I can understand that there are a number of people who think Global Warming via human activity is a myth. I know that a number of regular posters here are of that opinion. My position, as I have stated before, is that I am not an expert in the area, but the consensus of the experts is that Global Warming is a direct result of increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Sometimes the consensus has been proven wrong, but a scientific consensus carries a lot of weight with me. So, unless I see compelling evidence to the contrary, I accept the scientific consensus in this case. That doesn’t mean that I think we will do anything about it:
Incidentally, that essay holds the all-time record for the number of comments received (560) following an essay at The Oil Drum. People feel very strongly about this issue.
But I don’t want to open up the debate to the merits of the evidence on Global Warming. Instead, I want to discuss something else: The fact that concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are rising unabated. While you may debate the impact of that on Global Warming, there is no debate that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increasing:
Source: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
You may know that CO2 dissolves in water to form carbonic acid. As atmospheric CO2 concentrations rise, so will the acidity of oceans, lakes, and rivers. As the acidity rises, the shells of tiny marine animals like snails can dissolve, along with coral reefs. It’s basic chemistry. This weekend I saw a story that details what can happen when the acidity rises in the ocean:
Marine life is destroyed by acid environment
Traditional marine communities containing creatures such as sea urchins and snails are being destroyed as CO2 emissions make their environment more acidic. Algae which is vital for the well-being of coral reefs is also retreating as acidity increases and is being replaced by invasive species which don’t offer coral the same protection.
The changes have been witnessed for the first time by a British-led team monitoring volcanic carbon dioxide vents off the Italian coast in the Mediterranean. Dr Hall-Spencer said: “What we saw was very dramatic and shocking.
“All the predictions made in lab experiments about acidity causing the disappearance of species is coming true. When we looked in the field it was already happening. I must admit I though a lot of the claims being made about species disappearing amounted to scaremongering but now I have seen it with my own eyes.
“Our observations verify concerns, based on laboratory experiments and model predictions, that marine food webs will be severely disrupted and major ecological tipping points are likely if human CO2 emissions continue unabated.”
I have said before, and I say again: Whether you accept the idea that man is contributing global warming, it is not a good idea to conduct such a grand experiment on the atmosphere because the ultimate consequences can’t be predicted. What’s the backup plan if things don’t work out? I guess we are going to find out one way or the other.
Anthropomorphic global warming is real — no question about it.
The real question is should we do anything about it?
My answer is, “No.” The reason is that people are part of the natural cycle of the Earth. So what if we use all the fossil fuels accumulated over the last 300 million years and heat the atmosphere so much that we become extinct?
In 500 million years or so, life will start over and those people will have another accumulation of millions of years worth of fossil fuels to consume.
The point is: It’s all part of a natural cycle, and the waxing and waning of the human race is part of that cycle.
To those who think on a geological and astronomical scale, global warming is inconsequential.
Hawkshaw–
I think in terms of generations..I want my kids/grandkids to have a good life….that being said, I wonder if an Ice Age is not a bigger worry….some suggest last year exhibited a downturn in temps…..higher CO2 levels have meant bigger crops….
all in all, probably I would prefer we move away from fossil fuels, for energy security and pollution reasons….by the way, things were hotter during the Holocene Maximum, about 6000 years ago….
anyway, back to AGW, higher oil prices should help reduce burning of fossil fuels….now, if we can just get those sheep in New Zealand to stop belching so much….
but keep a watc out for an Ice Age…we are about due, and they tend to come on rapidly….
~ “but keep a watch out for an Ice Age…we are about due, and they tend to come on rapidly….”
I agree. In fact, I did a useful thought experiment the other night with someone who came by my house wanting me to sign a petition to stop coal-fired power plants in our state.
I asked him if there was another Ice Age and there was a glacier 100 miles north and bearing down on us, did he think humans could do anything to stop it? He agreed that we were probably powerless to stop the onslaught of the next Ice Age.
So I asked, if you agree we can’t stop the next Ice Age, why do you think we should be concerned about the next warming period and do you really think we can do anything about it?
I also told him I would sign his petition if would sign a promise to drop his house off the grid when we run short of electricity. He said, “That would be unfair.” and left with his petition unsigned.
Robert – I think what this is all about is using environmentalism to force socialism on free economies.
Look at the recently dispatched Lieberman-Warner-Boxer climate bill in the senate. Rather than come up with a simple tax and rebate system, LWB created huge new government buearacracies to collect and then dole out money. It would have been pork barrel spending and earmarks on steroids.
