In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

[klapauzius]

...I would not say it is the sole responsibility of big business. But they stand to profit most from the current status quo,...

Big government profits most from climate change scaremongering by taking away liberties that rightly belong to the people. Our federal government is way outside the limits of their authority on this issue, just as they are with many other issue. And any treaty which gets signed trumps our constitution, which I consider a worse thing.

They're both bad (big business and big government).

While I agree we need to move away from the status quo, the assumption that the only direction to go is toward more government control is not valid.

IMO, we need to move in a direction which gives individuals more freedom, not less.

If we all acted like grown-ups and would exercise reasonable restraint in or CO2 production, no government or regulation would be needed.

But that is not the reality, especially when money is involved. Freedom always requires responsibility, but we have all seen in in the financial industry, how well more freedom and less regulation worked for all of us (not to say, that for a select few, it was a resounding success).

So who should regulate CO2?
Also, in this case, fast and efficient regulation is necessary, because the situation is rapidly getting out of hand....

[jimbennett]

An optimistic view.

[AndyH]

An optimistic view.

Jim - before I watch this video, can you tell me anything about Mr. Ridley and tell me why I should listen to his message? Thanks!

[klapauzius]

An optimistic view.

WOW...This makes the gulf oilspill almost sound like a great thing.
After all, no animals were deprived of food by the oil drilling there.

Sure, this guy has a point, its the same one as the one started this thread: CO2 makes plants grow. Sounds reasonable.

I did not hear a single word in the above linked talk about the simple physical reality, that CO2 also makes the planet warmer (I would not even debate the "greener" part, he is probably right on the short term on that) and thus will impose large scale changes in climate and geography on us, which will cost enormous resources (and money) to adapt to.

This whole business about "CO2 is good for plants, hence environmentally friendly" is a distraction from the real problem.

This pathetic reference to the ice bears on Spitzbergen is symptomatic of that. I couldn't care less about the ice bears and if that was the only effect of CO2, I would not worry about it at all.
But what about violent storms, changing coastlines, growing deserts, acid oceans?

[klapauzius]

An optimistic view.

Jim - before I watch this video, can you tell me anything about Mr. Ridley and tell me why I should listen to his message? Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here you go. The name sounded familiar.
English aristocrat with no scientific background on climate science (at least he has a PhD in Zoology...). He was nice enough though to provide a practical example of why his libertarian ideology doesn't work.

[jimbennett]

An optimistic view.

Jim - before I watch this video, can you tell me anything about Mr. Ridley and tell me why I should listen to his message? Thanks!

3885 posts, I've read some. Don't feel obligated to change your opinions, I'm sure you have great intentions.

[AndyH]

Here's the problem with CO2 and temperature today: We don't have immediate feedback - there is an approximately 40 year lag between the time CO2 is emitted and when it is reflected on the thermometer.

Because of this, there appears to be a disconnect between people telling us that we need to stop emitting CO2 and people looking at the thermometer and saying accurately that we're only worrying about 1 degree.

The reason science is warning us to limit emissions is because the one or so degree temperature rise we're seeing today - along with the slight sea level rise, massive glacier and Arctic ice loss, and extreme weather events - is based on emissions up to about 1970. We haven't yet seen the emissions from 1970 to 2013 on the thermometer, in the sea level, or in the weather.

How much CO2 are we talking about?

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2009.ems
From 1751 through 1970, we emitted a total of 115,738 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon. That's the carbon that resulted in the slightly higher global average temperature, floods/droughts/superstorms, and dramatic ice loss we're seeing today.

From 1971 through 2010, we emitted a total of 245,201 MMT of carbon into the atmosphere. That's in addition to the 115,738 MMT already present. If the heating and effects are linear, by 2050 we should expect to see at least twice the warming we've seen so far, twice the amounts of floods, droughts, superstorms, and sea level rise that we've already seen.

carbon.jpg

Sources:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2009.ems
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... /page2.php
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... ns3-2.html

The CO2 we've dumped so far has caused warming. That has warmed the land, water, and lower atmosphere. That has increased evaporation (today's atmosphere holds about 4% more water vapor). Water vapor is a greenhouse gas as well: the heating from CO2 triggers the addition of more water vapor which increases the warming.

The warming so far has been affecting the polar regions much more dramatically than the equator - Alaska has gotten warmer than Florida. The northern regions of this planet have a lot of permafrost - permanently frozen ground. The permafrost is melting. That's releasing natural methane (generated when organic matter decomposes without oxygen). Methane is a greenhouse gas that is about 25 times stronger than CO2.

More warming melts more permafrost which releases more methane which causes more warming which causes more evaporation from the land and water which increases the amount of water vapor in the air which increases warming - and the heating cycle continues faster and faster. At some point, the reinforcement from methane and water vapor can become stronger than the CO2 signal that started the warming cycle - and the warming may continue uncontrolled even if we reduce our carbon emissions to zero.

