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.
Gary Hladik (12:29:02) :
“Jacob Mack, in the longer posts more paragraph breaks would be nice. :-)”
No problem:)
Smokey (12:36:09) :
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.” I already have.
Jacob Mack (12:12:48),
“So where did you get your B.S. in Chemistry? specifically, what school and what year?” Let us talk about actual chemistry instead.
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.” No, I actually opened my chemistry and physics textbooks, did my own calculations, read all the links my fellow posters have given me in this thread and found the disinformation, and falsified data.
Quote: “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.”
Strawman and ad hominem fallacies are covered in first year ethics courses; also covered this at AUa too…is this the best you can do? How about the actual science and math? C02 at 1000 ppm is a dangerous threat; the wordings of the IPCC report of likely, very likely, and high confidence are based upon both the best empirical data available and statistical analysis. Not flawless, not 100% certain in all respects. In medicine bayes theorem and clinical experience are used in conjunction often in the face of a history and phsyical to get a more full clinical picture, and the same is true in climate science. Proxy data, weather/climate observations around the world, global circulation models, satellite data, advanced statistical attributions, and predicted outcomes all interplay and work in synergy. Besides this, however, all one has to do if they really want to know how many of the climate systems work is pick up a General Chemistry textbook, Gerneral Physics textbook, a world geography textbook, and atleast look at the IPCC report. The properties of C02, N20, H20, CH4, NH4, S04, and other trace gases are very well understood. Now, I grant you attribution methods are becoming steadily better and prior to the 1970’s before satellite data and more advanced computing technology there were far larger uncertainties in attribution and correlation studies, but to publish a paper “Appeal to Authority,” with so much distortion of the facts like: misinterpreting the second law of thermodynamics, and misrepresenting the principle of E=MC^2 a bit too, in light of Richard M, not giving one shred of evidence to support his claim, well, I am not engaging in a strawman, I am just telling the truth. If Richard M, believes I am misrepresenting his position, then he needs to bring references and plenty reputable sources of information to back the veracity of his claim.
Jacob Mack (12:12:48),
[smokey, I’m deleting some of your personal attack items] ~ ctm
rephelan
From your CEI article by Richard Tren and Roger Bate:
What they utterly fail to tell the reader, from Chapin and Wassertrom linked above
Furthermore, the CEI authors stop in 1995,
Actually, the Decision 18/32: Persistent Organic Pollutants of the UNEP Governing Council set up an assessment process to
Yes, with the intention to restrict and/or ban the use of substances including DDT. The result of this process was the Stockholm Convention of May 22, 2001. DDT is explicitly allowed for vector control, its only permissible use. For example Mauritius is regularly spraying DDT at its ports of entry (p 87).
So where have I “played fast and loose with data and facts”? Where was DDT banned for vector control without having a good alternative to fight malaria? What part of “resistance to DDT” e.g. in India don’t you understand? Your CEI “alternative picture” does not cover any of this.
[I’m putting a stop to this bickering, some subsequent posts on both sides may simply be deleted] ~ ctm
Reminds me of igonikon jack – many words but little sense.
Jacob Mack,
[snip]
Regarding your wanting skeptics to provide you with “valid evidence”, you fit the pattern of climate alarmists who run their CO2=AGW conjecture up the flag pole and expect skeptics to salute it.
The Scientific Method doesn’t work that way. For the umpteenth time: It is not the duty of skeptics to prove anything. It is the duty of those pushing a new hypothesis to defend it.
When you get up to speed on the Scientific Method, you will realize that skeptics have nothing to prove; those flogging the [repeatedly falsified] CO2=AGW hypothesis need to provide real world, falsifiable evidence of its veracity.
So far, the empirical evidence for CO2=AGW is exactly zero. Even planet Earth is telling you that. You’re just not listening.
“Jacob Mack,
[snip]
“So far, the empirical evidence for CO2=AGW is exactly zero. Even planet Earth is telling you that. You’re just not listening.” tell me how this disrupts the trend line? How does this disprove the experimental results of such a large number of chemists regarding C02?
Smokey, I am not an “alarmist,” as you claim. The IPCC report and the recent technical paper on climate and water clearly expositions uncertainties and lack of exacting predictions for say, 50 years from now. What is clearly shown is highly probable future climate channges of great detriment with high levels of confidence based upon current damages and benefits from global climate change and alterations in said climate due to AGW. We are right now seeing ice melts, permathrost thawing, and yes agricultural/animal emissions change conditions in the troposphere. The problem with the graph you showed me is atleast two-fold: for one it is a lower end estimate, and two it does not elimiante the 30 year trend, or the 150 or so year trend either.
