Global warming deniers could well make their case that there is no truth to anthropogenic causes of global climate change, and even that CO2 has no climate effects, without claiming that phony science is creating a phony crisis (global climate change) that would destroy industrialization.
Here are my thoughts: First, even if CO2 were not found as a force agent, the processes that produce CO2 also co-produce other harmful byproducts, such as NOx, CO, and sulphur compounds, all of which are harmful either to humans and/or to water bodies, and thus aquatic life. Not to mention particulates that are injurious to human lungs. Thus, preventing production and harmful effects of CO2 (although some global-warming deniers deny this, too) would, in any case, mitigate other deleterious effects.
Mitigating production of all harmful byproducts of industrialization does not necessarily destroy industrialization, as it would change it for the good. Therefore, I believe the summative statement--the mitigation of production and harmful effects of CO2 would destroy industrialization--is extreme.
For someone who has been a near-continous student throughout his sexagenarian life, now working on degree number eight (four Master's and now PhD Geography), admittedly means little in climate debates, especially when I am outside my usual areas of interest. I grant you that I must rely on secondary literature. But, can global-warming deniers convince me that they understand primary scientific literature any better than I?
One last comment: I am probably more open-minded than most people you might run across in the climate change debates. As a teacher, I take seriously my obligations to understand all sides of a discussion--and then take a stand. So far, until the majority of scientists change their views (and, yes, you can be assured that Kuhn and his treatise about scientific revolutions was high on the reading list of more than one of my Master's), there is no compelling reason why I should change mine. I shall, though, continue to hear out the fringe.
Showing posts with label CO2. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CO2. Show all posts
09 November 2008
23 August 2008
CO2-AS-TRIGGERING-EVENT: A COUNTERARGUMENT
Here's my counterargument to claims that increases in global CO2 do not "cause" global warming. A straw argument claims that scientists say that rises in global atmospheric CO2 precede global warming events. Climate scientists do NOT claim that, as says the section below that I copied from a recent review article in New Scientist.
The article says that increases in CO2 sometimes lagged behind the beginning of warming events as many as 800 years during past episodes. But this is no argument for claims that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas nor that current warming is NOT due to anthropogenic causes. Perhaps the problem is semantic: that between "trigger" and "cause." Build-up of CO2 is not the trigger, but it is a driver of atmospheric warming.
The article: Climate myths. Brahic, Catherine, Chandler, David L., Le Page, Michael, McKenna, Phil, Pearce, Fred, New Scientist, 5/19/2007, Vol. 194, Issue 2604.
From the article: "With so much at stake, the last thing we need is for the real issues to be obscured by discredited arguments and wild theories. We must act now to avoid the worst effects. So for those who are not sure what to believe, here's our guide to climate myths and misconceptions. [...] Decide for yourself."
"Myth: Carbon dioxide levels only rose after the start of warm periods, so CO2 does not cause warming. [...] [I]t appears the lags might sometimes have been 800 years or more. [...]These lags show that rising CO2 did not trigger the initial warming at the end of these ice ages--but then, no one claims it did. They do not undermine the idea that more CO2 in the atmosphere warms the planet."
The climate-change scenario is complex and models have not reached full potential. But, claiming that because increases in CO2 levels do not precede warming events and that there have been triggering events such as ones due to Milankovitch cycles (periodic changes in sun radiation) does not fully explain rises in warming, especially the recent one that we are now in.
Here is how the scientists in New Scientist begin: "Our planet's climate is anything but simple. It depends on the interplay of many factors, from massive events in the sun to microscopic creatures in the oceans. Yet a clear picture has emerged, supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence: the world is warming, this warming is due to increasing levels of greenhouse gases caused by human activity, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with ever more serious consequences."
As a physical geographer, who is a climate scientist and my mentor on this subject, said to me last year: "Global warming is real; anthropogenic causes are real; and you should feel it your duty to teach it."
And, I do.
The article says that increases in CO2 sometimes lagged behind the beginning of warming events as many as 800 years during past episodes. But this is no argument for claims that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas nor that current warming is NOT due to anthropogenic causes. Perhaps the problem is semantic: that between "trigger" and "cause." Build-up of CO2 is not the trigger, but it is a driver of atmospheric warming.
The article: Climate myths. Brahic, Catherine, Chandler, David L., Le Page, Michael, McKenna, Phil, Pearce, Fred, New Scientist, 5/19/2007, Vol. 194, Issue 2604.
From the article: "With so much at stake, the last thing we need is for the real issues to be obscured by discredited arguments and wild theories. We must act now to avoid the worst effects. So for those who are not sure what to believe, here's our guide to climate myths and misconceptions. [...] Decide for yourself."
