Cherry Picking Climate Catastrophes: Response to Conor Clarke, Part II
WUWT Guest Post by Indur Goklany
Conor Clarke at The Atlantic blog, raised several issues with my study, “What to Do About Climate Change,” that Cato published last year.
One of Conor Clarke’s comments was that my analysis did not extend beyond the 21st century. He found this problematic because, as Conor put it, climate change would extend beyond 2100, and even if GDP is higher in 2100 with unfettered global warming than without, it’s not obvious that this GDP would continue to be higher “in the year 2200 or 2300 or 3758”. I addressed this portion of his argument in Part I of my response. Here I will address the second part of this argument, that “the possibility of ‘catastrophic’ climate change events — those with low probability but extremely high cost — becomes real after 2100.”
RESPONSE:
The examples of potentially catastrophic events that could be caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas induced global warming (AGW) that have been offered to date (e.g., melting of the Greenland or West Antarctic Ice Sheets, or the shutdown of the thermohaline circulation) contain a few drops of plausibility submerged in oceans of speculation. There are no scientifically justified estimates of the probability of their occurrence by any given date. Nor are there scientifically justified estimates of the magnitude of damages such events might cause, not just in biophysical terms but also in socioeconomic terms. Therefore, to call these events “low probability” — as Mr. Clarke does — is a misnomer. They are more appropriately termed as plausible but highly speculative events.
Consider, for example, the potential collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS). According to the IPCC’s WG I Summary for Policy Makers (p. 17), “If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m” (emphasis added). Presumably the same applies to the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
But what is the probability that a negative surface mass balance can, in fact, be sustained for millennia, particularly after considering the amount of fossil fuels that can be economically extracted and the likelihood that other energy sources will not displace fossil fuels in the interim? [Remember we are told that peak oil is nigh, that renewables are almost competitive with fossil fuels, and that wind, solar and biofuels will soon pay for themselves.]
Second, for an event to be classified as a catastrophe, it should occur relatively quickly precluding efforts by man or nature to adapt or otherwise deal with it. But if it occurs over millennia, as the IPCC says, or even centuries, that gives humanity ample time to adjust, albeit at a socioeconomic cost. But it need not be prohibitively dangerous to life, limb or property if: (1) the total amount of sea level rise (SLR) and, perhaps more importantly, the rate of SLR can be predicted with some confidence, as seems likely in the next few decades considering the resources being expended on such research; (2) the rate of SLR is slow relative to how fast populations can strengthen coastal defenses and/or relocate; and (3) there are no insurmountable barriers to migration.
This would be true even had the so-called “tipping point” already been passed and ultimate disintegration of the ice sheet was inevitable, so long as it takes millennia for the disintegration to be realized. In other words, the issue isn’t just whether the tipping point is reached, rather it is how long does it actually take to tip over. Take, for example, if a hand grenade is tossed into a crowded room. Whether this results in tragedy — and the magnitude of that tragedy — depends upon how much time it takes for the grenade to go off, the reaction time of the occupants, and their ability to respond.
Lowe, et al. (2006, p. 32-33), based on a “pessimistic, but plausible, scenario in which atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were stabilised at four times pre-industrial levels,” estimated that a collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet would over the next 1,000 years raise sea level by 2.3 meters (with a peak rate of 0.5 cm/yr). If one were to arbitrarily double that to account for potential melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, that means a SLR of ~5 meters in 1,000 years with a peak rate (assuming the peaks coincide) of 1 meter per century.
Such a rise would not be unprecedented. Sea level has risen 120 meters in the past 18,000 years — an average of 0.67 meters/century — and as much as 4 meters/century during meltwater pulse 1A episode 14,600 years ago (Weaver et al. 2003; subscription required). Neither humanity nor, from the perspective of millennial time scales (per the above quote from the IPCC), the rest of nature seem the worse for it. Coral reefs for example, evolved and their compositions changed over millennia as new reefs grew while older ones were submerged in deeper water (e.g., Cabioch et al. 2008). So while there have been ecological changes, it is unknown whether the changes were for better or worse. For a melting of the GIS (or WAIS) to qualify as a catastrophe, one has to show, rather than assume, that the ecological consequences would, in fact, be for the worse.
Human beings can certainly cope with sea level rise of such magnitudes if they have centuries or millennia to do so. In fact, if necessary they could probably get out of the way in a matter of decades, if not years.
Can a relocation of such a magnitude be accomplished?
Consider that the global population increased from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 6.8 billion this year. Among other things, this meant creating the infrastructure for an extra 4.3 billion people in the intervening 59 years (as well as improving the infrastructure for the 2.5 billion counted in the baseline, many of whom barely had any infrastructure whatsoever in 1950). These improvements occurred at a time when everyone was significantly poorer. (Global per capita income today is more than 3.5 times greater today than it was in 1950). Therefore, while relocation will be costly, in theory, tomorrow’s much wealthier world ought to be able to relocate billions of people to higher ground over the next few centuries, if need be. In fact, once a decision is made to relocate, the cost differential of relocating, say, 10 meters higher rather than a meter higher is probably marginal. It should also be noted that over millennia the world’s infrastructure will have to be renewed or replaced dozens of times – and the world will be better for it. [For example, the ancient city of Troy, once on the coast but now a few kilometers inland, was built and rebuilt at least 9 times in 3 millennia.]
Also, so long as we are concerned about potential geological catastrophes whose probability of occurrence and impacts have yet to be scientifically estimated, we should also consider equally low or higher probability events that might negate their impacts. Specifically, it is quite possible — in fact probable — that somewhere between now and 2100 or 2200, technologies will become available that will deal with climate change much more economically than currently available technologies for reducing GHG emissions. Such technologies may include ocean fertilization, carbon sequestration, geo-engineering options (e.g., deploying mirrors in space) or more efficient solar or photovoltaic technologies. Similarly, there is a finite, non-zero probability that new and improved adaptation technologies will become available that will substantially reduce the net adverse impacts of climate change.