The papers and links you have each shown me here on this site regarding chemistry and physics are so fundamentally flawed (first-second year chemistry in a local college would fix this) that I can not even begin to explain where you need to begin, since these topics are so scattered throughout textbooks and college curriculum.
Finally, for now: I am well aware of Karl Popper and falsifiability; the issue here is no one has falsified AGW. Also AGW is NOT a new hypothesis.
bluegrue (14:37:09)
DDT – the doc you reference is dated 2005. Sanity has started to return to the DDT argument as there really is NO defence to the accusations about its side effects that can possibly justify the death of MILLIONS per annum.
FYI the US banned the export of DDT. African countries in the early 70s – who for the FIRST TIME EVER had started to reduce the incidence of malaria – took note and as the (proto) EU also banned the export of DDT they had NO WHERE TO GET STOCK.
Result : areas that had been cleared of mosquitoes & therefore no longer suffered from pandemic malaria became re-infected. Areas where climate change/agriculteral change favoured mosquitos became infected.
The ban resulted from some hysterical bad science. That was pushed for a US political agenda – anti business; anti west; anti American.
Those people who forced the DDT US & EU ban through are directly responsible for the estimated 40Million deaths. Oh sorry it was not a ban; but the end result was exactly the same.
DDT WAS WINNING THE MALARIA WAR. We have lost 40 years in that fight.
The very document you point to; tells the whole story – correctly applied DDT kills mosquito larvae; which breaks the Malaria vector cycle – dead.
Africans could not afford to overspray as they did in the US & EU; a self limiting system.
Go back to the 70s & research the information presented to (and by) WHO and the development agencies/developing countries AT THE TIME – stop re-writing history; DDT WAS banned; the idiots that did so have killed at least 40 million. I was too young & naive at the time to understand the lies told; funny how WHO now supports DDT and NO ONE seems worried by the doublethink required for such a volte face.
Who pushed for the DDT ban ? the early environmental movement; many of whom are still active in the AGW propaganda machine; still making other people pay for their disconnection with the real world.
[snip] ~ ctm
Jacob Mack,
Albert Einstein gave a famous retort to 100 scientists who signed an open letter disputing his Theory of Relativity: ”To defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.”
All it takes is one verifiable fact to falsify the CO2=AGW conjecture.
There are extensive papers, many peer reviewed, discrediting/falsifying AGW. You won’t see them on realclimate. Here are just a few:
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, 2007)
– Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Climate Research, Vol. 13, Pg. 149–164, October 26 1999)
– Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson, Willie Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas
Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?
(Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology,v. 50, no. 2, p. 297-327, June 2002)
– C. R. de Freitas
Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
(Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Can we believe in high climate sensitivity?
(arXiv:physics/0612094v1, Dec 11 2006)
– J. D. Annan, J. C. Hargreaves
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/AGW_hypothesis_disproved.pdf
Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics
(AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 88, no9, pp. 1211-1220, 2004)
– Lee C. Gerhard
– Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
(AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, no. 3, p. 409-412, March 2006)
– Lee C. Gerhard
Climate change in the Arctic and its empirical diagnostics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 469-482, September 1999)
– V.V. Adamenko, K.Y. Kondratyev, C.A. Varotsos
Climate Change Re-examined
(Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 723–749, 2007)
– Joel M. Kauffman
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 69–82, 1999
– Sherwood B. Idso
Crystal balls, virtual realities and ’storylines’
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 343-349, July 2001)
– R.S. Courtney
Dangerous global warming remains unproven
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, pp. 167-169, January 2007)
– R.M. Carter
Does CO2 really drive global warming?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 351-355, July 2001)
– R.H. Essenhigh
Does human activity widen the tropics?
