From the National Review I don’t don’t know about you, but I’m going to crack open a lovely carbonated beverage and raise it in salute to Roy for having the courage to say this. Salud! (burp).
By Dr. Roy W. Spencer
There seems to be an unwritten assumption among environmentalists — and among the media — that any influence humans have on nature is, by definition, bad. I even see it in scientific papers written by climate researchers. For instance, if we can measure some minute amount of a trace gas in the atmosphere at the South Pole, well removed from its human source, we are astonished at the far-reaching effects of mankind’s “pollution.”But if nature was left undisturbed, would it be any happier and more peaceful? Would the carnivores stop eating those poor, defenseless herbivores, as well as each other? Would fish and other kinds of sea life stop infringing on the rights of others by feasting on them? Would there be no more droughts, hurricanes, floods, heat waves, tornadoes, or glaciers flowing toward the sea?
In the case of global warming, the alleged culprit — carbon dioxide — just happens to be necessary for life on Earth. How can Al Gore say with a straight face that we are treating the atmosphere like an “open sewer” by dumping carbon dioxide into it? Would he say the same thing if we were dumping more oxygen into the atmosphere? Or more nitrogen?As a climate researcher, I am increasingly convinced that most of our recent global warming has been natural, not manmade. If true, this would mean that global temperatures can be expected to peak in the coming years (if they haven’t already), and global cooling will eventually ensue.Just for the sake of argument, let us assume that manmade global warming really is a false alarm. In that case, we would still need to ask: What are the other negative effects of pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere?Well, plant physiologists have known for a long time that most vegetation loves more carbon dioxide. It grows faster, is more drought-tolerant, and is more efficient in its water use. While the pre-industrial CO2 concentration of the atmosphere was only about 280 parts per million (ppm) by volume, and now it is around 380 ppm, some greenhouses pump it all the way up to around 1,000 ppm. How can environmentalists claim that helping vegetation to grow is a bad thing?The bigger concern has been the possible effect of the extra CO2 on the world’s oceans, because more CO2 lowers the pH of seawater. While it is claimed that this makes the water more acidic, this is misleading. Since seawater has a pH around 8.1, it will take an awful lot of CO2 it to even make the water neutral (pH=7), let alone acidic (pH less than 7).Still, the main worry has been that the extra CO2 could hurt the growth of plankton, which represents the start of the oceanic food chain. But recent research (published on April 18 in Science Express) has now shown, contrary to expectations, that one of the most common forms of plankton actually grows faster and bigger when more CO2 is pumped into the water. Like vegetation on land, it loves the extra CO2, too!It is quite possible that the biosphere (vegetation, sea life, etc.) has been starved for atmospheric CO2. Before humans started burning fossil fuels, vegetation and ocean plankton had been gobbling up as much CO2 out of the atmosphere as they could, but it was like a vacuum cleaner trying to suck through a stopped-up hose.Now, no matter how much CO2 we pump into the atmosphere each year, the biosphere takes out an average of 50 percent of that extra amount. Even after we triple the amount of CO2 we produce, nature still takes out 50 percent of the extra amount. Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor.
I think it is time for scientists to consider the possibility that more CO2 in the atmosphere might, on the whole, be good for life on Earth. Oh, I’m sure there will be some species which are hurt more than helped, but this is true of any change in nature. There are always winners and losers.For instance, during a strong El Nino event, trillions of animals in the ocean die as the usual patterns of ocean temperature are disrupted. When Mother Nature does something like this it is considered natural. Yet, if humans were to do such a thing, it would be considered an environmental catastrophe. Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?The view that nature was in some sort of preferred, yet fragile, state of balance before humans came along is arbitrary and philosophical — even religious. It is entirely possible that there are other, more preferable states of balance in nature which are more robust and less fragile than whatever the state of nature was before we came along.You would think that science is the last place you would find such religious opinions, yet they dominate the worldview of scientists. Natural scientists tend to worship nature, and they then teach others to worship nature, too… all under the guise of “science.”
And to the extent that this view is religious, then making environmental laws based upon that view could be considered a violation of the establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
The automatic assumption that mankind’s production of CO2 by burning of fossil fuels is bad for the environment needs to be critically examined. Unfortunately, scientists who question that point of view are immediately branded as shills for Big Oil.