The historical record shows that this has occurred over the past century for virtually every climate-sensitive sector that has been studied. For example, from 1900-1970, U.S. death rates due to various climate-sensitive water-related diseases — dysentery, typhoid, paratyphoid, other gastrointestinal disease, and malaria —declined by 99.6 to 100.0 percent. Similarly, poor agricultural productivity exacerbated by drought contributed to famines in India and China off and on through the 19th and 20th centuries killing millions of people, but such famines haven’t recurred since the 1970s despite any climate change and the fact that populations are several-fold higher today. And by the early 2000s, deaths and death rates due to extreme weather events had dropped worldwide by over 95% of their earlier 20th century peaks (Goklany 2006).
With respect to another global warming bogeyman — the shutdown of the thermohaline circulation (AKA the meridional overturning circulation), the basis for the deep freeze depicted in the movie, The Day After Tomorrow — the IPCC WG I SPM notes (p. 16), “Based on current model simulations, it is very likely that the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the Atlantic Ocean will slow down during the 21st century. The multi-model average reduction by 2100 is 25% (range from zero to about 50%) for SRES emission scenario A1B. Temperatures in the Atlantic region are projected to increase despite such changes due to the much larger warming associated with projected increases in greenhouse gases. It is very unlikely that the MOC will undergo a large abrupt transition during the 21st century. Longer-term changes in the MOC cannot be assessed with confidence.”
Not much has changed since then. A shut down of the MOC doesn’t look any more likely now than it did then. See here, here, and here (pp. 316-317).
If one wants to develop rational policies to address speculative catastrophic events that could conceivably occur over the next few centuries or millennia, as a start one should consider the universe of potential catastrophes and then develop criteria as to which should be addressed and which not. Rational analysis must necessarily be based on systematic analysis, and not on cherry picking one’s favorite catastrophes.
Just as one may speculate on global warming induced catastrophes, one may just as plausibly also speculate on catastrophes that may result absent global warming. Consider, for example, the possibility that absent global warming, the Little Ice Age might return. The consequences of another ice age, Little or not, could range from the severely negative to the positive (if that would buffer the negative consequences of warming). That such a recurrence is not unlikely is evident from the fact that the earth entered and, only a century and a half ago, retreated from a Little Ice Age, and that history may indeed repeat itself over centuries or millennia.
Yet another catastrophe that greenhouse gas controls may cause is that CO2 not only contributes to warming, it is also the key building block of life as we know it. All vegetation is created by the photosynthesis of CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, according to the IPCC WG I report (2007, p. 106), net primary productivity of the global biosphere has increased in recent decades, partly due to greater warming, higher CO2 concentrations and nitrogen deposition. Thus , there is a finite probability that reducing CO2 emissions would, therefore, reduce the net primary productivity of the terrestrial biosphere with potentially severe negative consequences for the amount and diversity of wildlife that it could support, as well as agricultural and forest productivity with adverse knock on effects on hunger and health.
There is also a finite probability that costs of GHG reductions could reduce economic growth worldwide. Even if only industrialized countries sign up for emission reductions, the negative consequences could show up in developing countries because they derive a substantial share of their income from aid, trade, tourism, and remittances from the rest of the world. See, for example, Tol (2005), which examines this possibility, although the extent to which that study fully considered these factors (i.e., aid, trade, tourism, and remittances) is unclear.
Finally, one of the problems with the argument that society should address low probability high impact events (assuming a probability could be estimated rather than assumed or guessed) is that it necessarily means there is a high probability that resources expended on addressing such catastrophic events will have been squandered. This wouldn’t be a problem but for the fact that there are opportunity costs associated with this.
According to the 2007 IPCC Science Assessment’s Summary for Policy Makers (p. 10), “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” In plain language, this means that the IPCC believes there is at least a 90% likelihood that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (AGHG) are responsible for 50-100% of the global warming since 1950. In other words, there is an up to 10% chance that anthropogenic GHGs are not responsible for most of that warming.
This means there is an up to 10% chance that resources expended in limiting climate change would have been squandered. Since any effort to significantly reduce climate change will cost trillions of dollars (see Nordhaus 2008, p. 82), that would be an unqualified disaster, particularly since those very resources could be devoted to reducing urgent problems humanity faces here and now (e.g., hunger, malaria, safer water and sanitation) — problems we know exist for sure unlike the bogeymen that we can’t be certain about.
Spending money on speculative, even if plausible, catastrophes instead of problems we know exist for sure is like a starving man giving up a fat juicy bird in hand while hoping that we’ll catch several other birds sometime in the next few centuries even though we know those birds don’t exist today and may never exist in the future.
Cherry Picking Climate Catastrophes: Response to Conor Clarke, Part II
Posted by Indur Goklany
Conor Clarke at The Atlantic blog, raised several issues with my study, “What to Do About Climate Change,” that Cato published last year.
One of Conor Clarke’s comments was that my analysis did not extend beyond the 21st century. He found this problematic because, as Conor put it, climate change would extend beyond 2100, and even if GDP is higher in 2100 with unfettered global warming than without, it’s not obvious that this GDP would continue to be higher “in the year 2200 or 2300 or 3758”. I addressed this portion of his argument in Part I of my response. Here I will address the second part of this argument, that “the possibility of ‘catastrophic’ climate change events — those with low probability but extremely high cost — becomes real after 2100.”
RESPONSE:
The examples of potentially catastrophic events that could be caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas induced global warming (AGW) that have been offered to date (e.g., melting of the Greenland or West Antarctic Ice Sheets, or the shutdown of the thermohaline circulation) contain a few drops of plausibility submerged in oceans of speculation. There are no scientifically justified estimates of the probability of their occurrence by any given date. Nor are there scientifically justified estimates of the magnitude of damages such events might cause, not just in biophysical terms but also in socioeconomic terms. Therefore, to call these events “low probability” — as Mr. Clarke does — is a misnomer. They are more appropriately termed as plausible but highly speculative events.
