Weren't we supposed to have a new ice age 30 years ago? Climate change extremists use any abnormal weather pattern to support their argument If it's a little cold this year, an ice age is coming; if it's a little warm, it's global warming. When is the weather ever normal? Never; there is no "normal".
Of course pollution is bad and we should reduce it. But what about the temperature of Mars rising? What about the effect of sunspots on the Earth's climate? What about how much harmful gases volcanoes produce? What we have here is a classic case of everyone running crazy with so few holding back to answer some pretty basic questions.
Environmental extremists always claim that if America imposes draconian pollution laws, that the world will follow. That is bologna. 75% (maybe more) of the Chinese and Indian population live in poverty; do you think they care one bit about pollution? Of course not; they care about jobs, and they pollute way more than we do.
Should we reduce pollution? Yes. Should we put a stranglehold on the global economy? No.
doesn't capitalist economics dictate the only limit to growth is the quantity of resources on/in the earth? i might be wrong about this, but it seems to me that it'd be very smart (and sound capitalism) for capitalists to favor policies that increase the earth's long-term growth potential rather than reduce it.
side note/rant: the real problem with enron wasn't bad accounting. the real problem with enron was that the company opted to take a much riskier course of action than its competitors.
but at least its failure did not compromise millions of acres of farm land.
if india and china and the usa continue to follow a risky course on environmental policy, a failure may well mean world-wide economic disaster. so even though risky environmental policies might not mean disaster, shouldn't we all set aside this doctrine of ever-increasing quality of life for a long enough amount of time to actually evaluate the risks involved?
this is part of why i think that no company or country that puts the earth's growth potential at risk should be legally protected. all countries that put the environment at risk should be subject to regime change, because such countries might be a lot worse for a lot more people than saddam ever was. but since nuclear weapons work better than actual courts and laws and lawyers for the purposes of providing a (false?) sense of legality for stupid economic policies, no nuclear-capable country is going to volunteer to take a less risky course.
(this is why i think our policies toward iran and n. korea are less about rogue states having nukes than they are about preventing these countries from developing to the point of becoming major players on the consumer side of the oil market. i only say that because i started wondering a while back: which is the bigger threat to our quality of life? iran having nukes, or iran keeping its oil for itself?)
anyways, if india and china jump off a cliff, should we follow? what if india and china threaten to push the rest of us off a cliff--should we permit/encourage that behavior? i say no, that we should elect woodrow wilson's futurama head president in '08 and give isolationism one more try. it might work out this time. but since we're all screwed anyway, i've resigned myself to complaining about this stuff on the internet whenever possible. seriously, we're all screwed. maybe not us or our kids, but sooner or later....
except for stephen hawking. he's going to discover the secret of immortality and take a space ship to some new planet, were they won't have to worry about this crap for like 25000 years. just like in Civ 4.
There is no limit to resources - as soon as oil runs out we'll find seomthing else. And when that runs out we'll find something else. We have never run out and we never will (unless the sun dies out in which case we're screwed anyway).
Again, you're assuming that climate change is caused by humans and is not a natural occurence.
Capitalism is not a zero sum game. I would be thrilled if North Korea and Iran became economically sound enough (not just the upper classes of society) to keep all their own oil because that would pretty much guarantee that they would be educated and democratic in which case everyone would be better off.
With India and China, I am not saying that we should not reduce pollution because they aren't, just looking at this practically.
The greatest resource on earth is Man himself. People believe we will run out of oil, but oil is not that hard to replace. Right now I can convert my car to run on hydrogen gas by simply changing out the fuel injection computer and installing a hydrogen tank. http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/
If you are interested in the truth and not simply believing what is talked about most in the media (I do not even say scientists as I know more that do not believe in global warming than do) read the other side. Here is a link that is just one example of someone giving hard evidence that flies directly against global warming http://www.icr.org/article/348/
If you don't care to read it, one point that it makes is that the average temperature where cities have not encroached on measuring stations (urban areas are known to be warmer due to less vegetation) the average temperature has had a slight decrees from 1967 to 1997.
In addition the amount of carbon released by humans in the 80's and 90's averages about 5.5 gigatuns (Gt) while the average increase was about 3 Gt a year. This is also very small in comparison with the amount of reservoirs already on our planet, 750 Gt in the atmosphere, 1,000 Gt in the surface ocean, 2,200 Gt in the vegetation, soils, and detritus, and 38,000 Gt in the intermediate and deep oceans.