(arXiv:0803.1959v1, Mar 13 200
– Katya Georgieva, Boian Kirov
Earth’s rising atmospheric CO2 concentration: Impacts on the biosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 287-310, July 2001)
– C.D. Idso
Evidence for “publication Bias” Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 287-301, March 200
– Patrick J. Michaels
Global Warming
(Progress in Physical Geography, 27, 448-455, 2003)
– W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas
Global Warming: The Social Construction of A Quasi-Reality?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 805-813, November 2007)
– Dennis Ambler
Global warming and the mining of oceanic methane hydrate
(Topics in Catalysis, Volume 32, Numbers 3-4, pp. 95-99, March 2005)
– Chung-Chieng Lai, David Dietrich, Malcolm Bowman
Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 997-1021, December 2007)
– Keston C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong
Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the Weather Dynamics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 297-322, May 2003)
– M. Leroux
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Focus_0808_endersbee.pdf
Global Warming: the Sacrificial Temptation
(arXiv:0803.1239v1, Mar 10 200
– Serge Galam
Global warming: What does the data tell us?
(arXiv:physics/0210095v1, Oct 23 2002)
– E. X. Alban, B. Hoeneisen
Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 80, Issue 16, p. 183-183, April 20, 1999)
– S. Fred Singer
Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)
– A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis
Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
(Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125(29), March 2007)
– Soon, Willie
http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/22835.pdf
Is a Richer-but-warmer World Better than Poorer-but-cooler Worlds?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1023-1048, December 2007)
– Indur M. Goklany
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/gwreview_oism150.pdf
Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?
(Journal of Climate, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, February 2006)
– Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo
Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties
(Climate Research, Vol. 18: 259–275, 2001)
– Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
– Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002)
(Climate Research, Vol. 22: 187–188, 2002)
– Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html
– Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al.
(Climate Research, Vol. 24: 93–94, 2003)
– Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?
(Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, August 2006)
– L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/864
On a possibility of estimating the feedback sign of the Earth climate system
(Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering. Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 260-268. Sept. 2007)
– Olavi Kamer
Phanerozoic Climatic Zones and Paleogeography with a Consideration of Atmospheric CO2 Levels
(Paleontological Journal, 2: 3-11, 2003)
– A. J. Boucot, Chen Xu, C. R. Scotese
Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D24S09, 2007)
– Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
Quantitative implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide climate forcing in the past glacial-interglacial cycles for the likely future climatic impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings
(arXiv:0707.1276, July 2007)
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/newsandevents/news/6629.aspx
– Soon, Willie
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 200
– Klaus-Martin Schulte
Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp. 288–299, March 1990)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Some examples of negative feedback in the Earth climate system
(Central European Journal of Physics, Volume 3, Number 2, June 2005)
– Olavi Kärner
Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
– S. Fred Singer
Taking GreenHouse Warming Seriously
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 937-950, December 2007)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 707-714, September 2006)
– Vincent Gray
Temporal Variability in Local Air Temperature Series Shows Negative Feedback
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1059-1072, December 2007)
– Olavi Kärner
The Carbon dioxide thermometer and the cause of global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 1-18, January 1999)
– N. Calder
The Cause of Global Warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 613-629, November 1, 2000)
– Vincent Gray
The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 985-995, December 2007)
– Douglas J. Keenan
The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 18, Pages 2319–2322, 1997)
– David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis
The “Greenhouse Effect” as a Function of Atmospheric Mass
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 351-356, 1 May 2003)
– H. Jelbring
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Correlation_Last_Decade.pdf
The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 217-238, March 2005)
– A. Rörsch, R. Courtney, D. Thoenes
The IPCC future projections: are they plausible?
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 155–162, August 199
– Vincent Gray
The IPCC: Structure, Processes and Politics Climate Change – the Failure of Science
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1073-1078, December 2007)
– William J.R. Alexander
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15557/Nature_Admits_Widely_Cited_Global_Warming_Graph_Was_Erroneous.html
The UN IPCC’s Artful Bias: Summary of Findings: Glaring Omissions, False Confidence and Misleading Statistics in the Summary for Policymakers
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 311-328, July 2002)
– Wojick D. E.
“The Wernerian syndrome”; aspects of global climate change; an analysis of assumptions, data, and conclusions
(Environmental Geosciences, v. 3, no. 4, p. 204-210, December 1996)
– Lee C. Gerhard
Uncertainties in assessing global warming during the 20th century: disagreement between key data sources
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 685-706, September 2006)
– Maxim Ogurtsov, Markus Lindholm
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSENMARSCHALLENGE.pdf
I have more when you’re finished reading these. But perhaps the best refutation of the CO2=AGW hypothesis is the response of the planet itself to increasing CO2: click
Those still clinging to the idea that CO2 causes measurable global warming need to provide empirical evidence [and remember that GCMs are not real world ‘evidence’.]
