive charges will attempt to move further apart when a photon’s energy is available (by becoming incident), but the large (relative) negative ‘intra-molecular bond’ will return these charges, and then allow for the creation of a secondary photon, that is then emitted.
H2O is a ‘Terminator’ of cascading Photon energy; converting such into intrinsic kinetic energy of the H2O molecule (i.e. the molecule increases its kinetic velocity). H-O-H has only small dipole charges and so needs more energy to produce ‘dipole movement’ with the relative (large) negative charge ‘intra-molecular bond’ tending to NOT allow exaggerated motions. So little energy is available for creation of secondary photons and the primary interaction is as an increase in molecular kinetic velocity.
Within the atmosphere there is a cascade of energy, with ‘repeaters’ (CO2, CH4), terminators (H20) and propagators (Photons) of the cascade energy. Also, H2O shows a near 100:1 ability over CO2 to produce increases in intrinsic molecular kinetic velocity. Likewise, atmospheric CO2 will release energy as secondary photons near 100:1 times that of H2O molecules.
Water simply gets ‘hot’. If you also look at the atmospheric absorbance of energy(*), you will see how relevant the behavior of atmospheric water actually is in shaping the scavenging of (Microwave Spectrum) energy BEFORE surface incidence is achieved.
Realise that most surface life is made of over 90% saline WATER. The microwave energy will not produce ‘sun burn’ (a mild radiation burn from UV-A and UV-B) but would produce too much intrinsic heat in outer cellular structures, stopping internal cellular processes and most likely the formation of life as we know it.
(*) http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments
What there is NOT present is a ‘greenhouse effect’ and if you observe the slide of atmospheric absorbance in (*) you will note that supposed ‘greenhouse radiation’ is not at all surface incident with any significant energy, if at all. SO there is not even a ‘secondary greenhouse’ effect of supposed ‘amplified warming’ in reality.
This is why ‘Kyoto” interest in Carbon is NOT valid in relation to remediation of supposed ‘climate issues’, there are none but basic air pollution concerns of interest, NONE involving any supposed ‘climate altering’ effect. The only interest in Kyoto is in so many of the ‘signatories’ NOW looking toward Uranium as the major ‘Base Load’ generation fuel.
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
But then what is the relevance to climate of ‘carbon’? CO2 has specific properties, carbon has differing properties, and conversion simply to garner a mass is thus relevant why and how also?
Good question, and it reminds me to be much more careful in talking about CO2 vs CO2 equivalent vs carbon. The main relevance of carbon sinks is that carbon exists in the atmosphere primarily as CO2 and CH4 which are both GHG’s.