Consider, for example, the potential collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS). According to the IPCC’s WG I Summary for Policy Makers (p. 17), “If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m” (emphasis added). Presumably the same applies to the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
But what is the probability that a negative surface mass balance can, in fact, be sustained for millennia, particularly after considering the amount of fossil fuels that can be economically extracted and the likelihood that other energy sources will not displace fossil fuels in the interim? [Remember we are told that peak oil is nigh, that renewables are almost competitive with fossil fuels, and that wind, solar and biofuels will soon pay for themselves.]
Second, for an event to be classified as a catastrophe, it should occur relatively quickly precluding efforts by man or nature to adapt or otherwise deal with it. But if it occurs over millennia, as the IPCC says, or even centuries, that gives humanity ample time to adjust, albeit at a socioeconomic cost. But it need not be prohibitively dangerous to life, limb or property if: (1) the total amount of sea level rise (SLR) and, perhaps more importantly, the rate of SLR can be predicted with some confidence, as seems likely in the next few decades considering the resources being expended on such research; (2) the rate of SLR is slow relative to how fast populations can strengthen coastal defenses and/or relocate; and (3) there are no insurmountable barriers to migration.
This would be true even had the so-called “tipping point” already been passed and ultimate disintegration of the ice sheet was inevitable, so long as it takes millennia for the disintegration to be realized. In other words, the issue isn’t just whether the tipping point is reached, rather it is how long does it actually take to tip over. Take, for example, if a hand grenade is tossed into a crowded room. Whether this results in tragedy — and the magnitude of that tragedy — depends upon how much time it takes for the grenade to go off, the reaction time of the occupants, and their ability to respond.
Lowe, et al. (2006, p. 32-33), based on a “pessimistic, but plausible, scenario in which atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were stabilised at four times pre-industrial levels,” estimated that a collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet would over the next 1,000 years raise sea level by 2.3 meters (with a peak rate of 0.5 cm/yr). If one were to arbitrarily double that to account for potential melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, that means a SLR of ~5 meters in 1,000 years with a peak rate (assuming the peaks coincide) of 1 meter per century.
Such a rise would not be unprecedented. Sea level has risen 120 meters in the past 18,000 years — an average of 0.67 meters/century — and as much as 4 meters/century during meltwater pulse 1A episode 14,600 years ago (Weaver et al. 2003; subscription required). Neither humanity nor, from the perspective of millennial time scales (per the above quote from the IPCC), the rest of nature seem the worse for it. Coral reefs for example, evolved and their compositions changed over millennia as new reefs grew while older ones were submerged in deeper water (e.g., Cabioch et al. 2008). So while there have been ecological changes, it is unknown whether the changes were for better or worse. For a melting of the GIS (or WAIS) to qualify as a catastrophe, one has to show, rather than assume, that the ecological consequences would, in fact, be for the worse.
Human beings can certainly cope with sea level rise of such magnitudes if they have centuries or millennia to do so. In fact, if necessary they could probably get out of the way in a matter of decades, if not years.
Can a relocation of such a magnitude be accomplished?
Consider that the global population increased from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 6.8 billion this year. Among other things, this meant creating the infrastructure for an extra 4.3 billion people in the intervening 59 years (as well as improving the infrastructure for the 2.5 billion counted in the baseline, many of whom barely had any infrastructure whatsoever in 1950). These improvements occurred at a time when everyone was significantly poorer. (Global per capita income today is more than 3.5 times greater today than it was in 1950). Therefore, while relocation will be costly, in theory, tomorrow’s much wealthier world ought to be able to relocate billions of people to higher ground over the next few centuries, if need be. In fact, once a decision is made to relocate, the cost differential of relocating, say, 10 meters higher rather than a meter higher is probably marginal. It should also be noted that over millennia the world’s infrastructure will have to be renewed or replaced dozens of times – and the world will be better for it. [For example, the ancient city of Troy, once on the coast but now a few kilometers inland, was built and rebuilt at least 9 times in 3 millennia.]
Also, so long as we are concerned about potential geological catastrophes whose probability of occurrence and impacts have yet to be scientifically estimated, we should also consider equally low or higher probability events that might negate their impacts. Specifically, it is quite possible — in fact probable — that somewhere between now and 2100 or 2200, technologies will become available that will deal with climate change much more economically than currently available technologies for reducing GHG emissions. Such technologies may include ocean fertilization, carbon sequestration, geo-engineering options (e.g., deploying mirrors in space) or more efficient solar or photovoltaic technologies. Similarly, there is a finite, non-zero probability that new and improved adaptation technologies will become available that will substantially reduce the net adverse impacts of climate change.
The historical record shows that this has occurred over the past century for virtually every climate-sensitive sector that has been studied. For example, from 1900-1970, U.S. death rates due to various climate-sensitive water-related diseases — dysentery, typhoid, paratyphoid, other gastrointestinal disease, and malaria —declined by 99.6 to 100.0 percent. Similarly, poor agricultural productivity exacerbated by drought contributed to famines in India and China off and on through the 19th and 20th centuries killing millions of people, but such famines haven’t recurred since the 1970s despite any climate change and the fact that populations are several-fold higher today. And by the early 2000s, deaths and death rates due to extreme weather events had dropped worldwide by over 95% of their earlier 20th century peaks (Goklany 2006).