When I see envinromentalists profer a solution to AGW that DOESN’T involve a massive increase in government power and control, maybe I’ll quit believing that AGW is a hoax.
Robert, the CO2-vent study is not applicable to the ocean environment as a whole. Volcanic vents release heat and other chemicals besides just CO2. The comparison is invalid.
So far, all we actually have are invalid lab studies where they added concentrated HCl, H2SO4, or non-physiologic concentrated carbonic acids to plant life. Or we have MODELS.
In reality, oceans adapt very well to varying levels of dissolved CO2, and in fact most current ocean life evolved at much higher dissolved CO2 levels than now, and much lower pH levels than current.
Robert – I think what this is all about is using environmentalism to force socialism on free economies.
The “free economy” that you are so interested in protecting is one in which business interests are free to take profit while externalizing costs and risks. That’s not a libertarian free market. That’s corporatism.
When I see envinromentalists profer a solution to AGW that DOESN’T involve a massive increase in government power and control, maybe I’ll quit believing that AGW is a hoax.
Cap and Dividend (http://www.capanddividend.org/) is simple, progressive, and involves a minimum of additional government bureaucracy. It will never get implemented in this form, of course, because once the politicians are done horsetrading, it will be full of exceptions, special interest rules, etc. But that’s a problem with our political process, not a problem with the environmentalists.
Hawkshaw-
I’ll tell you another worrisome item: If you look back over the million years or so, what we call “Ice Ages” are actually the norm, much more so than “Warm Ages.” It is normal for North American to have a sheet of ice down to Mexico almost. (By the way, my son picked up a piece of glaciated rock in the Mojave Desert recently).
Since I prefer to look ahead only a couple hundred of years or so, as opposed to your outlook of 500 milion years, I find this a worrisome reality. Mankind will have to survice an Ice Age sometime, in the next year or several thousand years, based on past trends.
Another factoid: When man came to North America, the ocean levels were 60 meters lower than they are today. Now, we are getting constipated over a potential increase of two feet in the next hundred years.
I am agnostic on AGW, but if true, it may be great news. A way to combat an Ice Age, that us overdue.
Given the simplicity of the basic physics, the incontrovertible historical carbon dioxide record, the number of PhD-years spent, at the very least we ought to be extremely concerned about climate change, as the costs of doing nothing are extremely high.
Though it is *possible* that this many scientists working on a subject this long could be wrong, it’s definitely the wrong bet to make.
As for folks worried about an ice age, please learn a little about the difference between real & fake science, and get a grip before you further advertise the depth of your mis-informedness.
And check this out:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/04/10/the-real-climate-censorship/
Sorry!
I mean check this:
http://tinyurl.com/2u3qcj
Green – so you are saying that externalities disappear under socialism??? I think not. If anything, state owned companies have a much worse environmental record than investor owned ones.
Cap and dividend would be OK. But I also like the fair tax . Both are politically DOA.
The Democrat Party is at it again, Harry Reid is proposing a windfall profits tax on the top 5 domestic energy companies. Debate begins on Tuesday.
My point is that the problem is not the environmental community in this country, it’s the political culture and (by extension) the stupid electorate and their 15-second attention span.
I’m not going to get into a debate about the definition of socialism, especially since you prefer to use the word as a pejorative rather than as a description. But suffice it to say that that I’m pretty sure that the states of western Europe, which some would call socialist, have a lower per-capita ecological footprint (and thus lower externalized costs) than the US. And they have lots of privately-owned companies. They’re just not allowed the same latitude that they are in the US, and they are expected to respond to the needs of stakeholders and the community within which they operate, rather than being beholden only to shareholders and the maximization of (short term) profit.
Green Engineer:
You miss my point. AGW may be real, but Ice Ages are real too, and evidently the norm, if you go to Wikipedia, and look at Ice Age.
We are about due. There is evidence that Ice Ages, once triggered, come on rapidly, and that Ice Ages have dominated the North American scene for the last million years (probably longer, that is just the charts I have looked at).
In short, we are enjoying a warm respite from the norm. Long may it last, and I hope it does not get too hot!
Benny,
No offense, but I wasn’t talking to you. I was responding to KofK.
As to your point, yeah, I know that interglacials are relatively brief and that we’ve been in the current one for a long time. So we’re due for another one some time in the next few thousand years, give or take.
