An inconvenient truth

[xoxoxoBruce]

An Inconvenient Truth, a feature film from Al Gore promoting the idea that the global warming we're creating, will ruin everything....as in Earth.

Pat Bednard is an ex-Chrysler engineer, that has been a columnist and now editor, at Car & Driver magazine for 20 years. These credentials would qualify him as bias, to my mind. But, that said, he makes an interesting case against Al Gores position.

First he sums up what "An Inconvenient Truth" is...

Gore’s “inconvenient truth” is that — there’s no tactful way to say this — we gas-guzzling, SUV-flaunting, comfort-addicted humans, wallowing in our own self-indulgences, have screwed up the planet. We’ve hauled prodigious quantities of fossil fuels out of the ground where they belong, combusted them to release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the sky where it shouldn’t be, and now we’re going to burn for our sins.

I'd accept that as a fair summary.
Next he describes the problem.......

The long absence of farm-belt glaciers confirms an inconvenient truth that Gore chooses to ignore. The warming of our planet started thousands of years before SUVs began adding their spew to the greenhouse. Indeed, the whole greenhouse theory of global warming goes wobbly if you just change one small assumption.
Logic and chemistry say all CO2 is the same, whether it blows out of a Porsche tailpipe or is exhaled from Al Gore’s lungs or wafts off my compost pile or the rotting of dead plants in the Atchafalaya swamp.
“Wrong,” say the greenhouse theorists. They maintain that man’s contribution to the greenhouse is different from nature’s, and that only man’s exhaustings count.

Then he describes the mechanism that's affected......

Let’s review the greenhouse theory of global warming. Our planet would be one more icy rock hurtling through space at an intolerable temperature were it not for our atmosphere. This thin layer of gases — about 95 percent of the molecules live within the lowest 15 miles — readily allows the sun’s heat in but resists its reradiation into space. Result: The earth is warmed.

The atmosphere is primarily composed of nitrogen (78 percent), oxygen (21 percent), argon (0.93 percent), and CO2 (0.04 percent). Many other gases are present in trace amounts. The lower atmosphere also contains varying amounts of water vapor, up to four percent by volume.
Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases and have no warming influence. The greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto Protocol are each rated for warming potency. CO2, the warming gas that has activated Al Gore, has low warming potency, but its relatively high concentration makes it responsible for 72 percent of Kyoto warming. Methane (CH4, a.k.a. natural gas) is 21 times more potent than CO2, but because of its low concentration, it contributes only seven percent of that warming. Nitrous oxide (N2O), mostly of nature’s creation, is 310 times more potent than CO2. Again, low concentration keeps its warming effect down to 19 percent.

OK, that sounds like he has a handle on how it works.
Now the meat of his disagreement with Gore.......

Now for an inconvenient truth about CO2 sources — nature generates about 30 times as much of it as does man. Yet the warming worriers are unconcerned about nature’s outpouring. They — and Al Gore — are alarmed only about anthropogenic CO2, that 3.2 percent caused by humans.
They like to point fingers at the U.S., which generated about 23 percent of the world’s anthropogenic CO2 in 2003, the latest figures from the Energy Information Administration. But this finger-pointing ignores yet another inconvenient truth about CO2. In fact, it’s a minor contributor to the greenhouse effect when water vapor is taken into consideration. All the greenhouse gases together, including CO2 and methane, produce less than two percent of the greenhouse effect, according to Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen, by the way, is described by one source as “the most renowned climatologist in all the world.”
When water vapor is put in that perspective, then anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.

OK, a little high profile name dropping....... or making good on a promise to mention some obscure Prof, in exchange for the interview?
Anyway, Bednard wraps it up with.......