Simply put I do not believe that the premises are correct that people use to promote global warming. If you care to debate with me on this please use logic and science and refrain from the use of arguments based on titles and hearsay.
if we're going to argue seriously, like we're actually interested in truth (as opposed to arguing for the sake of argument by repeatedly asserting the dogmatic rightness of whatever each of us happens to believe already) we should probably make an effort to put all our arguments about the earth and economics on the table.
my arguement about the earth: 1) the earth is subject to climate change. 2) change in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide causes climate change (and/or change in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an effect of climate change). 3) human activity changes the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 4) if 1, 2 and 3, human activity changes the earth's climate.
i won't argue about 1) because i take that as an utterly obvious fact. anticipating a meaningless objection, i'll consider the parenthetical in 2) scientifically. until then, i'm pretty set on taking it as an obvious fact that changing the amount of co2 in the atmosphere causes climate change.
i think (though i can't be sure) that the stats about the location of earth's carbon in caleb's post are intended to get at the issue i'm trying to state clearly in 3). if those stats are being used as part of an argument against 3), i'm not totally sure what the argument is. in other words, please state the argument clearly.
as for economics, i'm content to set that argument aside. for the moment.
also note that this isn't an argument about global warming. i'm not looking at temperature gauges for support. as stated, this is an argument about the effect of people on carbon and about the effect of carbon on climate.
also, i don't want to oversimplify, but i have to ask: is there evidence to suggest that adding ~3 Gt of atmospheric carbon/year means anything other than ~250 years until the total atmospheric carbon level doubles from what it is now?
I can't find it at the moment but I have heard arguments that CO2 levels are CAUSED by higher temperatures, not the reverse. I'll keep looking, but I am fairly sure it is a somewhat sound argument.
i've heard something like that too, actually, but in the rough context of how rising CO2 levels can actually cause CO2 levels to rise.
[[side note: if my memory is good on this point--it may not be--that research actually shows how a small input by way of human action can snowball. (something about how tiny increases in deep ocean temps can mess up the solubility of C-gases down there. and, like caleb's numbers show, a small percent C released from down there might mean a huge percent added to the atmosphere.)
i can't find that bit of science at the moment, so for now i'll go with my gut. my gut tells me that climate is like any other equilibrium. my gut might be wrong about this, but that's something you'll have to prove to me. but if the fact turns out to be that the climate is like an equilibrium, i think you'd have to show that C-gases are a total non-factor in the climate equilibrium in order to make 3) irrelevant, right? because if C-gases are a term of the "effect" (product) side of the equilibrium, 3) shifts that equilibrium back toward the "cause" side, meaning 3) (left unchecked) has the potential to screw up the planet. just like how adding too much HCl to your buffer can screw up your buffer's ability to buffer, even if you add it slowly over several months.
what does it matter if multiplying the amount of carbon in the atmosphere might cause deserts to form where there were no deserts, or it might cause glaciers to form, or it might do something milder? if it messes up the ability of the atmosphere to absorb more carbon without going crazy, wouldn't that be bad enough? but since we don't know for sure what 3) does, or exactly how much risk is involved in continuing with 3) how can we be sure we're not doing something stupid? my biggest concern about this stuff is that we're currently near the middle of a good buffering area, where our addition of CO2 does practically nothing to the number of deserts and glaciers, because our current climate keeps things from changing quickly. but sooner or later, if we always push the equilibrium in one direction, aren't we going to wreck that equilibrium's ability to minimize the effect 3) has on the climate?
anyways, if increasing atmospheric C appears as either a cause (reactant) or an effect (product) in the climate equilibrium, it doesn't really change my argument very much, because equilibria naturally run both directions, and what we're doing is not at all natural.]]
lacking the actual science at the moment, what would i have to do to convince you that 2) is a scientific fact?
"but in the rough context of how rising CO2 levels can actually cause CO2 levels to rise" - I assume you mean C levels can cause CO2 levels to rise?
I understand where you're going with the equilibrium argument, but I can't say whether I agree or disagree at the moment.
#2 is a purely scientific argument and I can't say that I am a complete authority enough to disupte it; HOWEVER, my questions remain: aren't the emissions of volcanoes more dangerous than human pollution? Aren't sunspots a significant factor in the temperature change of the past decades, especially since Mars has been undergoing "global warming" along with Earth?
These questions are significant concerns, and I think it's a mistake to go to extreme action for something that may or may not be real.