When, or if, a body of evidence has been assembled that is even remotely as substantial as what we have for AGW that indicates an oncoming ice age, we will have to decide how to respond.
At the moment, though, there’s little evidence to that there is reason to fear an oncoming ice age, and plenty of evidence that we may have already destabilized the climate in the other direction. So that’s where we need to focus our attention.
Don’t get me wrong — I think it would be a good idea for us to get a real solid handle on the ice age thing. While we’re at it, we should also be building an orbtiting defense network against large asteroids. Our ability to meet these challenges, when they come, will be a test of our maturity as a civilization, IMO.
However, the reality is that we are as a species very immature, as demonstrated by our inability to respond to AGW, a threat that is both serious and immediate. And in that context, discussions of ice ages and killer asteroids are just distractions, and an excuse to ignore the elephant in the room
G/E-
Well, if you want to worry — and I am a chronic worrier — how about “mega-volcanoes?
They are much more common than asteroid-hits, about every 400,000 years or so. I think the entire Long Valley in California is actually an old caldera, and if it blew like it did, much of the Western U.S. would take a hit.
But how on earth (clever pun) do you stop a mega-volcano?
disappearing/reduction of “species
the “problem”, if caused by mankind, will eventually be solved from moderation or legislation or procreation. which one[s] will it be?
fran
Carbon dioxide has been released into the atmosphere and returned to the ocean in every single warming period.
This is because rising temperatures cause rising carbon dioxide levels which cause more acidic oceans.
If you want to prevent the ecology from ever changing you will have to make some serious modifications to the Sun and I don’t think we are at that level of technology yet.
A little OT, but if anyone is certain that China will have a huge fleet of cars consuming gasoline, you oughta read this link…they are going crazy for lithium-ion batteries…and they have supplies of lithium….
I see a glut coming…..
1. There isn’t a single scientific institution in the entire world that says that manmade actions aren’t a primary cause of the warming we’ve experienced in the past few decades.
(Not even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists)
http://greyfalcon.net/whatwouldittake
2. Even the Bush administration now officially agrees to the above statement.
blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/29/white-house-humans-very-likely-causing-warming/
First, stop calling the phenomenon “global warming”. This conjures up a concept similar to that of heating a soccer ball in an oven, which is not what happens. Once one is armed with that concept, a simple test for validity is to determine if the temperature anywhere on the globe is not tracking as one would expect if the heating were uniform. Increasing the amount of energy flowing in these very complexly interacting systems involving the atmosphere and hydrosphere produces results counter to those of the simple oven and soccer ball system.
==things were hotter during the Holocene Maximum, about 6000 years ago….==
Except that globally it wasn’t hotter.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/13/215043/37
==When I see envinromentalists profer a solution to AGW that DOESN’T involve a massive increase in government power and control, maybe I’ll quit believing that AGW is a hoax.==
i.e. “I don’t agree with the theory of gravity, because it doesn’t suite my politics.”
http://greyfalcon.net/gingrich
Anyways, what good would a law be, thats intent on changing behavior, if it wasn’t meaningful, and lacked oversight and enforcement?
Pork? If anything you can blame that on Republican Senators. They won’t let anyone pass a bill unless they get their pork.
Has to do with the fact that the Republicans have decided that EVERY BILL will be blocked if it doesn’t have more than 60 senate votes.
Much less 67 votes, out of 100.
As such, whining about the fact that the bill is chock full of pork is ignoring the fact that that’s pretty much every bill that gets passed through congress nowadays.
_
Now disagreeing with methods? Thats understandable. But disagreeing with the science merely because political motivations is just irrational and childish.
Anyways, as far as Ice Ages go, thats primary caused by changes in the earth’s orbit.
Thats why it’s so cyclical.
http://greyfalcon.net/milankovitch
~ “Another factoid: When man came to North America, the ocean levels were 60 meters lower than they are today. Now, we are getting constipated over a potential increase of two feet in the next hundred years.”
Benny,
And at one time much of Wyoming and Montana was covered by a great inland sea. In fact, anywhere you find sedimentary rocks such as sandstone, shale, and limestone was once covered by water.
~ “Since I prefer to look ahead only a couple hundred of years or so, as opposed to your outlook of 500 milion years, I find this a worrisome reality.”
Since neither one of us will be alive, why is it any better to look 200 years into the future than 500 million years?
You do know I hope that in about 5 billion years the Sun becomes a red giant and will expand well beyond the Earth’s orbit. That’s the global warming I’m really worried about.