But since I am already accused of this (falsely, I might add), I really don’t mind being one of the first scientists to raise the issue.
— Dr. Roy W. Spencer is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He is author of the new book,
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Evan: “Input to Atmosphere/Output from Atmosphere:
Ocean: To Atm.: 88 BMTC, From Atm.: 90 BMTC, Difference: -2
Vegetation/Soil (Natural): To Atm.:119 BMTC, From Atm.: 120 BMTC, Difference: -1
Vegetation/Soil (Man): To Atm.:1.7 BMTC, From Atm.: 1.9 BMTC, Difference: -0.2
Industry: To Atm.: 6.3, From Atm.: 0, Difference: +6.3
Total: To Atm.: 215 BMTC, From Atm.: 211.9 BMTC, Difference: +3.1”
Thanks for the figures but I still don’t know how this much carbon relates to the total tonnage of the entire atmosphere. For example, if the entire earth’s atmosphere is 1,000,000 BMT then the +3.1 BMTC each year that gets added is like peeing in the ocean.
As I gain weight, am I not storing carbon? Should I not be receivng credit for being a carbon sink? Or maybe, I could profit from eating more junk food, by selling someone carbon credits? So, to be green would be to be fat? And if I am lean, I’m endangering the planet and increasing global warming?
Wait… should I switch from beer to liqour to go green?
I warned you not to mix drinks.
you’re wrong about needing so much more co2 to make the oceans acidic enough to do anything to make a difference on ocean ecosystems. shell based organisms and corals use calcium carbonate – CaCO3, the base form of the diprotic acid, H2CO3 (which is dissolved CO2 combined with water), HCO3- and CO3=. pkas are 6.3 and 10.3. Thus, to have CO3= and make CaCO3 a solid participate, pH must be high enough to maintain enough solid CaCO3 in the water without redissolving back into bicarbonate. One doesn’t have to have a technically “acidic” ocean, just more acidic than before (i.e. lower pH than before) – the pH of the ocean is already below the pKa – to sway this equilibrium in the wrong direction and start dissolving all of these critters.
Also, plants can only soak up more CO2 if we don’t keep chopping them down. Deforestation rates have skyrocketed over the years – if we keep removing plant biomass, then we are hurting the equilibrium by not only pumping in CO2 to the atmosphere, but also removing the one major thing (besides like some cyanobacteria) that naturally takes in CO2.
Sorry I didn’t realize until now that you didn’t write that article, you took it from another source. The author is wrong, not you because you didn’t write that. I apologize for my mistyping in my comments above.
Great blog. I’ve scanned lots of panicked articles about the scare of acidified oceans from CO2. The problem with those alarmist scenarios is that there are large acid buffer capacities in the seas, never mind species adaptive abilities, etc.
But one notable thing I do not see discussed is surface pH changes from sulfates falling into the oceans. The amount of aerosols falling into the Pacific born by westerlies should be significant, considering the findings that even V. Ramanathan cites 40 percent of the temperature anomalies as being from tropospheric soot.
And just as his recent findings on tropospheric soot’s net heating effect raise the prospect CO2 has been modeled to take more than its share of blame for surface temperature anomalies (Ramanathan mentions there’s a masking effect at TOS while there’s intensified heating at the surface from tropospheric soot+sulfates), I really have to wonder if measured changes in ocean surface pH have been partially misascribed to CO2 when sulfates and nitrates in water become sulfuric and nitric acid, far more acidic than carbonic acid.
Steve Short of ecoengineers.com posted a reply on Benny Peiser’s list on the unlikelihood that conceivable CO2 levels would cause a gross desaturation of biological calcite and aragonite. He cites the resulting pH & Saturation Indices (SI) of calcite and aragonite (biogenically deposited calcium carbonate (CaCO3)).
Citing the USGS model PHREEQC:
CO2 @ur momisugly 450 ppm would cause a pH of 8.16
Calcite SI would change from 0.73 to 0.68
Aragonite SI would change from 0.58 to 0.53.