Here's another interesting thought: why do the conservative Christians so automatically disagree with global warming? Is it because they are almost completely Republican and Republicans oppose global warming measures for economic reasons? Many (obviously not all) arguments I've heard from conservative Christians are along the lines of "well, I think God made the Earth more resilient than that", which clearly is not a good argument.
i'd say that the natural, uncontrolable things are the things the earth is actually best equipped to deal with--i think the planet does a pretty good job of compensating for solar and geologic variations.
that's actually why i used the buffer example instead of any other kind of equilibrium. i think the greatest possible risk involved with having no environmental policy concerning c-gasses (or really, any that allows emitting dramatically more CO2 into the atmosphere than it requires to be pulled out of the atmosphere) is that by our actions we're jacking up the ability of the planet to adjust to the sorts of things we can't do anything about.
maybe having a law requiring a person to plant a tree (or pay a tax to plant a tree) every time a gallon of gas is bought is a stupid way to go about it, but i think that the idea of demanding carbon-neutral accounting is a nascent step toward getting down to what i think is the root of the climate change problem.
You have to agree with me that your argument listed below has very little pull because you gave no supporting evidence
"i'd say that the natural, uncontrolable things are the things the earth is actually best equipped to deal with--i think the planet does a pretty good job of compensating for solar and geologic variations." - Doc
In your previous post you said "change in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide causes climate change (and/or change in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an effect of climate change)."
If carbon dioxide is a result of climate change does that not throw off your argument completely? Another words the fact that carbon dioxide increase a result of climate change and not the cause? I firmly believe that we will have climate change but I have not seen evidence that points me to believe that we are killing our planet. While taking earth science at Tabor I was told that plants would be much healthier if the CO2 levels increased. Higher CO2 levels were also brought up as a possible explanation for why plant and animal skeletons are larger then what we see today.
My point is that I have not been convinced that rising CO2 levels are going to spell the doom of civilization as we know it. I hate pollution more then a lot of people I know and I do want to come up with a solution to many of the problems that dependence on oil brings. I think there are a lot of solutions that make sense. Nuclear and hydrogen being on the top of my list.
I would be interested to know you guys' thoughts on nuclear. The company I work for owns a nuclear plant. Perhaps you can do some research on it Mike and make a post about it :-) I did have a chance to talk to a nuclear physicist at Tabor.
I echo your thoughts Caleb (except that little anti-evolution jab you stuck in there ;)).
The crux of the issue for me, again, is that I still have not heard a satisfactory explanation for the questions I've posed: Mars, sunspots, and volcanoes (I know you kind of responded to that last one doc, but that's not very satisfactory for me).
Oh, and Caleb, I'm all for nuclear power, and I think we will be seeing a lot more plants spring up in the next few decades as they have proven to be safer, cleaner, and much more efficient than other power generating plants. Even France loves nuclear power!
Hydrogen is impractical at the moment as it is too expensive to produce efficiently. Once we get nuclear fusion though...we're set. Then all the world's problems will disappear as all the world's peoples gather around the nuclear fusion plants to sing kumbaya ;)
i've given up arguing carefully about this. i greatly admire eric burke for making a witty remark instead of a long, rambling discourse.
before i make a real effort to continue, i vote we all go skim the following wikipedia entries and come back better informed about what scientists are actually saying.
(if you're really interested, the links to actual studies at the ends of these articles may be highly relevant. i haven't read them yet, and i really don't plan to, seeing as how i doubt i'd understand them anyway. hence the giving up of arguing carefully about this.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_pump http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Ocean_Data_Analysis_Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Third_Assessment_Report (i'd have included the criticism of IPCC3AR if i had found the link) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_IPCC_AR4
this last one is not really so much about the wikipedia article as it is about the blog to which it points: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClimate
as for the question about why i'd say something like "change in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide causes climate change (and/or change in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an effect of climate change)" well, i just didn't state myself very well.
i certainly did not mean to raise any questions about whether CO2 is, in fact, a greenhouse gas--i guess i thought we were past that point in the discussion--and i only meant to point out that there is a point of interest (at least, in the context of my 4-point argument) between the statements "climate change causes greenhouse gases to be released into the atmosphere" and "greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cause climate change." in other words, trying to hide global warming behind an unanswered question about causality is not going to work. going that route will only strengthen my case.
if you read the wikipedia links in the earlier post (or the one below) you'll find that one of the biggest concerns some climate scientists have is positive feedback involving CO2 and methane, which is why my case gets stronger if rising CO2 levels are an effect and (not only) a cause of global warming.
but i guess the argument at this point is about whether or not rising CO2 levels actually cause climate change. if you want to prove to me that atmospheric CO2 does not trap solar radiation, or that trapped solar radiation does not warm the planet on a large scale (or any other angle you can think of to show me that the greenhouse effect never actually happens), now would be a great time to prove to me that your opinion is scientifically right, that this isn't just your opinion vs. mine.