That is if a large meteorite strike or gigantic volcano explosion doesn’t get us first. 😉
I think GW will have to go down as mankind’s “oops-a-daisy” moment. I tend to agree with RR, we’ll only “do” something about GW by running out of FF.
It looks like a race between climate tipping points and FF depletion. As noted, the Earth has both been far warmer and colder than the current “ideal” interglacial period. Which is better? I think that question is academic. We are going to be stuck with the consequences of 100+ years of CO2 emissions.
We are going lose a lot more species (we already are destroying thousands, even without GW). We are going to lose low lying land. And many other changes.
The rather shocking conclusion is that mankind appears to have terminated the current cycles of ice ages, if James Hansen is correct. In a few million years, we may have to worry about declining CO2 levels leading into a new Ice Age.
In the meantime, get your sunblock and waders.
There is about 80% confidence that man causes more than 50% of global warming based on the lastest academic research I have seen, versus about 60% confidence a decade ago.
Is there additional cutting edge research with calculates different confidence levels for the hypothesis that global warming is man made?
==Is there additional cutting edge research with calculates different confidence levels for the hypothesis that global warming is man made?==
IPCC report pegs it “very likely” which is scientific jargon for “atleast a 90% confidence level”.
Which was actually dumbed down from a higher confidence level, due to interference from US and China.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6321351.stm
_
The recent Bush Administration report also uses the same “very likely” +90% confidence level.
blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/29/white-house-humans-very-likely-causing-warming/
It’s delusional to assign 90%+ confidence levels to a model which can’t be tested experimentally.
I think Robert puts it best. It is unwise in the extreme to conduct a giant, uncontrolled experiment on the only atmosphere we have. This model-worship creates the false logic that if the model is wrong we don’t need to do anything. In reality the fact that we don’t know the consequences is the most compelling argument for action.
Unfortunately we’ve taught environmentalists the only way to get results is to create a crisis.
I can’t believe you are resorting to consensus. First of all there isn’t one. Secondly it wouldn’t matter if there were. Science does not operate by consenus.
The oceans are not acidic, they are basic. So they can only become less basic.
As far as CO2rising unabated, the scientists have no clue why it is risiing only linearly, while emissions continue to increase. Humans emmisions are less than 5% of the natural flux.
Dude
You should have just linked here:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
It’s got all the effects of global warming.
You also might want to check out:
http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://climatesci.org/
http://icecap.us/
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
http://www.co2science.org/
I can’t believe you are resorting to consensus. First of all there isn’t one.
Of course there is. The majority of scientists who are experts in the field conclude that humans are contributing to Global Warming. As to “resorting to consensus”, you do the same thing each time you go see a doctor. He is giving you the consensus opinion of lots of other doctors who decided on the best course of action for your symptoms.
Secondly it wouldn’t matter if there were. Science does not operate by consenus.
Of course it does. Scientists don’t go and prove everything from first principles. That doesn’t mean that scientific consensus hasn’t been wrong before. And it doesn’t mean that there aren’t always scientists trying to prove the scientific consensus wrong. But the reason most scientists believe in the Theory of Evolution, for instance, is because of scientific consensus of experts in that field – not because they themselves have personally done work in the area to convince themselves.
The oceans are not acidic, they are basic. So they can only become less basic.
Of course that’s not true, as anything that is basic can become acidic by adding enough acid to it. And as you add CO2 to the oceans, it will form carbonic acid and lower the pH. Whether you actually become acidic doesn’t change the fact that you are introducing a higher level of H+ into the solution.
RR
“The majority of scientists who are experts in the field conclude that humans are contributing to Global Warming.”
Big deal; this is a meaningless statement. Anything can “contribute”.
“Of course that’s not true, as anything that is basic can become acidic by adding enough acid to it.”
Really? Why don’t you calculate how much CO2 you would need, as well as tell us how much is aleady in the ocean. Also I noted they were talking about NATURAL volcanic vents. BAD NATURE! That nasty NATURAL CO2 killing the coral.
Big deal; this is a meaningless statement. Anything can “contribute”.
Oh, it’s quite a bit more significant than that:
Statements on Climate Change
1 National Science Academies – 2005
2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – 2001
3 American Meteorological Society – 2003
4 National Research Council – 2001
5 American Geophysical Union – 2003
6 Geological Society of America – 2006
7 American Chemical Society – 2004
8 Stratigraphy Commission – Geological Society of London – 2004
9 American Association of State Climatologists – 2001
10 American Association of Petroleum Geologists – 1999
An example of one of the statements:
“Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. … The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.”
