Readers please note the story I ran earlier: NOAA: “the atmosphere’s self-cleaning capacity is rather stable”
This story talks about the ability of hydroxyl radicals in the free atmosphere to break down pollutants, and how there seems to be a stability in the levels globally, something understood for the first time. All good news.
Now read what this New York Times reporter, Assistant Business Editor Justin Gillis, bemoans in his story here:
A Steady Dose of Atmospheric Detergent
He writes:
Unfortunately, the most important greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, is not one of those broken down by the hydroxyl radical.
Zounds!
Mr. Gillis, let’s say such a thing magically did occur naturally, or someone creates a synthetic catalyst that performs the job and releases enough of it into the atmosphere in some geoengineering scheme to start dissipating CO2 in the atmosphere.
- What would happen if we rid the Earth of CO2 ?
- Or more technically, what would happen if this process scavenged CO2 down to 150 parts per million (or lower) globally?
If you can answer these questions, you might then understand why I am giving your statement the high praise of this regular feature.
This WUWT post on CO2 has a clue for you. I offer it as a path to enlightenment.
While you are at it, you might also like to address this story you did on sea level rise:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/science/earth/14ice.html
Gillis writes:
As a result of recent calculations that take the changes into account, many scientists now say that sea level is likely to rise perhaps three feet by 2100 — an increase that, should it come to pass, would pose a threat to coastal regions the world over.
And the calculations suggest that the rise could conceivably exceed six feet, which would put thousands of square miles of the American coastline under water and would probably displace tens of millions of people in Asia.
This is the graph of satellite measured sea level rise from the University of Colorado:
Note the rate of 3.1 millimeters per year.
Note this simple calculation:
2100 – 2011 = 89 years left to the end of the century
89 x 3.1mm = 275.9 mm call it 276mm
276 mm = .906 feet conversion done here
.906 feet is over 3 times less than 3 feet, and over 6 times less than 6 feet
Even if the rate of sea level rise accelerated (as some claim it will) and doubled, we still would not reach 3 feet. It would have to more than triple the current rate.
Many projections by various models predict the rise of sea level:
Note the trend of the observations line from 1950 to 2000, if you follow the linear trend, it will end up somewhere between 20 and 30 cm by the year 2100. The graph above is from Wikipedia’s “global warming art” which for some reason doesn’t show the observations back that far.
Let’s call it 30 centimeters. So 30 cm converted to feet is:
30 centimeters = 0.984251969 feet
Still far shy of 3 feet.
I hope this clears things up for you. If not, there’s much more here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Since life on this planet evolved when CO2 levels were measured in the thousands ppm, and CO2 levels have been rapidly dropping ever since, shouldn’t we be worried about CO2 levels being too low?
If there was ever a “tipping point”, it would be where CO2 levels dropped too low and life ceased to exist on this plant.
Seems to me that money, research, and time would be better spent trying to figure out why CO2 levels have dropped to right above the cut off point for supporting life on this planet.
Anthony:
I have to admit that you wrote a great story, but you had great material to work with. Your acquaintance Justin Gillis is not the only one who does not enjoy researching his stories though. I don’t want to detract from your story, so I’ll just pass on this link in support of the idea that it is easier to write a good scare story than it is to get the research right:
http://www.thestar.com/business/cleanbreak/article/917350–hamilton-beware-the-boomers-when-setting-energy-policy
I am surprised that Justin did not point out the same thing though. 😉
Maybe when you are gone there will be less trouble promulgating the scare stories. I suppose that a lot of writers are looking forward to your demise. In the meantime enjoy life and do what you can.
Easy answer – we’d be dead. I happen to like being able to use plants for food and oxygen, thank you very much.
Perhaps a better question would be: How many hundreds of millions would die of starvation this year if we could reduce CO2 concentrations back to the supposed ‘pre-industrial’ level of 280ppm, i.e. the supposed level before man started emitting CO2?
The present population of the world absolutely relies on the benefits of man emitting carbon dioxide. Figures vary as to the benefits it has brought, but probably at least 20% of harvest levels of C3 photosynthesizers (the majority of food crops) can be attributed to anthropogenic emissions if man is responsible for around 100ppm of the current concentration.