CO2 may cause very minor warming at lower concentrations. But as CO2 continues to rise, the planet’s temperature has been steadily falling — therefore the climate sensitivity attributable to CO2 is much too high.
The effect of CO2 is so small that it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. There is nothing to worry about WRT beneficial carbon dioxide. It’s all good.
The quote you use from Einstein is also used by a recent IPCC paper, but I am now reading each and every link you have listed; I will read carefully, do calculations, use my textbooks alone as side references (not RC) and then I will get back to you. Now, this discussion may commence with further seriousness.
Smokey, first error in this paper: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Focus_0808_endersbee.pdf.
The author states that global pollution is localized and a seperate issue from global climate change. Well, what about the brown cloud from South Aisa which stretches from China to Pakistan? ( 3 km, 2 mi thick) That area of covering is home to about half of the world’s population. I will quote from p. 79 from Chemistry, Matter and Its Changes 4ht Edition: “The cloud blocks sunlight so effectively that crops in the region are beginning to fail and rainfall patterns have been altered.” Also, this and other brown clouds are carried into the atmosphere and transported around the world. The aerosols in the cloud block some global warming effects, while C02 holds in radiation at other locations. Then of course, in more agreement with the author’s statement, the higher ozone levels decrease the air quality as well.
Next the author is semicorrect about CO2 and temperature effects; it is true that C02 is more soluble in colder water, but this does not mean that a slightly warmer ocean just releases the excess C02 in equal proportin; do not forget water’s high heat capacity and specific heat. He rightly asserts that C02 solubility is both a function of pressure and temperature, but keep in mind Le Chatelier’s principle where a system will change to counteract a stress, like when the presssure of the system is increased and thus there is less volume available to the gas. The equilibrium shifts so that the pressure is reduced. This shift will be to the right increasing the solubility of the gas. If the pressure on the solution lower then the equilibrium shifts to the left and some dissolved gases leave the solution. So, yes pressure and temperature do affect solubility, but it is polar bonds that allows
(cut myself off by accident) which allows C02 to be so soluble; I do not doubt that oceans do act in part as C02 sinks, and that when they warm they do emit heat towards the atmosphere. The paper is incomplete and fails to make mention of other supplemental interactions between the ocean, atmosphere, and clouds. The development of H2CO3 is not mentioned either. Professor Lance does make the distinction here that he is not negating “pollution,” as a rational for more sound environmental policy, but just that global warming is not a genuine cincern due to anthropogenic means, but he supplies now hard data or discussion on the evidence on the support for AGW, so therefore he does not falsify AGW. Einstein meant when he stated: ”To defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact,” that something concrete and observable must be presented. There are many papers in existence now attempting to falsify GR and SR with no success. There numerous other publications even in peer review that seeks to amend and reconcile GR/SR with quantum states and string theory, M theory, and loop quantum gravity, but thus far to no avail. The “models,” and “theories” of SR/GR still work well. Now AGW in the modern sense is not the same type of framework as GR/SR, but it is a highly correlated model that shows a visible trend when the noise is removed and the signal made clear. I am busy with grading student’s papers and in between reading these papers you gave me, so allow a little time before I respond again.
“bluegrue (09:04:14) :
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.”
You are way off the point I was making, but not a surprise. I didn’t forget O2, I mentioned N2 because we are, mostly (~78%), nitrogen breathers and nitrogen is the largest constituent part of “air”. Is air that contains ~78% of a gas (Nitrogen in this case) pollution? It is the AGW followers who are now claiming CO2 *is* pollution (Because as they claim, too much, circa 450-700ppm, is a bad thing leading to catastophic warming, leading to increases in bad weather as a result of “climate change”. Katrina is blamed on “climate change”.) at current and increasing levels.
CO2 atomic weight is 44, O2 is 32 and N2 is 28. There is no way CO2 can magically cloak the earth in a “warming GHG blanket”. One does not need a degree to work that out.
There are believers who suggest CFC’s released in the NH *magically* found their way down over the south pole. Equally as nutty as the idea that CO2 can float in air.
“bluegrue (09:04:14) :
So much for: “CO2 is heavyyyy, Dude!” It helps to think about one’s factoids before dropping them.”
There are some who believe 1kg of feathers is lighter than 1kg of coal. But what would I know, I’m no degree laden scientist.
Jacob Mack
The author is correct and you are wrong. You conflate pollution with climate change! I’d forgotten, this is how they argue over at RC. No wonder I stay away.