If everyone knows that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, why do Al Gore and so many others focus on CO2? Call it the politics of the possible. Water vapor is almost entirely natural. It’s beyond the reach of man’s screwdriver. But when the delegates of 189 countries met at Kyoto in December 1997 to discuss global climate change, they could hardly vote to do nothing. So instead, they agreed that the developed countries of the world would reduce emissions of six man-made greenhouse gases. At the top of the list is CO2, a trivial influence on global warming compared with water vapor, but unquestionably man’s largest contribution.
In deciding that it couldn’t reduce water vapor, Kyoto really decided that it couldn’t reduce global warning. But that’s an inconvenient truth that wouldn’t make much of a movie.

Well that's pretty clear, but is it right.
I welcome anyone to poke holes in the argument.



PS- I checked on Richard S. Lindzen.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences At MIT. Former Professor at Harvard and University of Chicago.
Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and a Fellow of the AAAS1. He is a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University)

A PFD entitled "Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 2 May 2001", is excellent reading. It outlines the interaction between science, public perception, funding and politics very well. It concludes......

The question of where do we go from here is an obvious and important one. From my provincial
perspective, an important priority should be given to figuring out how to support and encourage science (and basic science underlying climate in particular) while removing incentives to promote alarmism. The benefits of leaving future generations a better understanding of nature would far outweigh the benefits (if any) of ill thought out attempts to regulate nature in the absence of such understanding. With respect to any policy, the advice given in the 1992 report of the NRC, Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, remains relevant: carry out only those 8 actions which can be justified independently of any putative anthropogenic global warming.
Here, I would urge that even such actions not be identified with climate unless they can be shown to significantly impact the radiative forcing of climate. On neither ground – independent justification or climatic relevance – is Kyoto appropriate.

Well, damn, that's kick in the head.

[smoothmoniker]

Dems saw how well the politics of fear worked for Bush & Co, and decided they wanted in on the action.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Your right. This also from that congressional testimony.....

Scientists associate public recognition of the relevance of their subject with support, and relevance has come to be identified with alarming the public. It is only human for scientists to wish for support and recognition, and the broad agreement among scientists that climate change is a serious issue must be viewed from this human perspective. Indeed, public perceptions have significantly influenced the science itself. Meteorologists, oceanographers, hydrologists and others at MIT have all been redesignated climate scientists – indicating the degree to which scientists have hitched their futures to this issue.

A taste of the politics of science and academia.

[Beestie]

I'm too lazy to figure out the exact numbers but would guess that one large volcanoe probably puts more greenhouse gases in the air than all of mankind over the last 100 years.

I'm all for using our resources wisely and for not poisening our air and water but it seems that it would take a herculean effort and hundreds of billions of dollars (actual cost + economic loss) to produce a very small and potentially insignificant effect.

We are just pulling out of the last ice age and there will be more to come. We are a fly on the wall of this planet's geological evolution. The glaciers have been melting for 10,00 years and, as they do, ocean levels will rise, tectonic plates will groan and shift under the new weight producing new fissures and cracks giving rise to a spike in volcanic activity. As the atmosphere fills with dust and smoke, nuclear winter will set in and the water will again freeze, shores will receed and blah, blah blah.

The problem with Gore's theory, in my opinion, is that he seems to assume that our climate is a stable system that we are about to make unstable. Our climate has never been stable. And just as well-intentioned intervention in chaotic systems can produce unintended results, the effects of the changes we are making cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty.

But I don't really mind Al Gore's incessant drum beat. He reminds me of all those guys in the 60s walking around with signs warning everyone that "The End Is Near." You can't really say either one is wrong but they seem to be overstating the magnitude of the problem.

While Gore and Bush are both decent men, they are incompetent leaders. However, they both understand a simple truth. There are only two reasons why someone will allow you to lead them: hope or fear. Since neither has any qualities that inspire hope, they creat both fear and hope by creating an enemy only they can defeat. I tell my kids not to trust anyone who offers to help them when they don't think they need help.

Both men also understand another simple truth. People will defend and adhere to an idea not in proportion to its validity but in proportion to how much they have invested in it. So, in order to enhance and perpetuate the blind trust of the flock, both Bush and Gore require a sacrifice. Gore lemmings must burn their SUV while Bush lemmings must burn their copy of the Bill Of Rights. Once surrendered, the con is complete.