"Myth: Carbon dioxide levels only rose after the start of warm periods, so CO2 does not cause warming. [...] [I]t appears the lags might sometimes have been 800 years or more. [...]These lags show that rising CO2 did not trigger the initial warming at the end of these ice ages--but then, no one claims it did. They do not undermine the idea that more CO2 in the atmosphere warms the planet."
The climate-change scenario is complex and models have not reached full potential. But, claiming that because increases in CO2 levels do not precede warming events and that there have been triggering events such as ones due to Milankovitch cycles (periodic changes in sun radiation) does not fully explain rises in warming, especially the recent one that we are now in.
Here is how the scientists in New Scientist begin: "Our planet's climate is anything but simple. It depends on the interplay of many factors, from massive events in the sun to microscopic creatures in the oceans. Yet a clear picture has emerged, supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence: the world is warming, this warming is due to increasing levels of greenhouse gases caused by human activity, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with ever more serious consequences."
As a physical geographer, who is a climate scientist and my mentor on this subject, said to me last year: "Global warming is real; anthropogenic causes are real; and you should feel it your duty to teach it."
And, I do.
02 February 2008
INJECTING CHAOS--PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL
I was mentally preparing to walk into my school after our three-day Mardi Gras holiday and announce to anyone who would listen that I had been exposed to some legitimate research that shows that CO2 has no influence on global climate change.
After all, some have concluded that this is what the scientists found whose study is summarized in ScienceDaily (linked below). I went to the linked article. It says nothing about CO2. I then sought out Anastasios Tsonis, the lead investigator, by going to his Webpage and looking at his articles there. He is a mathematical climate scientist who studies climate cycles statistics and chaos (and refers to global warming as a fact). There is nothing there about CO2 not being a factor. He mentions nothing about external inputs to the system, except to conclude in one of his articles--quote: "Global warming has resulted in an increase in randomness in the system"--that as the climate warms, there is greater random, instead of synchronized, chaos in the system. This is hardly a denunciation of anthropogenic global climate change.
If you click on this link http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.htm,
it takes you to the ScienceDaily Webpage which summarizes the Tsonis et al. article. Notice that in the left margin, under "References," there is a link titled, "Consensus of scientists regarding global warming." This might be interesting to you, as it shows there is a consensus.
Again, in order to understand our current situation and not inject any personal bias into my teaching, I have sought out research that supposedly debunks current views about global climate change. The Tsonis et al. article is legitimate research by lgitimate researchers. It does not do what some claim it does. They have made a conclusion that the researchers themselves have not done.
I'll return to school in a few days and again feel justified in siding with what nearly all climate scientists say: Human-caused inputs to the system are wreaking havoc (increasing randomness) to the system. It's going to become interesting in the coming years. I'll keep an eye on science to see what it says.
I'm forming a social theory which says that as the Planet's normal physical cycles become more disrupted from outside inputs (read anthropogenicity), there will occur concomitant social disruption, including to civic culture, part of which includes valuing the only experts we have on climate--real climate scientists. In the meantime, we will have to expect and contend with those who externally inject random chaos into the public's views on global climate change.
After all, some have concluded that this is what the scientists found whose study is summarized in ScienceDaily (linked below). I went to the linked article. It says nothing about CO2. I then sought out Anastasios Tsonis, the lead investigator, by going to his Webpage and looking at his articles there. He is a mathematical climate scientist who studies climate cycles statistics and chaos (and refers to global warming as a fact). There is nothing there about CO2 not being a factor. He mentions nothing about external inputs to the system, except to conclude in one of his articles--quote: "Global warming has resulted in an increase in randomness in the system"--that as the climate warms, there is greater random, instead of synchronized, chaos in the system. This is hardly a denunciation of anthropogenic global climate change.
If you click on this link http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.htm,
it takes you to the ScienceDaily Webpage which summarizes the Tsonis et al. article. Notice that in the left margin, under "References," there is a link titled, "Consensus of scientists regarding global warming." This might be interesting to you, as it shows there is a consensus.
Again, in order to understand our current situation and not inject any personal bias into my teaching, I have sought out research that supposedly debunks current views about global climate change. The Tsonis et al. article is legitimate research by lgitimate researchers. It does not do what some claim it does. They have made a conclusion that the researchers themselves have not done.
I'll return to school in a few days and again feel justified in siding with what nearly all climate scientists say: Human-caused inputs to the system are wreaking havoc (increasing randomness) to the system. It's going to become interesting in the coming years. I'll keep an eye on science to see what it says.
I'm forming a social theory which says that as the Planet's normal physical cycles become more disrupted from outside inputs (read anthropogenicity), there will occur concomitant social disruption, including to civic culture, part of which includes valuing the only experts we have on climate--real climate scientists. In the meantime, we will have to expect and contend with those who externally inject random chaos into the public's views on global climate change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)