Topic: Global Warming
Why more Carbon Dioxide is good for the Earth and Us Carbon Dioxide is a life giving gas which we would do very well with more of. The notion that this gas is now somehow a pollutant is frankly ridiculous to say the least. Carbon Dioxide benefits us in several ways, directly and indirectly.by Edward Townes
(Libertarian)
Monday, April 7, 2008
Direct Benefits
Carbon Dioxide is plant food. There are numerous empirical studies that show doubling the CO2 in the air plants live in leads directly to a 20%-50% increase in bio-productivity, depending on the type of vegetation. The plants grow faster, have more leaves, buds, and other features, use water more efficiently, and grow more densely. It is no accident that commercial growers intentionally pump 3/4 times more CO2 in greenhouses than in the relatively carbon starved outside. Since plants capture Earth's only source of energy (bar atomic), their increased growth leads directly to an increase in vitality the whole way up the food chain. This helps explain why dinosaurs were so large, because in an era with 5 times as much atmospheric CO2 they could find the sustenance to survive. Carbon dioxide levels only begin to get toxic for animals at 5% and over, which is roughly 100 times the current atmospheric level. In summation, more CO2 is of huge direct benefit to the environment.
Indirect Benefits
Now there's the question of how Carbon Dioxide warms the planet, and what the possible effects are.
CO2's 'greenhouse' properties have been known about for some 150 years now. It works by absorbing the longer wavelength out-going radiation (incoming from the Sun and stars is generally shorter wavelength radiation) from the Earth's surface and then re-emitting it in an random direction. Given that all the radiation came from one direction, and is then spherically random post-emission, invariably the net result is it effectively reflects some of this radiation back to Earth. It was also discovered that the more CO2 you add, the less effective each molecule is at producing this effect, meaning that there is a logarithmic relationship between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and its 'greenhouse effect'.
This logarithmic relationship allows us to estimate what the warming effect would be of putting as much CO2 in the atmosphere as possible, and it's 0.4C. Now hold on, that's much less than the 6C quoted by the IPCC for a much smaller increase in CO2 isn't it? Indeed it is, and in order to jack it up to that figure they've used computer models with all sorts of feedback mechanisms so that a tiny increase in CO2 leads to a large increase in temperature. In this way they can massively exaggerate the importance that CO2 plays in determining the temperature of the planet, but there are two very big problems with that. First of all, if CO2 increases did lead to such elaborate feedback mechanisms, then there would be evidence of it in the past. Unfortunately, we have temperature and CO2 records that stretch back millions of years in detail, and billions of years in macro-scale, and there has never been a single period of Earth's history where CO2 appears to have any significant forcing effect on Earth's temperature. There is simply no empirical data to support the claim these computer models make. Which brings me to the second problem. Computer models are built by man in an attempt to deterministically predict the outcome of the climate, but our current climate knowledge and computer power is just simply inadequate to attempt this hugely complex and chaotic problem with any serious credence. There are so many variables and parameters involved, and the climate system is so complex and not fully understood, that the computer models are essentially worthless, for the moment. The computer models are the corner stone of the global warming hysteria, but they are unscientific (because they cannot pass the scientific method) and extremely easy to manipulate their outcomes.
A warmer planet also bring us many benefits. About 20 times as many humans die every year from cold weather than hot weather. Warming the polar areas will open up vast expanses of land for productive use, including Arctic shipping lanes. One third of the world's trees exist in the Tiaga Forest, which extends around the whole Arctic, and they are the lungs of the planet, not the Amazonian rainforest. Ironically, the forest is also soft-wood pine, which sees the largest benefit from atmospheric CO2 of any major vegetation type on the planet. The planet is in no danger of serious sea level rises either. To put it in context, the sea has risen 130 meters since the last ice age, and is currently rising naturally at a rate of 20cm a century. This rise is generally made insignificant by the rate of change of human sea-side development and tectonic plate movements. The only ice melting that can contribute to sea level is land ice (sea ice does not by the principle of buoyancy), and 90% of that ice is in Antarctica where its mass is currently growing against a 5,000 year history of melting. A couple of degrees warmer is not going to lift Antarctica above freezing point because it is already so cold, and the warmth will actually increase precipitation of snow inland and thus make the ice sheet thicker. We have nothing to worry about from sea levels. With respect to things like storms, as of yet there is no scientific proof that warmer temperatures bring about more violent weather. Certainly, there will be more heat energy in the ocean, but wind shear will also increase, breaking up storms, and the temperature differential between the poles and equator will drop, which is extremely significant for producing weather systems.
A moderately warmer planet is good for pretty much all life on it. What's bad for life is sudden and dramatic climate changes, although you might point out the evolutionary benefits of upsetting the vegetable cart. The fact is, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is not going to bring about sudden and dramatic climate changes. It is only responsible for about 3% of the 'greenhouse effect' (95% water vapour, the rest trace gases), which itself a passive regulator of the Earth's temperature. Our dramatic climate changes come about through climatic coupling, stimulated by the really important things, like our orbital patterns, the Sun's output, and other celestial factors. The normal state of our planet is an ice age, which usually last about 80,000 years, with relatively short inter-glacial periods of 10,000-12,000 years, such as now. It's been 11,500 years since the last ice age. Honestly, if you enjoy getting your knickers in a twist over the climate, then consider that. You really think we have any hope of preventing it? Maybe with some more ridiculous socialist measures in the face of the Sun's influence? No, our chances for climate adaption are facilitated by our wealth, and employing socialist policies in some vain and futile attempt to regulate the temperature of the planet by manipulating the level of some virtually insignificant gas is going to destroy our wealth and make us the laughing stock of posterity.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 19 thumbs so far
2008 Edward Townes, all rights reserved.
Published: Monday, April 7, 2008
Last modified: Monday, April 7, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Edward Townes only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Edward Townes is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
You're kidding right? Socialism is causing global warming? Man that's actually kind of evil to put your desire for a lower tax bill above the health of the planet.
