The Competitive Enterprise Institute has produced two advertisements promoting carbon dioxide (C02) -- that's right promoting C02 -- for American television. To watch the video's click here.
The key theme is that C02 is life giving and not a pollutant. The fact that we breathe C02 out, and plants breathe C02 in, is repeated.
No reference is made to the elevated levels of C02 in the atmosphere as a consequence of the burning of fossil fuels. Is it on this basis that C02 has been labelled a pollutant? What is the definition of a pollutant? According to my dictionary it is something that "contaminates".
I think I could mount an argument for both sides of this debate.
Beyond the elevated levels of carbon dioxide are going to change climate argument, it could be argued as long as it comes out of a car exhaust or chimney stack it is unnatural and therefore a pollutant regardless of concentration.
On the C02 is natural, "we call it life" side, I would ask the question what is the "correct" concentration of atmospheric C02?
Is climate change a moral issue, as much as a scientific issue?
Over at Real Climate the response to the videos has been more emotional than analytical, click here for the post. Though they make some good points regarding the second video and what's happening to the world's glaciers:
"They only discuss one scientific point which relates to whether 'glaciers are melting'. Unsurprisingly, they don't discuss the dramatic evidence of tropical glacier melting, the almost worldwide retreat of other mountain glaciers, the rapid acceleration of fringing glaciers on Greenland or the Antarctic peninsula. Neither do they mention that the preliminary gravity measurements imply that both Antarctica and Greenland appear to be net contributors to sea level rise. No. The only studies that they highlight are ones which demonstrate that in the interior of the ice shelves, there is actually some accumulation of snow (which clearly balances some of the fringing loss). These studies actually confirm climate model predictions that as the poles warm, water vapour there will increase and so, in general, will precipitation. In the extreme environments of the central ice sheets, it will not get warm enough to rain and so snowfall and accumulation are expected to increase.
To be sure, calculating the net balance of the ice sheets is difficult and given the uncertainties of different techniques (altimeters, gravity measurements, interferometers etc.) and the shortness of many of the records, it's difficult to make very definitive statements about the present day situation. Our sense of the data is that Greenland is probably losing mass - the rapid wasting around the edge is larger than the accumulation in the center, whereas Antarctica in toto is a more difficult call."
But then what is the relevance to climate of 'carbon'? CO2 has specific properties, carbon has differing properties, and conversion simply to garner a mass is thus relevant why and how also?
Good question, and it reminds me to be much more careful in talking about CO2 vs CO2 equivalent vs carbon. The main relevance of carbon sinks is that carbon exists in the atmosphere primarily as CO2 and CH4 which are both GHG's.
But then what is the relevance to climate of 'carbon'? CO2 has specific properties, carbon has differing properties, and conversion simply to garner a mass is thus relevant why and how also?
CO2, as example, is the classic Quantum Photon 'pump', with large dipole Positive charges positioned with a strong negative (O=C=O). The large positive charges will attempt to move further apart when a photon's energy is available (by becoming incident), but the large (relative) negative 'intra-molecular bond' will return these charges, and then allow for the creation of a secondary photon, that is then emitted.
H2O is a 'Terminator' of cascading Photon energy; converting such into intrinsic kinetic energy of the H2O molecule (i.e. the molecule increases its kinetic velocity). H-O-H has only small dipole charges and so needs more energy to produce 'dipole movement' with the relative (large) negative charge 'intra-molecular bond' tending to NOT allow exaggerated motions. So little energy is available for creation of secondary photons and the primary interaction is as an increase in molecular kinetic velocity.
Within the atmosphere there is a cascade of energy, with 'repeaters' (CO2, CH4), terminators (H20) and propagators (Photons) of the cascade energy. Also, H2O shows a near 100:1 ability over CO2 to produce increases in intrinsic molecular kinetic velocity. Likewise, atmospheric CO2 will release energy as secondary photons near 100:1 times that of H2O molecules.
Water simply gets 'hot'. If you also look at the atmospheric absorbance of energy(*), you will see how relevant the behavior of atmospheric water actually is in shaping the scavenging of (Microwave Spectrum) energy BEFORE surface incidence is achieved.
Realise that most surface life is made of over 90% saline WATER. The microwave energy will not produce 'sun burn' (a mild radiation burn from UV-A and UV-B) but would produce too much intrinsic heat in outer cellular structures, stopping internal cellular processes and most likely the formation of life as we know it.