" "climate change causes greenhouse gases to be released into the atmosphere" and "greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cause climate change." in other words, trying to hide global warming behind an unanswered question about causality is not going to work. going that route will only strengthen my case. "
I don't understand this argument. Because of the positive feedback system, these statements can both be true (and probably are). But it STILL does not address my main questions: sunspots and volcanoes. Mars' increasing temperature is evidence that there is an external source of heat that is raising Earth's temperature. According to positive feedback, that would INCREASE CO2 level which would increase the global temperature which would increase CO2 levels which would increase global temperatures and on and on and on! So this isn't "hiding the argument behind causality" at all. Yes, pollution would exacerbate things, but reducing it will ultimately not make a difference.
I do not dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I dispute the ultimate cause of the increasing temperature. There have been a whole bunch of volcanoes that have ejected mountainous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere for millions of years (yes, that's millions, not thousands, caleb ;)). how come our planet has not turned into venus? I suppose one could argue that the CO2 from volcanoes is part of the carbon cycle and thus in a sort equilibrium, but surely pollution's contribution is insignifant here (though I could be wrong).
i'm in no real position to make a great argument about mars. my basic stance on global warming is that 4-premise argument from a few posts back, and i don't see how mars, sunspots and volcanos even matter.
anyways, people who are in much better places than i am to comment on mars/solar input issues are saying things like "The warming of other solar bodies has been seized upon by climate sceptics; but oh how wrong they are. .. On Mars, the warming seems to be down to dust blowing around and uncovering big patches of black basaltic rock that heat up in the day."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Mars
since i don't really trust wikipedia for all my ideas, here's the short version of the only study i can find on the warming of mars:
"For hundreds of years, scientists have tracked the changing appearance of Mars, first by hand drawings and later by photographs 1,2. Because of this historical record, many classical albedo patterns have long been known to shift in appearance over time. Decadal variations of the martian surface albedo are generally attributed to removal and deposition of small amounts of relatively bright dust on the surface. Large swaths of the surface (up to 56 million km2) have been observed to darken or brighten by 10 per cent or more3–5. It is unknown, however, how these albedo changes affect wind circulation, dust transport and the feedback between these processes and the martian climate. Here we present predictions from a Mars general circulation model, indicating that the observed interannual albedo alterations strongly influence the martian environment. Results indicate enhanced wind stress in recently darkened areas and decreased wind stress in brightened areas, producing a positive feedback system in which the albedo changes strengthen the winds that generate the changes. The simulations also predict a net annual global warming of surface air temperatures by 0.65 K, enhancing dust lifting by increasing the likelihood of dust devil generation. The increase in global dust lifting by both wind stress and dust devils may affect the mechanisms that trigger large dust storm initiation, a poorly understood phenomenon, unique to Mars. In addition, predicted increases in summertime air temperatures at high southern latitudes would contribute to the rapid and steady scarp retreat that has been observed in the south polar residual ice for the past four Mars years6–8. Our results suggest that documented albedo changes affect recent climate change and large-scale weather patterns on Mars, and thus albedo variations are a necessary component of future atmospheric and climate studies."
some of the comments are pretty interesting, but i can't get a grip on what the hard science actually says or means....it's tough enough just to follow the arguments RC makes that have no graphs involved.
also, going back to Caleb's post on nuclear/hydrogen, i think these are great things to do that come with their own downside. those things would help a ton with oil dependence--we agree that's a terrible thing--but i'm not sure nuclear is enough. and i'm just not sure civilization is sustainable without fusion power.
the thing is, God already gave us a giant glowing blob of fusion to supply us with an unlimited supply of energy that will last as long as the earth, probably longer. so yeah, i'm all about solar, and if we can't make do with solar, maybe we shouldn't make quite so much do.
Ok, I think I am going to draw this to a close (for now) because I am tired of talking (typing) about it. But thanks for all the input. I feel we have all grown through this experience - ok, now that I think about it I think we all just typed and read a lot and still disagree, but whatever. I think we can all agree that pollution is bad so we'll just conclude with that.
Apparently using inflammatory words with regard to a controversial topic works well to generate site traffic and comments ;)
19 comments:
Your position does not agree with what I read in Scientific American each month. I guess I should cancel my subscription.
Weren't we supposed to have a new ice age 30 years ago? Climate change extremists use any abnormal weather pattern to support their argument If it's a little cold this year, an ice age is coming; if it's a little warm, it's global warming. When is the weather ever normal? Never; there is no "normal".