Also, you’re going to have to credibly refute every AGW debunking link I’ve provided in order to escape from the fact that all it takes is one falsification of CO2=AGW to destroy that hypothesis. Maybe you’re smarter than every one of those authors, we’ll see.
And yes, I’m a spelling nazi.
[snip]
This isn’t realclimate, where the echo chamber gives you a free pass on arguments like Chinese pollution = “climate change”. Over here you’ll have to prove your case better than that. If the example above is any indication, you haven’t even started.
Stick around, we’ll make an honest skeptic of you yet.
Quote: “CO2 atomic weight is 44, O2 is 32 and N2 is 28. There is no way CO2 can magically cloak the earth in a “warming GHG blanket”. One does not need a degree to work that out.”–end quote. This is why CO2 is a trace gas and not a major constituent of the atmosphere. C02 is responsible for natural global warming in conjunction with water vapor.
The “blanket effect,” does not need large amounts of C02 (by ratio) in comparison to N2 or O2, which are both very stable in the atmosphere in molecular form. There is only 0.033–0.038% or so, C02 in the atmosphere. A gas can still rise due to the higher kinetic energy, so more weight will not hinder CO2 from rising and remaining for a long period of time either.
Interestingly enough, C02 is 20 times more soluble in water than in the air.
Here is a small quote from encyclopedia.com:
“In modern life, carbon dioxide has many practical applications. For example, fire extinguishers use CO2 to control electrical and oil fires that cannot be put out with water. Because carbon dioxide is heavier than air, it spreads into a blanket and smothers the flames. Carbon dioxide is also an effective refrigerant. In its solid form, known as dry ice , it is used to chill perishable food during transport. Many industrial processes are also cooled by carbon dioxide, which allows faster production rates. For these commercial purposes, carbon dioxide can be obtained from either natural gas wells, fermentation of organic material, or combustion of fossil fuels.”
See full entry here:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3437800099.html
Also see here for overview introduction:
http://netbnr.net/loc.html?http://search.live.com/results.aspx%3Fgo%3DSearch%26q%3Dgoogle%26form%3DCPNTLB
“Jacob Mack (18:53:56) :
Quote: “CO2 atomic weight is 44, O2 is 32 and N2 is 28. There is no way CO2 can magically cloak the earth in a “warming GHG blanket”. One does not need a degree to work that out.”–end quote. This is why CO2 is a trace gas and not a major constituent of the atmosphere. C02 is responsible for natural global warming in conjunction with water vapor.
The “blanket effect,” does not need large amounts of C02 (by ratio) in comparison to N2 or O2, which are both very stable in the atmosphere in molecular form. There is only 0.033–0.038% or so, C02 in the atmosphere. A gas can still rise due to the higher kinetic energy, so more weight will not hinder CO2 from rising and remaining for a long period of time either.
Interestingly enough, C02 is 20 times more soluble in water than in the air.”
We all know CO2 is a trace gas, and in concentartions above 386ppm, is it pollution? Is the change from ~220ppm to ~386ppm an indication of pollution over ~150 years of human, industrial, activities? Is the rate of increase an indication of greater poulltion? Would a 1% increase in nitrogen be considered pollution ? Is an increase in any atmospheric gas climate pollution? I ask these questions because almost all AGW followers continually state that “Too much of anything is pollution!”, or words to that effect.
No-one is disputing the effects of CO2 and water vapour however, what is in dispute is the ~120ppm of CO2 from human activities over the last ~150 years is the driving force (Al Gore and the IPCC and now almost all major Governments around the western world. We already know that “carbon trading” in Europe has done nothing to arrest GHG emissions, but it sure has raised huge revenues) behind “catastrophic climate change”, or the “A” in AGW.
You are assuming that all gas molecules are affected by kinetic energy evenly, which is not the case.
“Here is a small quote from encyclopedia.com:
“In modern life, carbon dioxide has many practical applications. For example, fire extinguishers use CO2 to control electrical and oil fires that cannot be put out with water. Because carbon dioxide is heavier than air, it spreads into a blanket and smothers the flames. Carbon dioxide is also an effective refrigerant. In its solid form, known as dry ice , it is used to chill perishable food during transport. Many industrial processes are also cooled by carbon dioxide, which allows faster production rates. For these commercial purposes, carbon dioxide can be obtained from either natural gas wells, fermentation of organic material, or combustion of fossil fuels.”