Problem is, I don't believe either of one of them. A simple truth that they might find somewhat inconvenient.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Pat Bednard is an ex-Chrysler engineer, that has been a columnist and now editor, at Car & Driver magazine for 20 years. These credentials would qualify him as bias, to my mind. But, that said, he makes an interesting case against Al Gores position.

Mr. Bednard starts off by summarizing the problem pretty well, but then goes on to ignore what he first summarizes.

The problem with global warming and carbon dioxide is the increase in CO2 in the biosphere, mainly the atmosphere. He states "all CO2 is the same, whether it blows out of a Porsche tailpipe or is exhaled from Al Gore’s lungs or wafts off my compost pile or the rotting of dead plants in the Atchafalaya swamp." That is false. All CO2 is not the same. The CO2 coming out of Al Gore's lungs and out of rotting plants was already there in the biosphere. It was extracted from the air, and then cycled through living organisms before returning to the air. It has a cycle just like water's evaporative cycle. The CO2 that comes out of the tailpipe of a Porsche was released from deep within the earth's crust. That CO2 is new CO2, and it was never part of the biosphere.

He goes on to mention water vapor as being the best warmer. That may be true, but water was already there in the biosphere - in the clouds and in the oceans. As water goes through its cycle of evaporation, no additional water is being created. It remains constant. So it won't be adding to the global warming.

As far as I know, there are only two things that are increasing the level of CO2 in the air and contributing to global warming. The first is the burning of fossil fuels by man. The second is volcanos. Beestie is absolutely right on that point. And they put out a lot of new CO2. Much more than humans do. It comes from deep within the Earth's crust, just like the fossil fuels, and it is clearly warming the Earth.

The Earth is warming. It will cause climate change, messing with our weather and causing problems for us. What do we do about it? Do we contribute to the problem caused by the volcanos, or do we just throw our hands in the air and say it's God's will?

[Beestie]

Here's another inconvenient truth that must be acknowledged: as long as there is fossil fuel on planet earth, someone is going to burn it.

If the US, Europe and Japan stopped burning or buying crude tomorrow in favor of some technology that was implemented today (just an example) guess what would happen 48 hours later? The price of crude would plummet to around $10/barrell. Guess what would happen next. The third world would gobble it up and their economies would benefit tremendously from the windfall stimulating their demand for crude even higher. Is the third world subject to Kyoto? Nope. So, in the new world where the US, EU and JP stop burning oil, the amount of oil burned will drop at first but will soon (in geologic terms) resume at its present rate.

Now, given that there is only so much oil left in the earth, who do you want burning it: CO2 conscious nations like the US, EU and JP that try to scrub the byproduct or the Kyoto-exempt third world who won't scrub the byproduct at all?

I don't think its even worth entertaining the idea that something magical is going to happen which will make burning fossil fuel economically disadvantageous so I think we better focus on who's going to do the best job of burning it conscientiously. We can cut our consumption all we want to but eventually all the oil is going up in smoke.

[xoxoxoBruce]

PHP Code:

That CO2 is new CO2, and it was never part of the biosphere. 


Never? I thought oil and coal were flora and fauna that were buried long ago? Weren't they once part of the exposed system?
New flora and fauna are constantly being sub-ducted, along with the co2 they contain and create as they decompose, but I suppose they weren't balancing.

If the fossil fuels were dragging out of the Earth contain co2 that was once part of the surface system, when it was, where was the co2 that's being sub-ducted today? Did the co2 level drop until we started bringing back up?

On the warming trend....since warmer air can hold more water and that's the biggest influence on the greenhouse effect, which causes warmer air that can hold more water, etc etc etc. We have to start building multi-national desiccate bags....ones so big you don't have to put "Do Not Eat" on them.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If the fossil fuels were dragging out of the Earth contain co2 that was once part of the surface system, when it was, where was the co2 that's being sub-ducted today? Did the co2 level drop until we started bringing back up?