With respect to another global warming bogeyman — the shutdown of the thermohaline circulation (AKA the meridional overturning circulation), the basis for the deep freeze depicted in the movie, The Day After Tomorrow — the IPCC WG I SPM notes (p. 16), “Based on current model simulations, it is very likely that the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the Atlantic Ocean will slow down during the 21st century. The multi-model average reduction by 2100 is 25% (range from zero to about 50%) for SRES emission scenario A1B. Temperatures in the Atlantic region are projected to increase despite such changes due to the much larger warming associated with projected increases in greenhouse gases. It is very unlikely that the MOC will undergo a large abrupt transition during the 21st century. Longer-term changes in the MOC cannot be assessed with confidence.”
Not much has changed since then. A shut down of the MOC doesn’t look any more likely now than it did then. See here, here, and here (pp. 316-317).
If one wants to develop rational policies to address speculative catastrophic events that could conceivably occur over the next few centuries or millennia, as a start one should consider the universe of potential catastrophes and then develop criteria as to which should be addressed and which not. Rational analysis must necessarily be based on systematic analysis, and not on cherry picking one’s favorite catastrophes.
Just as one may speculate on global warming induced catastrophes, one may just as plausibly also speculate on catastrophes that may result absent global warming. Consider, for example, the possibility that absent global warming, the Little Ice Age might return. The consequences of another ice age, Little or not, could range from the severely negative to the positive (if that would buffer the negative consequences of warming). That such a recurrence is not unlikely is evident from the fact that the earth entered and, only a century and a half ago, retreated from a Little Ice Age, and that history may indeed repeat itself over centuries or millennia.
Yet another catastrophe that greenhouse gas controls may cause is that CO2 not only contributes to warming, it is also the key building block of life as we know it. All vegetation is created by the photosynthesis of CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, according to the IPCC WG I report (2007, p. 106), net primary productivity of the global biosphere has increased in recent decades, partly due to greater warming, higher CO2 concentrations and nitrogen deposition. Thus , there is a finite probability that reducing CO2 emissions would, therefore, reduce the net primary productivity of the terrestrial biosphere with potentially severe negative consequences for the amount and diversity of wildlife that it could support, as well as agricultural and forest productivity with adverse knock on effects on hunger and health.
There is also a finite probability that costs of GHG reductions could reduce economic growth worldwide. Even if only industrialized countries sign up for emission reductions, the negative consequences could show up in developing countries because they derive a substantial share of their income from aid, trade, tourism, and remittances from the rest of the world. See, for example, Tol (2005), which examines this possibility, although the extent to which that study fully considered these factors (i.e., aid, trade, tourism, and remittances) is unclear.
Finally, one of the problems with the argument that society should address low probability high impact events (assuming a probability could be estimated rather than assumed or guessed) is that it necessarily means there is a high probability that resources expended on addressing such catastrophic events will have been squandered. This wouldn’t be a problem but for the fact that there are opportunity costs associated with this.
According to the 2007 IPCC Science Assessment’s Summary for Policy Makers (p. 10), “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” In plain language, this means that the IPCC believes there is at least a 90% likelihood that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (AGHG) are responsible for 50-100% of the global warming since 1950. In other words, there is an up to 10% chance that anthropogenic GHGs are not responsible for most of that warming.
This means there is an up to 10% chance that resources expended in limiting climate change would have been squandered. Since any effort to significantly reduce climate change will cost trillions of dollars (see Nordhaus 2008, p. 82), that would be an unqualified disaster, particularly since those very resources could be devoted to reducing urgent problems humanity faces here and now (e.g., hunger, malaria, safer water and sanitation) — problems we know exist for sure unlike the bogeymen that we can’t be certain about.
Spending money on speculative, even if plausible, catastrophes instead of problems we know exist for sure is like a starving man giving up a fat juicy bird in hand while hoping that we’ll catch several other birds sometime in the next few centuries even though we know those birds don’t exist today and may never exist in the future.
Nogw,
you may be interested in this little table-top experiment
I have a tremendous respect for the various formal disciplines, but the complexities of climate change are probably beyond the ken of the most educated person. To be able to speak with any real authority, one would need to have this information at their command:
1) Be able to visualize the exact shape and intensity of the electromagnetic field that surrounds the Earth, and be able to characterize it’s interaction with the charged particles being ejected from the Sun.
2) Be able to intuitively understand how the Sun’s output (at all bands of radiation) affects the atmosphere and the ozone layer.
3) Understand how the above affects cloud formation at all levels of the atmosphere, down to the fractal level.
4) Understand all biological influences of the ocean, including accurate coefficients of reflectivity of various plankton types, whatever they might be at that point in time.
5) Know how the exact shape of the ocean basins affect undersea currents and the dynamic transfer of energy about the globe.
6) Understand how temperature stratification in the ocean modulates absorption/release of all greenhouse gasses, and all other atmospheric gasses, relative to dilution.
7) Be able to quantitatively and qualitatively assess the affects of existing plant life on Earth with different atmospheric compositions, temperatures, and humidities.
8) Know all influences on albedo, above and beyond the polar ice extent.
9) Be aware of any and all anthropogenic influences, via the biosphere or atmosphere, relative to natural influences.
10) Be aware of all feedbacks, negative and positive, not previously mentioned.
And you could probably think of others. Because these involve several unknowns, if we aren’t aware of them, climate models can’t include these factors in a computation, and no one person or committee can accurately make a determination. Therefore to say that CO2 is the decisive factor in climate is mere speculation. The same attitude is reflected in our willingness to tamper with biological equilibrium by bringing in non-native species. Inevitably, it results in a worse problem than what we were trying to solve.
Some zealots have proposed to use eco-engineering to deal with perceived global warming. Bad idea – a horror story in the making, actually. Like putting reflective particles in orbit around the Earth. If you think killer bees are bad, you haven’t seen anything yet.