See full entry here:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3437800099.html
Also see here for overview introduction:
http://netbnr.net/loc.html?http://search.live.com/results.aspx%3Fgo%3DSearch%26q%3Dgoogle%26form%3DCPNTLB”
I did wonder when someone would mention fire extinguishers.
Jacob Mack:
[snip]
jtom,
your ad hominem attacks and sly questions are of no consequence to me.
Patrick Davis,
N2 and 02 are relatively inert in the atmosphere. Now, too much nitrogen in the soi is toxic to plant life, and too much 02 breathed in is toxic to brain cells. I am not going so far as to say pollution at this time, since N2 and O2 are not the concerns at this time, but the ratio of N2 and 02 in the air is conducive to life on Earth, and although slight flucuations should be fine, large changes in amounts of each molecule by volume/% would not be a good thing. C02, however is far higher than pre-industrial levels, but I know you have heard this many times before, so I will spare you there. Also convection and wind mixing can keep CO2 in the atmosphere for a long time.
Also C02 is produced from chemical reactions of CH4 and other compunds, so some can be produced at higher altitudes. Then there are forced convective processes, like factories which also leads to cloud formations with cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) in conjunction with water vapor, and S04’s. Changes in wind magnitude, direction and temperature all influences heat transfer and C02 transport. I have no more time tonight, but I will get some good material from my Environmental Organic Chemistry Manual and other sources not from NASA, NOAA, Heartland or RC.
“Jacob Mack (19:52:35) :
jtom,
your ad hominem attacks and sly questions are of no consequence to me. ”
The moderators passed the post, clearly meeting blog policy.
Reply:I’m fixing all that now ~ ctm
“Patrick Davis,
N2 and 02 are relatively inert in the atmosphere. Now, too much nitrogen in the soi is toxic to plant life, and too much 02 breathed in is toxic to brain cells. I am not going so far as to say pollution at this time, since N2 and O2 are not the concerns at this time, but the ratio of N2 and 02 in the air is conducive to life on Earth, and although slight flucuations should be fine, large changes in amounts of each molecule by volume/% would not be a good thing. C02, however is far higher than pre-industrial levels, but I know you have heard this many times before, so I will spare you there. Also convection and wind mixing can keep CO2 in the atmosphere for a long time.
Also C02 is produced from chemical reactions of CH4 and other compunds, so some can be produced at higher altitudes. Then there are forced convective processes, like factories which also leads to cloud formations with cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) in conjunction with water vapor, and S04’s. Changes in wind magnitude, direction and temperature all influences heat transfer and C02 transport. I have no more time tonight, but I will get some good material from my Environmental Organic Chemistry Manual and other sources not from NASA, NOAA, Heartland or RC.”
So, basically, what you’re saying is there is no provable/demonstrable/testable link between post industrial CO2 emissions (The ~120ppm over ~150 years of which ~30% goes “missing” every year (Recall the rocket to launch a “CO2” measuring satelite which crashed a while back) which the IPCC is claiming), primarilly from transport, agriculture and power generation, and changes in climate.
Patrick Davies:
Stomping your feet does not impress anyone. I’ve shown you why CO2 is a well-mixed gas. Get a grip on the physics of gases. Furthermore the molecular weight is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a molecule can absorb IR. H2O and CO2 are dipolar molecules, whereas N2 and O2 only have higher electromagnetic moments. That’s why IR photons in the absorption bands can readily be absorbed by CO2 and H20 and excite vibrations and rotations, whereas in N2 and O2 they can not (I’m leaving out the fineprint here). The atomic masses of the molecules constituents contribute only to the details of these spectra, not to to the question of “whether or not”. Check out absorption spectra of N2, O2, H2O and CO2 and you’ll see my point. N2 and O2 are transparent in the IR, H2O and CO2 and other GHGs are not.
You obviously don’t trust anything I say, so go ask other skeptics who have a better grip of physics and chemistry than you and ask them about the above.
I think now I understand the source of your misconception. Unmixed CO2 is indeed heavier than air (in addition it will be cold(!) when coming out of the fire extinguisher) and will drop to the floor, displacing the air and the oxygen within. However this is a dynamic effect, air and CO2 simply do not mix within seconds in that situation. Close the room, wait a few hours and you will find that CO2 and air are well mixed inside the room. Furthermore, once mixed they will not segregate again.
Same JM?
http://www.helium.com/users/353745/show_articles