As I have said, I am not a climate scientist. So, I listen to what they say. I don’t have to agree with them, but their is a consensus for a reason. Incidentally, I see Creationists play this game all the time. The scientific consensus for evolution is overwhelming, but they will always drag up some scientists who dispute it. Therefore, they suggest that it is still inconclusive. In reality, I saw a survey a few years ago that said 99.84% of surveyed geologists and biologists in the U.S. accept the theory of evolution. But we have hundreds of thousands of scientists, so of course you are going to find some who disagree. That doesn’t make a controversy.
Why don’t you calculate how much CO2 you would need, as well as tell us how much is aleady in the ocean.
That’s not what you said. You said that they can become only less basic, as if basic things can’t become acidic for some reason. If you wish to argue that in practical terms, it is highly unlikely that you could dissolve enough CO2 to turn the oceans acidic, then you are making a different argument. I did not understand that this was your meaning.
Also I noted they were talking about NATURAL volcanic vents. BAD NATURE! That nasty NATURAL CO2 killing the coral.
All CO2 is natural.
RR
Here’s another interesting site.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/dda/index.htm
Let us know what you think.
Here’s a better page:
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm
Only one lab study on ocean acidification actually used physiologic methods of adding the CO2 to the physical ocean model. That study showed that the oceans can easily deal with the projected amounts of atmospheric CO2 without batting an eye.
Oceans have been reducing acid and dealing with higher CO2 for hundreds of millions of years.
For better theory than Robert has been suggesting, Sea Friends has an excellent take on ocean “acidification.” Robert, not to offend, but you are certainly no marine biologist–even less that than a climatologist.
You are a great energy commenter. You have credibility there.
yes there are hundreds of ways the world can come to and end. I think national graphic listed them a while ago.
Global warming was on spot 9 only or so.
Global warming isnt a global killer, so its way down on that list.
But the effect on the world as we know it, thats why its so high on peopel s mind. half the wolrd live in areas that are drowned if the greenland icecap melts, and it is melting.
Imagien new york under 24 feet of water, or any town build to a coast. the economic consequences are big, and nobody likes to think of a africa emptying into europe. U would have use masive militairy force to keep them out. making look Iraque peanuts.
But its inevitable, 1.2 billion chinese wil lwant a car and a cellphone, a fridge and mac donalds, nothign the western world can save on energy will prevent that.
So it will happen, between 30 – 150 years. long time, not for your kids kids. and if gas prices go up more, well great, soon solar panels will become economically viable.
maybe thats a weird mother nature balance :
avalability of co2 in any form (oil, wood read energy) versus price for consumption
and since we reach the tipping point, its also empty, maybe before we go over it.
YEs the world will change bigtime, but we ll ive through it, except it wil lbe a different world, and possible even a better world. just dont exspect it to be a easy ride without consequences for the ones driving it
“Anthropogenic,” not anthropomorphic, by the way. 🙂
The warming of the Earth is due to solar activity, not human causes.
The rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere LAG behind the warming of the atmosphere. This is important enough to reiterate. The Earth warms first, then CO2 levels rise. It is impossible, therefore, for CO2 to cause global warming.
This phenomenon is due to the fact that warmer temperatures cause the oceans to release CO2 (i.e. colder water retains CO2). It follows, therefore, that when temperatures rise, the oceans release CO2, and thus the water becomes LESS acidic, i.e. less carbolic acid.
Dr. Noah Robinson (PhD in Chemistry) spells it out very well at this url.
http://www.discovery.org/v/30
“Consensus” is not science. A consensus of clergy and uneducated people once thought the sun revolved around the earth. Only the astronomers knew better. Let’s leave climatological and atmospheric science to the scientists, and take the opinions of politicians and celebrities with a grain of salt.
Let’s leave climatological and atmospheric science to the scientists, and take the opinions of politicians and celebrities with a grain of salt.
By pointing out that there is consensus among them, that’s exactly what I am doing. I want to know what the experts think. I am not talking about a consensus of plumbers you know. I care about what the climate scientists think. That’s the whole point.
RR
The best way to test this consensus is to compare the predictions of the consensus with empirical data.
You will find that they fail as miserably as Aristotle when he claimed in his models that objects fall at speeds in direct proportion to their weight.