If there was ever a “tipping point”, it would be where CO2 levels dropped too low and life ceased to exist on this plant.
The tipping point was reached a long time ago… Life didn’t cease to exist, it just changed quite a lot from the carbonaceous period. Only plants that are tolerant of low CO2 have survived. It would be interesting to know what percent of the original population survived. I doubt it was more than a few percent.
Gillis is just one more data point that proves O’Rourke’s assertion that people who want to save the planet will do anything but take a science course. In this case I would guess Gillis either flunked, or failed to take basic biology.
I long ago came to the conclusion that editors chose health correspondents by going into the news room and asking for an aspirin. The first reporter to offer one got the job.
The same must be true for environment correspondents as the vast majority display their ignorance everytime they put finger to keyboard. In the UK, Geoffrey Lean of the Telegraph is a prime example. Every time he writes something, the bloggers destroy him. His ignorance is boundless.
I wonder how he was picked? “Who drives a Prius?” or “Who cycles to work?” perhaps?
Sean posted a great response in NYT comments:
A conclusion that shows he either was not paying attention in science class or never took 8th grade chemistry.
Imagine that, a powerful oxidizer like the OH radical not oxidizing and breaking down already oxidized carbon, and then implying that is a bad thing.
Is it a degree requirement for journalism majors to be scientifically illiterate?
I think most of them would get failing grades in the science classes I took in grade school and junior high school in the 1960’s. They have absolutely no grasp of basic chemistry, physics, and biology. More importantly most are not sharp enough to ask someone who does understand middle school level science a question or two before they jump to conclusions or draw absolutely silly conclusions as they write their articles.
Larry
Latitude: If there was ever a “tipping point”, it would be where CO2 levels dropped too low and life ceased to exist on this plant.
CO2 was extremely low in the coldest part of the most recent glaciations. I wonder if humans almost went extinct not only because of the unfriendly dry climate during glaciations – but perhaps also because of reduced food availability because plants were co2-starved?
lol, Anthony is trying that tricky math stuff on an alarmist.
Anthony, go easy with it! Math to an alarmist like garlic to a vampire!
The sea level rise needs context—much of the land recently released from the crushing weight of the glacial ice sheets are rebounding– rising as much as 1 cm/year. The areas near the foot of the glaciers were once pushed up by the weight and are now sinking in accordance with isostacy and the areas to their south such as Delaware are subsiding at nearly 2mm/yr. There is very little question about the rates associated with isostacy. The Gulf of Mexico is sinking from the weight of the accumulated sediments. In fact entire continental plates are sailing around the globe at 1 to 10cm/year. (Maybe they are trying to outrun the sea rise)
One chunk of California is trying to tear itself free in its quest to visit Alaska. This chunk of real estate as measured by undifferentiated slip is “moving” at ten times the rate of sea level rise. While one can safely sleep on the beach sure in the knowledge that Greenland will not ship out some extra water and drown you–the same cannot be said for escaping the next “Big One”. Californians fear climate change–silly Californians.
Anyone else wonder why natural threats even if far more likely don’t seem to rate with our intrepid journalists and environmental groups?
Gillis is saying that this newfound ‘stability’ in the hydroxyl radical was assumed by the models anyway. I’m not sure if this is true, because runaway methane feedback was part of the scary scenario.
Anthony,
As I intimated earlier today in response an Irish smear article flagged by Bishop Hill, the the MSM who have so diligently sold the climate junk science as AGW gospel are as guilty as the fraudsters [aka the Team et. al]. If one substitutes the “climate science” fraudsters for what happened at Enron or with the Vioxx clinical trails data manipulation, these good folks would now be contemplating life from behind bars.
By way of example, as of yesterday it is now clear beyond any discussion that the “vaccine-causes-autism” scare launched some ten years ago is unadulterated scientific fraud. Clearing this up justifiably destroyed several academic careers and reputations [Jones comes to mind and Mann is probably next in line] the same MSM that kept on propagating that story go scott free after the dust has settled.
In other words, key players in these types of stories which sell copy -like Gillis in this case- basically can publish what they like without direct consequences -other than in cases of outright libel.