I will take on Monckton. There have been at least three other genocides greater than the three he describes:
1. The American Holocaust, 1492 to ~1900. Native American populations fell from roughly 50 million to less than 5 million, a decline of over 90%. W. George Lovell called it “probably the greatest demographic disaster ever.” See Denevan, W. M. ed. 1992 [1976]. The Native Population of the Americas in 1492, 2nd ed. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
2. The 20th Century Hemoclysm. The First and Second World Wars, Communist China and the Soviet Union — which together account for 3/4 of all deaths by atrocity in the 20th Century (~110 million). WWII alone accounted for 55 million deaths. See http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm
3. 20th Century Abortions: ~43 million U.S since 1973, worldwide 1920 to 2008: 858,000,000 reported abortions, estimated 961,000,000 total abortions . See http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp339.html
Those catastrophes were not climate induced; they were human induced (blame for the American Holocaust may be attributed to diseases but to some extent those diseases were deliberately introduced by invading Europeans). The mass slaughters were genocidal because some ethnicities were victimized to a far greater extent than others.
We do it to ourselves. That’s the take home lesson. Man’s inhumanity to man is the greatest catastrophe. Would that we could learn that lesson and cure our species of the propensity to murder one another, but I fear we cannot and/or will not. The speculative projected ills of climate change pale in comparison to the certain atrocities we will inflict upon each other in the future.
bluegrue (14:08:23) :
“Irrelevant, nobody is advocating removing all CO2, besides during the ice ages we had atmospheric levels of CO2 down to about 200ppm.”
But not the pre-Cambrian ice age, when CO2 levels were >15 times higher than today. How many times to we have to show it – CO2 does not drive temperature. No catastrophe.
rephelan (20:19:54) :
As is usually the case, reality is rather more complex than the generalisation.
In the, admittedly, very small part of mainland China that I am familiar with, the one child family is not the norm (as was also the case in the families of the students at the NZ language schools I know of – a factor of wealth, I think). Rules have changed over the years of the policy and families often braved fines to have more than one child.
Most of our relatives and friends, especially the younger moneyed ones, have 2 children. It’s hard to tell how many children the migrant field and jeans workers have, as they all seem to live and play together.
The provision of paper goods for the dead is more prevalent in Hong Kong, but not so much in the mainland villages, that I am aware of. although paper money is burned. Many of a certain age don’t believe in or take part in these practices. In New Zealand, the family has a very cut down version of the graveside practices – mostly maintained by me, although as I’m a gwai po, I’m not really qualified!
In China, the city and the country, the North, South, East and West are all very different places and it seems to me that to a degree, people are adept are living the lives they want under the radar.
The matter of gender imbalance in a population is not only a Chinese problem, but as for young men never getting laid — hmmm.
[Moderators – feel free to snip at will as I am aware this is well off topic .]
Bluegrue, re the experiment:
Now do the same thing with CO2 concentration levels of .0284% vs .037% and tell us what the results are. Finally, repeat it again with those concentrations, but this time take the lid off.
Yeah, if we were raising the CO2 levels to 100% and earth were in a sealed glass bottle we would be in deep kimchi.
Allan M (02:04:48) :
You conveniently forget that I mentioned this in response to Nogw’s “-CO2 is the gas plant BREATH and without it vegetation would disappear.”.
Anyway, yes CO2 levels were considerably higher, just as the continental lay-out was completely different (a single super-continent is assumed), fauna and flora was “different”, i.e. the end of the Precambrian was marked by the Oxygen Catastrophe caused by the invention of photosynthesis, the solar constant was lower (it was about 75% of today’s about 4.5 billion years ago, I don’t know whether linear interpolation is appropriate. A comment by Dr. Svalgaard would be welcome, if he should read this) and I’m sure the list of major differences is incomplete. So, how relevant is that high CO2 level during the Precambrian to today’s situation, Allen M?
jtom (03:57:42) :
You are welcome to repeat it with a 20 mile high sealed column. Don’t forget that while the CO2 concentration is low you need to integrate its effect over a few miles of atmosphere.
Well, it does not look as if sea level rises in the Pacific will contribute to IPCC promoted sea level rises any time soon if this paper is anything to go by:
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/paperncgtsealevl.pdf
Abstract: Graphs of sea level for twelve locations in the southwest Pacific show stable sea level for about ten years over
the region. The data are compared with results from elsewhere, all of which suggest that any rise of global sea level is
negligible. The Darwin theory of coral formation, and subsidence ideas for guyots would suggest that we should see
more land subsidence, and apparent sea level rise, than is actually occurring. Sea level studies have not been carried out
for very long, but they can indicate major tectonic components such as isostatic rebound in Scandinavia. Attempts to
manipulate the data by modelling to show alarming rates of sea level rise (associated with alleged global warming) are not
supported by primary regional or global data. Even those places frequently said to be in grave danger of drowning, such
as the Maldives, Tuvalu and Holland, appear to be safe.
Jacob Mack(Jcbmack as over at RC) wants you to “Vote for the stimulus!”
http://climateoverdrive.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/vote-for-the-stimulus/
This is his link,
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21013048
Useless.
Here’s something I did cherry pick out of his links,
http://en.wordpress.com/tag/stimulus-package/
Link- http://friskaliberal.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/obama-stimulus-without-any-earmarks-or-wasteful-pork/#comments
“What would you find if you frisked President Obama at his recent Raleigh, NC town hall meeting?
Answer: A complete lie about the stimulus package.”
You don’t understand Jacob Mack, this is not a political issue for most of us here.
I’ve been schooled rigorously and tested in my field as a Heating technician for over 5 years(21 years) of training to get a TQ. I needed to know the laws thermodynamics and physics for heat transfer for btu distributions and specific gravities/ properties of gases, liquids and solids.
BE IT, calculations for large heating systems figuring distributing of superheated steam in a system or mathematical equation for distribution of heat transfer in a heat exchanger through conduction and a forced air circulation systems.
Older units distribute heat through convection heat rising or hot air being directed through ducting.
I’m also quite schooled and ticketed in instrument reading to adjust oxygen intake and lessen toxic carbon monoxide for safety and carbons building up in a system from inefficient burning in the combustion process.