Neither your 'theory' or that of the well esteemed, world reknownened, nobel prize winning scientists over at the NSA have any 'scientific' validity to them because neither of you have a control test model.
This is the only planet we have to live on and do the testing on.
Being a conservative when it comes to my health and the health of the planet and all of those on it I would prefer to err on the side of caution.
What are you going to tell me next? More tar is actually good for my lungs. All you have to do is look at the pollution over Los Angeles to see it can't be good news. Look back into our history and see the effects of burning coal non stop on the air and the people who had to breath it. Crap in your drinking and see if it still tastes good.
Have you ever even been in a greenhouse? It's great for the plants but it's really hot for people.
Do you know what methane and methane hydrates are?
Seriously, what value is there in promoting pollution?
Posted By: Edward Townes
Date: 2008-04-07 19:08:17
Thanks for your comment.
No, socialism does not cause global warming. I wonder if you actually read what I wrote. I said that socialist policies are an extraordinarily dumb way of tackling environmental issues, and that's backed by a vast amount of economic theory, not my own tax wishes. If you want to learn more about that, try here: [link edited for length]
Calling it the "greenhouse effect" is actually a misnomer. I suggest reading my other article on this website to understand that fully.
There is no value in promoting pollution. There is a lot of value in clarifying what pollution is. Carbon dioxide is not pollution by any stretch. In fact it's the opposite.
Posted By: Edward Townes
Date: 2008-04-07 21:20:20
Agreed, which is why I specified what the toxicity of carbon dioxide is.
I don't really consider a multi-trillion dollar commitment to global socialist policies on the back of the UN's authority and some computer models to be "hedging our bets". If I told you that unless you gave me half of everything you own you might die tomorrow, would you do it?
There is mostly agreement that warming has indeed occured. The disagreement seems to be A.) What's causing it. B.) What effects if any will result. That is a worthy potential dilema to hedge against. Carbon dioxide is the reason the planet is warm enough to sustain life. But it is 'possible' that too much C02 will cause enough warming to melt the polar caps and permafrost. The real threat I percieve is a release of methane gas which I'm sure you know would not be as good as the carbon dioxide.
But let me ask you. How would your politics handle this problem in Florida? It's also an environmental issue. Is this just more socialism? Government controling the water supply? Or is it a problem of unrestrained business?
Really you ought to take a deeper look at some of the science behind climate change. CO2 as a plant fertilizer was thoroughly debunked a decade ago.
Mitigating the effects of human-induced climate change benefits society in a multitude of ways. The notion that we will bankrupt ourselves trying to stop climate change has also been shown false:
It's all fine and well to sit in a nice climate controlled room and talk about how our wealth will allow us to adapt, but consider that in Bangladesh alone 17 million people live below 1m in elevation. Where will they go? What kind of Sudan/Iraq/Balkans/Rwanda disasters will the US end up wading into with that scale of environmental refugee-induced civil strife and unavoidable warfare. The world will be a better place, and likely the USA stronger and richer if we get off our duffs and quit being the embarrassing party crashers of the world's efforts to mitigate climate change!
As for CO2 fertilization, some species of plant life respond well to it; others don't. Responsiveness depends on many different factors including plant type, root structure, geographical location, and surrounding plant species. And its viability as an increased carbon sink is tempered by environmental factors such as the availability of nutrients in the soil. It also has its negative impacts including decreased levels of respiration and lower levels of nutrients within the plant. It does not make for a sufficient carbon sink to offset anthropogenic emissions of CO2.
References to the logarithmic nature of CO2's radiative absorption properties implies that we are nearing a saturation point for that absorption. We are not, and even if we were at lower atmospheric levels, warming would continue at higher levels of the atmosphere where air pressure is lower and water vapor content drops significantly.
All climate shifts involve the participation of feedback cycles including the emission or sequestration of greenhouse gases, changing surface albedo, melting and freezing ice, and so on. Current climate changes are no different.
Historically, CO2 has not been a primary driver of climate change. Rather it has been an amplifier of other forcings including orbital obliquities, changes in solar irradiance, and so on. The most analogous period is the PETM, which is theorized to have been driven by natural releases of massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in a extremely short period of time geologically.
The Sun's solar output has not increased significantly in the past 30 years and cannot account for recent warming, particularly in the latter half of this century. NASA GISS noted 2007 as the second warmest year on record globally without a strong El Nino and during a solar minimum.
While being a much stronger greenhouse gas, water vapor is cycled through the atmosphere in a period of days. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for upwards of a hundred years.
Michael, you state that there has not been increased solar output for more than 30 years yet CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 100 years. Since, 97% of all CO2 is contained in the Oceans and Ice your theory would imply that the sun warmed the earth, released the CO2 and now we are in the tailspin of the CO2 working its way out of the atmosphere.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Edward Townes, all rights reserved.