Of course pollution is bad and we should reduce it. But what about the temperature of Mars rising? What about the effect of sunspots on the Earth's climate? What about how much harmful gases volcanoes produce? What we have here is a classic case of everyone running crazy with so few holding back to answer some pretty basic questions.
Environmental extremists always claim that if America imposes draconian pollution laws, that the world will follow. That is bologna. 75% (maybe more) of the Chinese and Indian population live in poverty; do you think they care one bit about pollution? Of course not; they care about jobs, and they pollute way more than we do.
Should we reduce pollution? Yes. Should we put a stranglehold on the global economy? No.
doesn't capitalist economics dictate the only limit to growth is the quantity of resources on/in the earth? i might be wrong about this, but it seems to me that it'd be very smart (and sound capitalism) for capitalists to favor policies that increase the earth's long-term growth potential rather than reduce it.
side note/rant:
the real problem with enron wasn't bad accounting. the real problem with enron was that the company opted to take a much riskier course of action than its competitors.
but at least its failure did not compromise millions of acres of farm land.
if india and china and the usa continue to follow a risky course on environmental policy, a failure may well mean world-wide economic disaster. so even though risky environmental policies might not mean disaster, shouldn't we all set aside this doctrine of ever-increasing quality of life for a long enough amount of time to actually evaluate the risks involved?
this is part of why i think that no company or country that puts the earth's growth potential at risk should be legally protected. all countries that put the environment at risk should be subject to regime change, because such countries might be a lot worse for a lot more people than saddam ever was. but since nuclear weapons work better than actual courts and laws and lawyers for the purposes of providing a (false?) sense of legality for stupid economic policies, no nuclear-capable country is going to volunteer to take a less risky course.
(this is why i think our policies toward iran and n. korea are less about rogue states having nukes than they are about preventing these countries from developing to the point of becoming major players on the consumer side of the oil market. i only say that because i started wondering a while back: which is the bigger threat to our quality of life? iran having nukes, or iran keeping its oil for itself?)
anyways, if india and china jump off a cliff, should we follow? what if india and china threaten to push the rest of us off a cliff--should we permit/encourage that behavior? i say no, that we should elect woodrow wilson's futurama head president in '08 and give isolationism one more try. it might work out this time. but since we're all screwed anyway, i've resigned myself to complaining about this stuff on the internet whenever possible. seriously, we're all screwed. maybe not us or our kids, but sooner or later....
except for stephen hawking. he's going to discover the secret of immortality and take a space ship to some new planet, were they won't have to worry about this crap for like 25000 years. just like in Civ 4.
Some thoughts:
There is no limit to resources - as soon as oil runs out we'll find seomthing else. And when that runs out we'll find something else. We have never run out and we never will (unless the sun dies out in which case we're screwed anyway).
Again, you're assuming that climate change is caused by humans and is not a natural occurence.
Capitalism is not a zero sum game. I would be thrilled if North Korea and Iran became economically sound enough (not just the upper classes of society) to keep all their own oil because that would pretty much guarantee that they would be educated and democratic in which case everyone would be better off.
With India and China, I am not saying that we should not reduce pollution because they aren't, just looking at this practically.
The greatest resource on earth is Man himself. People believe we will run out of oil, but oil is not that hard to replace. Right now I can convert my car to run on hydrogen gas by simply changing out the fuel injection computer and installing a hydrogen tank. http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/
If you are interested in the truth and not simply believing what is talked about most in the media (I do not even say scientists as I know more that do not believe in global warming than do) read the other side. Here is a link that is just one example of someone giving hard evidence that flies directly against global warming http://www.icr.org/article/348/
If you don't care to read it, one point that it makes is that the average temperature where cities have not encroached on measuring stations (urban areas are known to be warmer due to less vegetation) the average temperature has had a slight decrees from 1967 to 1997.
In addition the amount of carbon released by humans in the 80's and 90's averages about 5.5 gigatuns (Gt) while the average increase was about 3 Gt a year. This is also very small in comparison with the amount of reservoirs already on our planet, 750 Gt in the atmosphere, 1,000 Gt in the surface ocean, 2,200 Gt in the vegetation, soils, and detritus, and 38,000 Gt in the intermediate and deep oceans.
Simply put I do not believe that the premises are correct that people use to promote global warming. If you care to debate with me on this please use logic and science and refrain from the use of arguments based on titles and hearsay.
if we're going to argue seriously, like we're actually interested in truth (as opposed to arguing for the sake of argument by repeatedly asserting the dogmatic rightness of whatever each of us happens to believe already) we should probably make an effort to put all our arguments about the earth and economics on the table.
my arguement about the earth:
1) the earth is subject to climate change.