It was not a world of CO2. It was a world of methane. Plant and simple animal life converted this earth from a methane sphere into the one that could support advanced animal life. By that time, vast amounts of carbon was locked into earth or deep in the oceans.

One additional problem with melting ice caps - significant amounts of methane (another global warming gas) would be released.

Ten nations recently completed analysis of an 800,000 year ice core. It has again confirmed that increase in global warming gases is unprecedented in earth's history. In but 17 years, we have increased global warming gases in what previously took earth - during a most rapid change - 1000 years.

There is no doubt that man is changing the atmosphere. Only remaining question is how fast and how destructively. So George Jr's administration quashed a large number of environmental research satellites. Clearly science (environmental, quantum and nuclear physics, stem cell, public school education) is also on the George Jr enemy's list.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It would appear we've had an effect on the speed of warming, but I wonder if it's more from the fuels we burn or the plants, that convert CO2 into Oxygen, we've destroyed.
Of course much of the plant life we destroyed was burned, but it still may be the loss of their service that hurt the most.
I don't know.

I guess the people berating Hummer drivers will have to slack off the global warming and stick to the wars and suffering caused by the politics of oil.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

It would appear we've had an effect on the speed of warming, but I wonder if it's more from the fuels we burn or the plants, that convert CO2 into Oxygen, we've destroyed.

The complexity is why we need more supercomputers. Jet contrails contribute to change. Sulfur content of fuels contribute. Speed of Greenland ice melts affect the intensity of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. Even plankton in oceans contribute half as much as land plantlife (an interesting study that suggests iron in the ocean may decrease global warming by creating more plankton.

That the earth is getting hotter faster and in direct agreement with a rapid increase in global warming gases is obvious. But each detail adds massive numbers to prediction equations making it a classic horse race. The clear favorite includes no Arctic Icecap in 50 years. Hopefully the favorite will break his leg.

Something about newly available beachfront property on Canada's northern 'resort' islands.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

It would appear we've had an effect on the speed of warming, but I wonder if it's more from the fuels we burn or the plants, that convert CO2 into Oxygen, we've destroyed.

It's both. The plants could take up some of the slack from the oil we burn, but we don't even let that happen.

[Hippikos]

The climate change taliban has firmly taken possesion of the media for their hysteria. 90% of Earth lifetime climate was warmer than today and there were no industries, cars etc to influence the climate in the past 4-5 Billion years.

The influence of solar radiation has never been taken into consideration or even properly researched, let alone included in computer models. In fact scientists are not in the position to simulate the chaotic climate models.

I remember the acid rain hysteria 25 years ago, where has it gone? Greenhouse effect is a myth.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

I remember the acid rain hysteria 25 years ago, where has it gone?

Scrubbers were installed on those power plants. Scrubbers that the George Jr administration (about four years ago) even considered making legal to bypass (eliminate). Acid rain is like the ozone layer problem. It still exists. But is not reported. Why? We are now in a 50 year program to fix the ozone layer. The ozone layer problem is not reported because the 50 years of recovery is now ongoing. That is not news.

Reasons for acid rain have been (and are still being) addressed. Therefore acid rain is a diminishing problem. Resulting damage still exists. But it is not getting worse and is slowly being fixed - therefore not news.

[headsplice]

Hip? Don't come up with monikers for groups you don't like. You're really, really, really bad at it.
Personally, I don't think we'll believe the climate's changing as drastically as it is up until it's already too late. Say, for example, if the Ross Ice Shelf collapses and causes sea level to rise a meter or four in a couple of weeks.

[Hippikos]

Head, sorry but I´m a skeptic by birth. Proof me wrong. Nobody can proof the weather is influenced by human beings. Talking about figures, the influence on climate by human is less than 5%. We cannot influence "El Nino". We do know more about the surface of the moon than the bottom of the ocean with vulcano eruptions that are of a multiple factor of the eruptiones we know of. Actually we don´t no fuck about Mother Earth. All we know is based on computer simulations which are completely false because we simply don´t know which parameters we have to put in.

Now, let´s talk about the ozon hole.