(*) http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments
What there is NOT present is a 'greenhouse effect' and if you observe the slide of atmospheric absorbance in (*) you will note that supposed 'greenhouse radiation' is not at all surface incident with any significant energy, if at all. SO there is not even a 'secondary greenhouse' effect of supposed 'amplified warming' in reality.
This is why 'Kyoto" interest in Carbon is NOT valid in relation to remediation of supposed 'climate issues', there are none but basic air pollution concerns of interest, NONE involving any supposed 'climate altering' effect. The only interest in Kyoto is in so many of the 'signatories' NOW looking toward Uranium as the major 'Base Load' generation fuel.
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Coby and Ender,
Now that you have established the ideal parameters for the climate, and since "we" know enough about climate to "adjust the thermostat," what are your recommendations? Bear in mind, you mentioned that humanity flourished at a low-tech, high-mortality level.
Is low-tech, high-mortality the answer?
Bear in mind, most people's models assume that the ideal state is where the planet has no humans on it.
Schiller.
Schiller.
Oh dear! Not the '4x4's control the climate argument again.' Here's the 'bigger picture' -
Climate factors:
+ Cosmic ray flux;
+ Solar magnetic cycles;
+ Sunspot cycles;
+ Meteorite impacts;
+ Cosmic dust;
+ Changing shape of the Earth's orbit (eccentricity);
+ Changing axial tilt of the Earth (obliquity);
+ Shorter duration 'wobbles' of the Earth upon its axis;
+ Axial orientation of the Earth (precession);
+ Orbital inclination of the Earth;
+ The changing shape of the Earth (mean dynamic oblateness [J2]);
+ The changing rotational velocity of the Earth's core;
+ Changes in the Earth's magnetic field;
+ Tectonic movements of the Earth;
+ Volcanic eruptions;
+ Changes in the circulation patterns of the oceans;
+ Changes in ocean salinity and chemistry;
+ Changes in ice-sheet stability (mass-balance of glaciers) and sea-ice thickness;
+ Changes in atmospheric water vapour, the most important 'greenhouse' gas of all;
+ Clouds and cloudiness;
+ Natural variations in atmospheric gases, including carbon dioxide and methane
+ Changing albedo (reflectivity of Earth) through landscape change, natural and human;
+ Overall surface radiative energy fluxes;
+ Changing vegetation;
+ Natural biomass fires, agricultural and industrial fires, and their emissions;
+ The emission of aerosols and particulates, both natural and human;
+ The emission of tar balls;
+ Human-induced emissions of 'greenhouse' gases;
+ Known factors not listed;
+ Unknown factors;
+ Chaotic attractors;
+ Non-linear feedback links for all of the above
My children face a better future than my grandparents ever could dream of.
read lomborg.
hey there.
am new to all this, but anyways.
do we agree that planet earth is a 'system'?
do we agree that we can get ANY system out of balance? - we just have to try hard enough.
do we agree that with the beginning of the petrochemical age, somewhere around the last 60odd years, our life on planet earth has changed DRAMATICALLY!!!!
just look at what world population is doing at the moment. for hundreds (thousands) of years, we were below 1billion, and now we are, over the last couple of decades, aproaching 7 billion. exponential systems are NEVER good.
look at any small scale system e.g. your garden pond. if it gets too hot, and the water becomes hypoxic (low level of oxygen in water) and the system tips, you are looking at a exponential graph, just like we are entering right now...
no good!!
i mean, really. dont you all see the bigger picture. who is producing co2? it is our economy. everything we do/consume is related to co2 production. and guess what, the big companies and corporations make a s****load of money from it. so is it not quite natural, that there are many people with even more money out there who do not want to agree to us ALL having a problem? they would not make any more money if they would accept the fact that we cant go on like this for much longer.
no-one can say whether co2 is the only factor, or what else is contributing to GW. earth is a system WAY too complicated to understand. fund any scientist's research, and tell them what you want them to find out, and they will be able to do so. numbers never lie, but which numbers do you choose to look at.
I guess all i am trying to say is this:
sit back,
think about your actions,
if you REALLY think that your doing will not jeopardise your children's future, then go ahead and keep driving your 4wd,
BUT
please
think
Schiller - thats not quite true. Al level of 250ppm or so seems to be about right. Our civilisation has prospered in the interglacial period of the last 8000 years. Without the huge climate extremes of the glacial period where CO2 was 150ppm or so humans have managed to build up quite a society due in part to the relitivly stable warm temperatures.
The carbon cycle seems be pretty well balanced until something perturbs it.