Today we can still do something to help. Once we reach the tipping point, there's nothing we can do but strap ourselves in, watch, and scream.


edits...fixed spelling, acronym, added chart and references

[AndyH]

An optimistic view.

Jim - before I watch this video, can you tell me anything about Mr. Ridley and tell me why I should listen to his message? Thanks!

3885 posts, I've read some. Don't feel obligated to change your opinions, I'm sure you have great intentions.

Let's try again, Jim, nothing personal. Why should I listen to Ridley - what is it about him, his background, the information he imparts, or his published science that I should add to my knowledge base? I base my opinion on the facts, not the other way around. Since I've learned the hard way that bad information is worse than no information, I would like to know why you think Mr. Ridley's message is important.

The number of comments or 'thumbs up' on the YouTube queue tells me absolutely nothing about the validity of the information.

Thank you!

[AndyH]

Yesterday's discussion about food supply is but one example. Several here have stated things like "The problem is, there aren't any benefits of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations...", etc. But such statements are directly refuted by recent and broad-reaching research, as previously pointed out:

Overall, crops benefit from elevated CO2 by improving water productivity (+23% for biomass production and +27% for yield production), which is achieved through production increases in biomass (+15% for aboveground biomass) and yield (+16%), in combination with a decrease in seasonal evapotranspiration(-5%).

That quote comes from researchers at Leuven University, which is a very respected research university in Europe.

Since I made the statement, I'll take a look at this criticism and see if it has merit.

First - is the quote accurate and in context? Not quite.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.p ... 16#p291516

My comment and the entire post is a look at our current and future climate and was in response to suggestions that the crop performance we saw yesterday and today would continue in future. Denialists and liars want us to believe what we see today is what we'll see tomorrow. Science, on the other hand, makes it clear this is not an accurate position to take.

Let's look at the Leuven U paper. First, this was a literature review - no new physical experiments were conducted. The data cutoff was November 2011 - nothing more recent was considered. The authors purpose was to consider the differences between the response of plants exposed to elevated CO2 in enclosed areas like greenhouses and plants exposed to elevated CO2 in an open setting (such as those data collected by the free air CO2 enrichment (FACE) trials conducted around the world.

What this paper IS is a look at plant performance in TODAY's world if ONLY CO2 levels are changed. The paper has NO consideration of warmer climate, fertilizer changes, precipitation changes, soil fertility changes, or effects of climate change induced changes in soil micro flora/fauna. In other words - this is NOT a useful paper if one is interested in learning what to expect for the world's food supply in 2050.

What other papers show is that while some plants in some areas will appear to benefit from increased CO2 levels, that is only because the other effects of climate change are lower in those specific areas. For example - the papers I presented earlier show some crops will prosper in the UK - they are in a more moderate climate and though the plant will continue to warm, they're not warming to a point outside the temperature range for those crops, and precipitation is projected to increase. Other areas show a significant loss in productivity in spite of the benefit of increased CO2, because the new hotter, dryer climate means some crops are no longer able to reproduce, or because there's not enough water, or because conditions are no longer suitable for the soil microorganisms that deliver nutrients to the plants.

This complexity is understood by science and departments of agriculture - that's why they've been adapting as quickly as they can to the realities of our new world.
http://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/ ... 2013)b.pdf

A multitude of concerns are linked with climate change, including increased water stress and competition with downstream aquatic systems, increased GHG emissions associated with land clearing, increased pesticide use, increased nutrient loading, and loss of natural systems and the ecosystem services they provide (Malcolm et al. 2012; Reilly et al. 2003; Pfister et al. 2011; Tilman et al. 2011; Antle and Capalbo 2010).

My suggestion? If one happens upon anyone that's trying to suggest a complex system is quite simple and can be driven by any single variable, laugh at them and run away.

Question for anyone that wants to take it: If increased levels of CO2 are 'absolutely' better for crops and will result in increased harvests, why have our current increased levels not prevented some of the largest crop failure insurance payments in history?

iowa.png

crops.jpg

[klapauzius]

An optimistic view.

Sorry to come back to Sir Ridley, but his reference to the polar bears profiting from fossil fuel burning was priceless.

The argument of this exalted mind goes like this:

Since no one needs their (the polar bears) pelts for warmth anymore, because we have coal or gas fired central heating, their numbers have been growing since. (Now they are a pest on Spitzbergen, eating cottages...And here lies the true danger of unrestricted CO2 emission: Hordes of polar bears eating our houses, cars, dogs etc.)

I think unless you are a member of the British nobility, or an Inuit maybe, most people never had polar bear pelts to keep them warm. Or am I wrong?
How many of you still have grandpas polar bear pelt somewhere on the attic?