2) change in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide causes climate change (and/or change in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an effect of climate change).
3) human activity changes the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
4) if 1, 2 and 3, human activity changes the earth's climate.
i won't argue about 1) because i take that as an utterly obvious fact. anticipating a meaningless objection, i'll consider the parenthetical in 2) scientifically. until then, i'm pretty set on taking it as an obvious fact that changing the amount of co2 in the atmosphere causes climate change.
i think (though i can't be sure) that the stats about the location of earth's carbon in caleb's post are intended to get at the issue i'm trying to state clearly in 3). if those stats are being used as part of an argument against 3), i'm not totally sure what the argument is. in other words, please state the argument clearly.
as for economics, i'm content to set that argument aside. for the moment.
also note that this isn't an argument about global warming. i'm not looking at temperature gauges for support. as stated, this is an argument about the effect of people on carbon and about the effect of carbon on climate.
also, i don't want to oversimplify, but i have to ask: is there evidence to suggest that adding ~3 Gt of atmospheric carbon/year means anything other than ~250 years until the total atmospheric carbon level doubles from what it is now?
I can't find it at the moment but I have heard arguments that CO2 levels are CAUSED by higher temperatures, not the reverse. I'll keep looking, but I am fairly sure it is a somewhat sound argument.
i've heard something like that too, actually, but in the rough context of how rising CO2 levels can actually cause CO2 levels to rise.
[[side note:
if my memory is good on this point--it may not be--that research actually shows how a small input by way of human action can snowball. (something about how tiny increases in deep ocean temps can mess up the solubility of C-gases down there. and, like caleb's numbers show, a small percent C released from down there might mean a huge percent added to the atmosphere.)
i can't find that bit of science at the moment, so for now i'll go with my gut. my gut tells me that climate is like any other equilibrium. my gut might be wrong about this, but that's something you'll have to prove to me. but if the fact turns out to be that the climate is like an equilibrium, i think you'd have to show that C-gases are a total non-factor in the climate equilibrium in order to make 3) irrelevant, right? because if C-gases are a term of the "effect" (product) side of the equilibrium, 3) shifts that equilibrium back toward the "cause" side, meaning 3) (left unchecked) has the potential to screw up the planet. just like how adding too much HCl to your buffer can screw up your buffer's ability to buffer, even if you add it slowly over several months.
what does it matter if multiplying the amount of carbon in the atmosphere might cause deserts to form where there were no deserts, or it might cause glaciers to form, or it might do something milder? if it messes up the ability of the atmosphere to absorb more carbon without going crazy, wouldn't that be bad enough? but since we don't know for sure what 3) does, or exactly how much risk is involved in continuing with 3) how can we be sure we're not doing something stupid? my biggest concern about this stuff is that we're currently near the middle of a good buffering area, where our addition of CO2 does practically nothing to the number of deserts and glaciers, because our current climate keeps things from changing quickly. but sooner or later, if we always push the equilibrium in one direction, aren't we going to wreck that equilibrium's ability to minimize the effect 3) has on the climate?
anyways, if increasing atmospheric C appears as either a cause (reactant) or an effect (product) in the climate equilibrium, it doesn't really change my argument very much, because equilibria naturally run both directions, and what we're doing is not at all natural.]]
lacking the actual science at the moment, what would i have to do to convince you that 2) is a scientific fact?
"but in the rough context of how rising CO2 levels can actually cause CO2 levels to rise" - I assume you mean C levels can cause CO2 levels to rise?
I understand where you're going with the equilibrium argument, but I can't say whether I agree or disagree at the moment.
#2 is a purely scientific argument and I can't say that I am a complete authority enough to disupte it; HOWEVER, my questions remain: aren't the emissions of volcanoes more dangerous than human pollution? Aren't sunspots a significant factor in the temperature change of the past decades, especially since Mars has been undergoing "global warming" along with Earth?
These questions are significant concerns, and I think it's a mistake to go to extreme action for something that may or may not be real.