This now has all been computerized and is self adjusting in modern heating systems, to save energy and get the optimum energy from fuels without making toxic gases. Once you try to go beyond the optimized efficiency in burning fuel/air ratio, toxins are going to be produced. So the catalytic converter was introduced to stop toxic fumes and converting unburnt fuels into clean life giving CO2!
There is and never has been AGW CO2 forming heat in the atmosphere, no heat measured. And there has only been natural CO2 coming into our atmosphere. Nuclei are coming in/or being created in our ionosphere. Cabon14(12/13 or whateva) are used as markers in carbon dating. A constant flow of hydro carbons and gases(CO2) literally “rain”ing down on us from atmospheric chemical reactions and of course carbon.
Calcium carbonate will react with water that is saturated with carbon dioxide to form the water soluble calcium bicarbonate.
Sodium carbonate is soluble in water, but can occur naturally in arid regions, especially in the mineral deposits (evaporites) formed when seasonal lakes evaporate
IMHO,
All these natural formed/existing nuclei are coming down in the rain water. Heavy gas like co2 or nuclei don’t stay up in the atmosphere and come down in the rain and slowly make cave formations or sediment in areas that allow it like limestone and our OCEANS salinity.
Natural oxygen/CO2/calcium/sodium/ carbon14 (to speak of a few) raining or fogging down on earth, the building blocks of life and all this through precipitation. As it does now.
Earths most abundant element is oxygen, making up 46.6% of the earth’s mass. Silicon is the second most abundant element (27.7%), followed by aluminum (8.1%), iron (5.0%), calcium (3.6%), sodium (2.8%), potassium (2.6%). and magnesium (2.1%). These eight elements account for approximately 98.5% of the total mass of the earth’s crust.
Sorry, I got OT.
Jacob Mack, if AGW CO2 contributions are 2% to all CO2 gases measured on earth, where does the 98% natural CO2 gas coming from up there? How does a trace gas twice the weight of air get up there to cause the heating?
Could the CO2 have already been there naturally? Wouldn’t IR radiation from CO2 gas reflect it back out before radiating the heat back to earth? CO2 is not the perpetual motion machine to store energy and create MORE energy then has been input. I WISH!
Oh yeah, one last Question..
If man made CO2 has lead to global catastrophically warmer, what caused the cooling of the world in the last few ice ages?
Jacob Mack (17:42:47) : [snip long post]
Well, the first sentence of your reply was accurate. After that your arguments were speculative or just plain wrong.
[snip]
And while I can believe that you are a descendent of the Homo Sapien subspecies, Neandertal, and would perform better in a colder world, most of us are not. History shows we do better in warmer climes, such as the Holocene Optimum (‘optimum’, look it up).
[snip]
Bluegrue – so you’re little experiment demonstrating the effect of CO2 on temperature and climate doesn’t much match the real world, does it?
And since you are the believer, it is up to YOU to do the experiment to prove it.
Jacob Mack: “What seems to be neglected to be mentioned is that even in the absence of AGW, higher CO2 levels are bad for human and animal health and plant life has limits to how much 02 they can produce in the face of higher C02 levels.”
Well Jacob, it appears you have the background to understand what I’ve said and it also sounds like you agree with propensity for failed predictions by scientists throughout history. Then you tack on the last little sentence. If that is your basis for supporting AGW then I’d suggest a little more research.
If you mean CO2 levels above 10000 ppm then we are in agreement. At levels below that your proposition gets weaker and weaker. Finally, at levels below 1000 ppm your argument becomes silly. As already mentioned, it’s doubtful man has the capacity to raise CO2 levels this high. In addition, if we could even get close to this number we should already have a much better understanding of the true effects of CO2. Then, we can act accordingly.
Until then the intelligent approach is to continue to monitor climate and improve the science. Eventually we will figure it out AND just as importantly, our technology will be more advanced and we will be better able to manage any problems.
Pieter F (23:57:31) :
“bluegrue (04:21:36) :
jtom (03:57:42) :
You are welcome to repeat it with a 20 mile high sealed column. Don’t forget that while the CO2 concentration is low you need to integrate its effect over a few miles of atmosphere.”
Molecular weight of CO2 = 44, Nitrigen is 28. Which is heavier? Is 78% nitrogen too much (Pollution)? (As AGW proponents assume increasing CO2 *is* pollution).
Way to go. You’ve successfully replicated the thinking that led to the current financial crisis. Basically what you’re saying is “of course house prices will never drop simultaneously across the country! The risk is so small, why bother to take it into account?” It sounds rational to talk about prioritizing risks based on their likelihood to occur. Of course, that’s what the Wall St quants did, and as it turns out, their models seriously underestimated the likelihood and impact of supposedly outlying events occuring. Economists’ and global warming deniers’ models assume a normal distribution of probabilities of events occuring, and therefore underestimate the likelihood of extreme events. For example, using a normal distribution to predict how often the Dow would swing by 7% in a single day, you’d expect that to happen once every 300,000 years. In reality, it happened 48 times between 1916 and 2003, and several more times during the current financial crisis. Similarly, nearly all global warming models have UNDER-estimated the likelihood of outlying effects which we already see occuring (rate of sea ice melt, methane release from permafrost, etc). Prudence dictates that we take steps to prevent outlying but catastrophic events from happening.
bluegrue (00:12:15) :
Bluey, I’m a positivist and judge actions by their consequences. I have nothing but contempt for historical revisionists and people who play fast and loose with data and facts. You can get an alternative picture here:
http://cei.org/PDFs/malaria.pdf
Patrick Davis (07:16:21) :
Perhaps it has escaped your attention, but CO2 concentrations in the troposphere and the stratosphere have been _measured_, see e.g. the Chahine paper referenced above, which had also been highlighted by Anthony last year.