I clicked on the link provided above:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/06/sea-level-graphs-from-uc-and-some-perspectives/
to compare the data. I wanted a little perspective since there are times the data looks flat following an El Niño, then rises again later (i.e. 1998 to mid 2000 and 2006 to mid 2009 look flat but a rise occurs afterword).
Surprise! The data is different. Graphs 2009_rel1 and 2009_rel2 look similar, but 2010_rel5 is different. For instance, near the end of 2000 there is a peak. In 2009, this peak was well within then 0-10mm range, but in 2010 it almost reaches 10mm. Also there is one red circle in the box bounded by 10-20mm and 2000-2002 in the 2009 graphs, but in 2010 there are 2 red circles, and they don’t appear to match the circle in the 2009 graphs.
The data appears to be adjusted within the last year. I haven’t emailed CU about this. I hope there is a good reason, but why did the data from TOPEX change? Or did it not change and it’s a graphing issue? (I doubt it.)
WUWT???
I fear you are wasting your time, Anthony.
Journalists are only interested in sensationalism. Truth always takes a back seat unless, of course, it happens to be sensational….
Hotrod,
I went through journalism school in the early 70s. It’s scary, but with few exceptions reality is that it is rare that a journalist has a proper academic/technical background in the field they’re covering, be it e.g. climate “science”, economics or warfare. They have to be able to sell the story, not much more. Not only that, survey after survey shows that in the developed economies 75-80% of media folks identify themselves as “liberal” or “left of center”. Given tha bias, there is ample room for thematic manipulation.
Now you know why his cv does not give graduation dates from MIT – Mine are PhD EE ’78, thesis in vertical temperature profile retrieval from orbiting microwave telescopes.
CO2 + H2O ==> H2CO3
As I recall, as CO2 dissolves in water it releases heat. There was an article years ago about creating jet engines that ran on CO2 and water vapor. What was lacking was a catalyst. The concern was that if such a catalyst was discovered, it could cause some small problems. Such as the extinction of all life.
Unfortunately, the most important greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, is not one of those broken down by the hydroxyl radical.
Unfortunately. -Wrong
The most important greenhouse gas. -Wrong
Is not broken down. -We do get a tendency to H2CO3, but just nonsense.
This is scientific illiteracy, but we expect it, we’re used to it.
As for sea levels, it’s just think of a number and double it. But this is mild compared to some of the nutters.
——-
Tannim111 says:
January 7, 2011 at 9:17 am
Easy answer – we’d be dead. I happen to like being able to use plants for food and oxygen, thank you very much.
But you must consider the feelings of plants. Given the number of nasty chemicals they produce to avoid being eaten, they must have an aversion to it.
Unfortunately the MSM is still on the driver less train. A collegue showed me an article today in the Daily Mail about polar bears, happily trudling out the same old lines about tipping points, ice free artic very soon now (according to latest predictions apparently!),declining polar bear populations etc etc etc. Don’t they do any research before commiting to print???
Michael D Smith says:
January 7, 2011 at 9:28 am
The tipping point was reached a long time ago… Life didn’t cease to exist, it just changed quite a lot from the carbonaceous period. Only plants that are tolerant of low CO2 have survived. It would be interesting to know what percent of the original population survived. I doubt it was more than a few percent.
======================================================
Exactly
CO2 levels at the end of the carbonaceous are said to have been 350ppm and everything went to hell in a handbag.
We’re at around 390ppm right now.
How did this whole “science” of climate get so whacked out?
Something is going on with the planet that it is sequestering CO2 faster than it can be replaced.
Any person with 1/2 a lick of sense should be worried about CO2 levels being too low.
My theory is “you get what you need when you need it”.
If we hadn’t come along, invented what we have invented, started burning fossil fuels when we did….
Looks to me like we saved the planet and everything on it, including ourselves.
Justin is good with weasel words, I’ll give him that: perhaps, conceivably, suggest, and so on.
I thought I’d provide a little free editorial service for the old grey (and smelly) lady.
“Unfortunately, the most [politically] important greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide…”
Of course, the most abundant and POTENT greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere is H2O, followed by a number of other trace gases, and then in something like 4th place, is CO2.
The lack of even basic science education is mostly absent in the journalists in the MSM and more importantly for our economic wellbeing even rarer among politicians.
So sad.