Here's another interesting thought: why do the conservative Christians so automatically disagree with global warming? Is it because they are almost completely Republican and Republicans oppose global warming measures for economic reasons? Many (obviously not all) arguments I've heard from conservative Christians are along the lines of "well, I think God made the Earth more resilient than that", which clearly is not a good argument.
i'd say that the natural, uncontrolable things are the things the earth is actually best equipped to deal with--i think the planet does a pretty good job of compensating for solar and geologic variations.
that's actually why i used the buffer example instead of any other kind of equilibrium. i think the greatest possible risk involved with having no environmental policy concerning c-gasses (or really, any that allows emitting dramatically more CO2 into the atmosphere than it requires to be pulled out of the atmosphere) is that by our actions we're jacking up the ability of the planet to adjust to the sorts of things we can't do anything about.
maybe having a law requiring a person to plant a tree (or pay a tax to plant a tree) every time a gallon of gas is bought is a stupid way to go about it, but i think that the idea of demanding carbon-neutral accounting is a nascent step toward getting down to what i think is the root of the climate change problem.
Doc,
You have to agree with me that your argument listed below has very little pull because you gave no supporting evidence
"i'd say that the natural, uncontrolable things are the things the earth is actually best equipped to deal with--i think the planet does a pretty good job of compensating for solar and geologic variations." - Doc
In your previous post you said "change in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide causes climate change (and/or change in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an effect of climate change)."
If carbon dioxide is a result of climate change does that not throw off your argument completely? Another words the fact that carbon dioxide increase a result of climate change and not the cause? I firmly believe that we will have climate change but I have not seen evidence that points me to believe that we are killing our planet. While taking earth science at Tabor I was told that plants would be much healthier if the CO2 levels increased. Higher CO2 levels were also brought up as a possible explanation for why plant and animal skeletons are larger then what we see today.
My point is that I have not been convinced that rising CO2 levels are going to spell the doom of civilization as we know it. I hate pollution more then a lot of people I know and I do want to come up with a solution to many of the problems that dependence on oil brings. I think there are a lot of solutions that make sense. Nuclear and hydrogen being on the top of my list.
I would be interested to know you guys' thoughts on nuclear. The company I work for owns a nuclear plant. Perhaps you can do some research on it Mike and make a post about it :-) I did have a chance to talk to a nuclear physicist at Tabor.
I echo your thoughts Caleb (except that little anti-evolution jab you stuck in there ;)).
The crux of the issue for me, again, is that I still have not heard a satisfactory explanation for the questions I've posed: Mars, sunspots, and volcanoes (I know you kind of responded to that last one doc, but that's not very satisfactory for me).
Oh, and Caleb, I'm all for nuclear power, and I think we will be seeing a lot more plants spring up in the next few decades as they have proven to be safer, cleaner, and much more efficient than other power generating plants. Even France loves nuclear power!
Hydrogen is impractical at the moment as it is too expensive to produce efficiently. Once we get nuclear fusion though...we're set. Then all the world's problems will disappear as all the world's peoples gather around the nuclear fusion plants to sing kumbaya ;)
i've given up arguing carefully about this. i greatly admire eric burke for making a witty remark instead of a long, rambling discourse.
before i make a real effort to continue, i vote we all go skim the following wikipedia entries and come back better informed about what scientists are actually saying.
(if you're really interested, the links to actual studies at the ends of these articles may be highly relevant. i haven't read them yet, and i really don't plan to, seeing as how i doubt i'd understand them anyway. hence the giving up of arguing carefully about this.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_pump
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Ocean_Data_Analysis_Project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Third_Assessment_Report
(i'd have included the criticism of IPCC3AR if i had found the link)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_IPCC_AR4
this last one is not really so much about the wikipedia article as it is about the blog to which it points:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClimate
as for the question about why i'd say something like "change in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide causes climate change (and/or change in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an effect of climate change)" well, i just didn't state myself very well.
i certainly did not mean to raise any questions about whether CO2 is, in fact, a greenhouse gas--i guess i thought we were past that point in the discussion--and i only meant to point out that there is a point of interest (at least, in the context of my 4-point argument) between the statements "climate change causes greenhouse gases to be released into the atmosphere" and "greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cause climate change." in other words, trying to hide global warming behind an unanswered question about causality is not going to work. going that route will only strengthen my case.
if you read the wikipedia links in the earlier post (or the one below) you'll find that one of the biggest concerns some climate scientists have is positive feedback involving CO2 and methane, which is why my case gets stronger if rising CO2 levels are an effect and (not only) a cause of global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect#Positive_feedback_and_runaway_greenhouse_effect
but i guess the argument at this point is about whether or not rising CO2 levels actually cause climate change. if you want to prove to me that atmospheric CO2 does not trap solar radiation, or that trapped solar radiation does not warm the planet on a large scale (or any other angle you can think of to show me that the greenhouse effect never actually happens), now would be a great time to prove to me that your opinion is scientifically right, that this isn't just your opinion vs. mine.