Let’s take your factoid, that others here seemed to consider significant too, at face value. Let’s do an idealized calculation, assuming N2, O2 (I think you forgot about that one) and CO2 to be idealized gases and the atmosphere to be isothermal (wrong, but easier formula). We’ll also use dry air. The barometric formula tells us that the partial pressure at altitude h is
P = P_b * exp(-g M (h-h_b) / R * T_b )
where M is the molecular weight, R = 8.31N m / (mol K), g=9.81m/s is the gravitational acceleration T the temperature and the index _b indicates values at the base of the gas column. Let P_b = 1013 hPa (=1atm)
M_N2 = 28 (78.5%) –> P_b_N2 = 795 hPa
M_O2 = 32 (21.5%) –> P_b_O2 = 218 hPa
M_CO2 = 44 (390ppm) –> P_b_CO2 = 0.395 hPa
Volume percentages slightly altered to take account of the 1% trace gases.
At h = 10 km we find
P_N2_10 = 253 hPa
P_O2_10 = 59 hPa
P_CO2_10 = 0.065 hPa = 209ppm
If we drop the assumption that the air column is isothermal and use the standard lapsrate of 6.5 K/km (up to 10 km altitude) we find a mixing ratio of 220ppm.
So even in a non-turbulent atmosphere, CO2 mixing ratio drops with height, but not fast enough to make it negligible. However, the troposphere is far from static and so CO2 is found at much higher mixing ratios of about 370ppm up to 10 km, as verified by measurements.
So much for: “CO2 is heavyyyy, Dude!” It helps to think about one’s factoids before dropping them.
This is a perfect article on the subject from WSJ
Global Warming and the Poor
Why India and China don’t care much about climate change.
A funny thing happened on the way to saving the world’s poor from the ravages of global warming. The poor told the warming alarmists to get lost.
This spring, the Geneva-based Global Humanitarian Forum, led by former U.N. General Secretary Kofi Annan, issued a report warning that “mass starvation, mass migration, and mass sickness” would ensue if the world did not agree to “the most ambitious international agreement ever negotiated” on global warming at a forthcoming conference in Copenhagen.
According to Mr. Annan’s report, climate change-induced disasters now account for 315,000 deaths each year and $125 billion in damages, numbers set to rise to 500,000 deaths and $340 billion in damages by 2030. The numbers are hotly contested by University of Colorado disaster-trends expert Roger Pielke Jr., who calls them a “poster child for how to lie with statistics.”
But never mind about that. The more interesting kiss-off took place in New Delhi late last month, when Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh told visiting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that there was no way India would sign on to any global scheme to cap carbon emissions.
“There is simply no case for the pressure that we, who have among the lowest emissions per capita, face to actually reduce emissions,” Mr. Ramesh told Mrs. Clinton. “And as if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours.” The Chinese—the world’s largest emitter of CO2—have told the Obama administration essentially the same thing.
Roughly 75% of Indians—some 800 million people—live on $2 a day or less, adjusted for purchasing power parity. In China, it’s about 36%, or about 480 million. That means the two governments alone are responsible for one in every two people living at that income level.
If climate change is the threat Mr. Annan claims it is, India and China ought to be eagerly beating the path to Copenhagen. So why aren’t they?
To listen to the climate alarmists, it’s all America’s fault. “What the Chinese are chiefly guilty of is emulating the American economic model,” wrote environmental writer Jacques Leslie last year in the Christian Science Monitor. “The United States passed up the opportunity it had at the beginning of China’s economic transformation to guide it toward sustainability, and the loss is already incalculable.”
Facts tell a different story. When Deng Xiaoping began introducing elements of a market economy in 1980, Chinese life expectancy at birth was 65.3 years. Today it is about 73 years. The numbers are probably a bit inflated, as most numbers are in the People’s Republic, but the trend line is undeniable. In India, life expectancy rose from 52.5 years in 1980 to about 67 years today. If this is the consequence of following the “American economic model” then poor countries need more of it.
But what about all the pollution in India and particularly China? In Mr. Leslie’s telling, CO2 emissions are part-and-parcel with common pollutants such as particulate matter, toxic waste, and everything else typically associated with a degraded environment. They’re not. The U.S. and China produce equivalent quantities of carbon dioxide. But try naming a U.S. city whose air quality is even remotely as bad as Beijing’s, or an American river as polluted as the Han: You can’t. America, the richer and more industrialized country, is also by far the cleaner one.
People who live in Third-World countries—like Mexico, where I grew up—tend to understand this, even if First-World environmentalists do not. People who live in oppressive Third World countries, like China, also understand that it isn’t just greater wealth that leads to a better environment, but greater freedom, too.
To return to Mr. Leslie, his complaint with China is that it has become too much of a consumer society, again in the American mold. Again he is ridiculous: China has one of the world’s highest personal savings rates—50% versus the U.S.’s 2.7%. The real source of China’s pollution problem is a state-led industrial policy geared toward production, and state-owned enterprises (especially in “dirty” sectors like coal and steel) that strive to meet production quotas, and state-appointed managers who don’t mind cutting corners in matters of safety or environmental responsibility, and typically have the political clout to insulate themselves from any public fallout.
In other words, China’s pollution problems are not a function of laissez-faire policies and rampant consumerism, but of the regime’s excessive lingering control of the economy. A freer China means a cleaner China.
There’s a lesson in this for those who believe that the world’s environmental problems call for a new era of dirigisme. And there ought to be a lesson for those who claim to understand the problems of the poor better than the poor themselves. If global warming really is the catastrophe the alarmists claim, the least they can do for its victims is not to patronize them while impoverishing them in the bargain.