CO2 @ur momisugly 780 ppm would cause a pH of 7.94
Calcite SI of 0.48
Aragonite SI of 0.34
Short points out that the Eocene saw CO2 levels as high as 780 ppm, and yet somehow most of the coral species in the seas survived to this day.
Yaaawwwn, some people will never open their eyes to data. When will they notice their simplistic rants are just getting tedious over time?
Volter,
You’re absolutely correct. I agree 100% with your position. That’s precisely why I’ve switched over to sites like Anthony’s, and similar, which rely on real observed data and facts, and not crystal ball projections 100 years from now.
In fact alarmists like the Leibnitz Institute are now moving closer to our position, admitting that warming has been put off by NATURAL phenomena. It’s not because it’s the newest trend, feels good, politically correct and so on, but because that’s what the data points to.
If you have any data you’d like to share, please feel free to present it. We’d all like to see it. I’m sure it’ll withstand the test of scrutiny, right?
Looking forward to your reply!
Does anyone know of a good place to go for a realistic discussion of the affect of CO2 on the biosphere?
It looks to me like the benefits, even if we believe the warming claims (or perhaps especially if we believe warming claims), would far outweigh the risk of harm. I have seen claims that it would not be a benefit but upon investigation so far have found those claims to be without merit. Jenn above implies more ocean sensitivity to pH than the paleo record seems to indicate yet I think that is one of the better arguments I’ve seen. Looks to me like about 1000 ppm would be beneficial.
[…] for having the courage to say this. Salud! burp. By Dr. Roy W. Spencer There seems to be an unwrithttp://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/05/01/more-carbon-dioxide-please/Obama, Clinton in ‘King Coal’ country Chicago […]
This essay is a masterpiece of sophistry. “The view that nature was in some sort of preferred, yet fragile, state of balance before humans came along is arbitrary and philosophical — even religious.”
It is folly to make sweeping dismissals of the effects of carbon emissions on our planet by labeling scientists concerns as “religious”. Seems like the flip-side of calling something Creation Science – ie; dismissing science as religion vs. lauding religion or blind faith as science. If one needs to ridicule scientists . . . and therefore science itself . . . in order to make a “scientific” point, it seems like a self-defeating argument. Perhaps that is because the writer is a self-proclaimed “researcher” and not a scientist?
Regardless – this ideology is a demonstrably false characterization of environmentalism as whole in order to render any argument against our impact on the earth as irrelevant. We are being asked to believe that climate scientists and environmentalists believe somehow that we should never have advanced beyond the stone age – never built a dam, tilled a field, cut down a tree, burned a lump of coal or petroleum or killed a beast for food – is patently absurd and an insult to the sensibilities of any intelligent reader.
More to the point, however, pointing out possible benefits of an increase in Carbon in an effort to dismiss it’s detrimental effects does not erase our responsibility to fully address the negatives, particularly if those negatives could well surpass the positives. If I throw raw sewage in my backyard the plant-life would love it I’m sure. That doesn’t mean I should dismiss the horrible public health issues that would arise.
The point is not that all effects of greenhouse gases are bad, or that none of the increases in CO2 are offset by adjustments in nature, but that there will certainly be some negative effects brought about by the huge increases in CO2 that eventually build up in the atmosphere. It is our responsibility to realistically assess the negative impacts of our collective actions, even if such analysis is painful and difficult. If we don’t know BOTH the negative and positive impacts of our actions then we have not examined the issue completely.
Should we just sit back and see what happens and not worry about rising sea-levels and large disruptions and changes in world weather patterns? Already we are seeing near-disasterous disruptions in the world supply of rice due to historic droughts in Australia which are almost certainly due to the effects of man-made climate change. Do rising levels of plankton offset the inability of thousands of impoverished families to put food on the table?
Kevin B makes the point: “If our intelligence and ingenuity allow us to cope with change then we should use them. That’s what they evolved for.”
Yes Kevin that is true, but we should use our intelligence to manage change before we have to use our intelligence to have to COPE with it. I’m not sure we have evolved to be as intelligent as we need to be to overcome our impulse to wish away a problem that is staring us in the face until it hits over the head.