Ok, I actually read all those articles.
"
"climate change causes greenhouse gases to be released into the atmosphere" and "greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cause climate change." in other words, trying to hide global warming behind an unanswered question about causality is not going to work. going that route will only strengthen my case.
"
I don't understand this argument. Because of the positive feedback system, these statements can both be true (and probably are). But it STILL does not address my main questions: sunspots and volcanoes. Mars' increasing temperature is evidence that there is an external source of heat that is raising Earth's temperature. According to positive feedback, that would INCREASE CO2 level which would increase the global temperature which would increase CO2 levels which would increase global temperatures and on and on and on! So this isn't "hiding the argument behind causality" at all. Yes, pollution would exacerbate things, but reducing it will ultimately not make a difference.
I do not dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I dispute the ultimate cause of the increasing temperature. There have been a whole bunch of volcanoes that have ejected mountainous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere for millions of years (yes, that's millions, not thousands, caleb ;)). how come our planet has not turned into venus? I suppose one could argue that the CO2 from volcanoes is part of the carbon cycle and thus in a sort equilibrium, but surely pollution's contribution is insignifant here (though I could be wrong).
i'm in no real position to make a great argument about mars. my basic stance on global warming is that 4-premise argument from a few posts back, and i don't see how mars, sunspots and volcanos even matter.
anyways, people who are in much better places than i am to comment on mars/solar input issues are saying things like "The warming of other solar bodies has been seized upon by climate sceptics; but oh how wrong they are. .. On Mars, the warming seems to be down to dust blowing around and uncovering big patches of black basaltic rock that heat up in the day."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Mars
since i don't really trust wikipedia for all my ideas, here's the short version of the only study i can find on the warming of mars:
"For hundreds of years, scientists have tracked the changing
appearance of Mars, first by hand drawings and later by photographs
1,2. Because of this historical record, many classical albedo
patterns have long been known to shift in appearance over time.
Decadal variations of the martian surface albedo are generally
attributed to removal and deposition of small amounts of relatively
bright dust on the surface. Large swaths of the surface (up
to 56 million km2) have been observed to darken or brighten by 10
per cent or more3–5. It is unknown, however, how these albedo
changes affect wind circulation, dust transport and the feedback
between these processes and the martian climate. Here we present
predictions from a Mars general circulation model, indicating that
the observed interannual albedo alterations strongly influence the
martian environment. Results indicate enhanced wind stress in
recently darkened areas and decreased wind stress in brightened
areas, producing a positive feedback system in which the albedo
changes strengthen the winds that generate the changes. The simulations
also predict a net annual global warming of surface air
temperatures by 0.65 K, enhancing dust lifting by increasing
the likelihood of dust devil generation. The increase in global dust
lifting by both wind stress and dust devils may affect the mechanisms
that trigger large dust storm initiation, a poorly understood
phenomenon, unique to Mars. In addition, predicted increases in
summertime air temperatures at high southern latitudes would
contribute to the rapid and steady scarp retreat that has been
observed in the south polar residual ice for the past four Mars
years6–8. Our results suggest that documented albedo changes
affect recent climate change and large-scale weather patterns on
Mars, and thus albedo variations are a necessary component of
future atmospheric and climate studies."
ok, so that might have been the short version if i didn't get scrawd on the copy/paste.
here's another link on the solar input thing (2 deeper links in the "It's the sun! (not)" section):
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/friday-roundup/
some of the comments are pretty interesting, but i can't get a grip on what the hard science actually says or means....it's tough enough just to follow the arguments RC makes that have no graphs involved.
also, going back to Caleb's post on nuclear/hydrogen, i think these are great things to do that come with their own downside. those things would help a ton with oil dependence--we agree that's a terrible thing--but i'm not sure nuclear is enough. and i'm just not sure civilization is sustainable without fusion power.
the thing is, God already gave us a giant glowing blob of fusion to supply us with an unlimited supply of energy that will last as long as the earth, probably longer. so yeah, i'm all about solar, and if we can't make do with solar, maybe we shouldn't make quite so much do.
Ok, I think I am going to draw this to a close (for now) because I am tired of talking (typing) about it. But thanks for all the input. I feel we have all grown through this experience - ok, now that I think about it I think we all just typed and read a lot and still disagree, but whatever. I think we can all agree that pollution is bad so we'll just conclude with that.
Apparently using inflammatory words with regard to a controversial topic works well to generate site traffic and comments ;)
Post a Comment