Write to bstephens@wsj.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204313604574327992553917308.html
I will make this succinct as I can: Pamela, look up heat capacity which is an extensive property (dependent upon mass) and specific heat which is an intensive property. (differs from subtance to substance) About 75% of the globe is covered by water (that is a lot of mass) and the specfic heat of water is designated as: Jg1^-1 C^-1, and there are 4.184 J per calorie, the common form of representing specific heat is in the form of joules. Water has a very high heat capacity and specific heat, so it takes more absorption of heat/radiation for it to raise in temperature than land.
Now, regarding you question about C02, CO2 is more soluble in water than many other compounds. This solubility is due in part, to the polar bonds and sites of partial charge which attract water molecules, thus forming hydrogen bonds to hold the gas in solution. S02, and NH3 are also very soluble in water, while O2 and N2 are far less so. Here is one example of a reaction of C02 +(aq) +H20 (reversible reaction) H2CO3 (aq) (reversible) H^+ (aq) + HCO3^- (AQ). In a related reaction H30 can also be formed in the presence of certain air pollutants.
In nature or in our own bodies water can act as either an acid or a base; take a look at H30 (hydronium) as in when the ph goes down of rain and becomes acidic. (below 5.6 since rain is slightly acidic to begin with).
Now, more topically: Land and water absorb and store heat very differently from one another. Within a few hours land temperatures can change by many degrees; water temperatures change far more slowly. Ofcourse this means oceans and lakes affect surrounding climates in meaninful ways. Keep in mind too that winds that travel over water typically take on the water’s termperature. Now, let me exoplain what is meant by temperature in chemisry and physics: temperature is the average kinetic energy, meaning that the average of all collisions/oscillations is the total mean energy of motion. Heat is random motion/ entropy, symbolized by the letter S. Let me give you a chemistry textbook, glossary definition of each, as well so it is more clear: Temperature–“A measure of hotness or coldness of something. A property related to the average kinetic energy of the atoms amd molecules in a sample. A property that determines the direction of heat flow from high to low temperature. Heat: A frorm of energy.
Now ofcourse there is the fact that C02 absorbs aother wavelengths of radiation that water vapor does not, presenting with a forcing upon rising water vapor levels in the atmosphere; keep in mind that water vapor does tend towards equilibrium, but this equilbrium represents a new balance, though the ratios remain approximately the same…the added water vapor and C02 adds to the absorption of long wave radiation and re-emission as well. Water vapor, for example traps in heat at night in clouds. Also the levels of water vapor in the atmosphere is a function of temperature f(t). This is a simple function relationship mathematically. Of course there are other aspects to consider: advection, convection, coriolis effect, El Nino, La Nina, thermohaline and changes in ocean salinity. Climaologists, ocean chemists, marine biologists and climate modelers do consider these factors. More on that in a later post. Hope this helps!
jtom says: “Well, the first sentence of your reply was accurate. After that your arguments were speculative or just plain wrong. And how did someone with a degree in BA Psychology , Double Major/Psychology-Social Criminal Justice manage to take all those science courses?”
I bega my college career in a community college. I took many honors, science and mathematics courses. I fulfilled all the requirements for Biology, Chemistry, and Psychology. In addition I took numerous other science and honors courses as well. I then began a sciene/math major (taking Physical Chemistry maong other courses, before getting married, moving across the country, taking a break from school and due to the demographic enrolling in an online institution). In the mean time I have also taken courses at other colleges and I work as a professional tutor in over 31 subjects; in addition I have a library of textbooks, journals and friends who are professionals in various fields to speak with; also never underestimate the power of library cards. (I have several library cards, and full access to the online ebooks from various online libraries) I had a declared major of Biology in early undergrad and I was completing the requirements for pre-med, so the physics and chemistry were all required anyways. Being an honors student it was easy to take whatever courses I wanted to. For an Associates degree you need to take 4 core courses of the declared major: I ended up with 7 Biology courses, 5 chemistry, 9 Psychology, and 4 math courses in Community college. In my early Bachelor’s efforts I fulfilled Immunology, Biochem (again) P-chem 1 and 2, and a few neuroscience related courses. I took meteorology and environmental science courses along the way; college is easy.
Quote: Richard M: “If you mean CO2 levels above 10000 ppm then we are in agreement. At levels below that your proposition gets weaker and weaker. Finally, at levels below 1000 ppm your argument becomes silly. As already mentioned, it’s doubtful man has the capacity to raise CO2 levels this high. In addition, if we could even get close to this number we should already have a much better understanding of the true effects of CO2. Then, we can act accordingly.”
Richard first you need to stop reading half truths and made up literature by people like Barrett/Kalmanovitch, and read real chemistry/physics/climate physical chemical analyses. I pointed some errors already with such papers, and when I have time I will reveal plenty more.
Kum Dollison (18:19:00) : “Ol Isaac missed that one, I’m afraid. You remove the little ‘critters’ from the soil, and we’d all starve within a year.”
I think he was assuming every square inch of the earth (land, oceans, roofs) would be used for growing algae, i.e. making the most of the earth’s photosynthetic potential. Where he missed the boat was in not allowing for 3 dimensional agri/mari/aquaculture, say with multi-level hydroponic facilities using artificial light. Then we could afford to keep some pets around. 🙂
Jacob Mack, in the longer posts more paragraph breaks would be nice. 🙂
Jacob Mack (12:02:55),
You must be new around here. We’ve been through this several times here. Do a search of the archives.
Jacob Mack (12:12:48),
So where did you get your B.S. in Chemistry? specifically, what school and what year?
Jacob Mack (12:02:55): :I pointed some errors already with such papers, and when I have time I will reveal plenty more.”
You’re so smart. How do I know? Because you’ve told us so yourself. Several times over.
But your strawman non-answer to Richard M makes it clear you don’t really know much about the physiological effects of our favorite trace gas. Maybe a quick trip back to the realclimate echo chamber will give you the talking points you need to respond intelligently to Richard M’s comment.
[REPLY – Now, now, be nice, Brother Raccoon. Besides, we have no reason to doubt his credibility. ~ Evan]