Motives behind global warming skepticism

[David S]

The first question is whether the 1 degree increase in the earth’s temperature that occurred over the last century is natural or caused by man. That’s a question that most folks would rather leave to the eggheads in the scientific community. But more people start getting interested when you talk about what should be done. In Al Gore’s presentation, one of the slides asks; “Are you ready to change the way you live?” Al is not kidding on that point. The things he proposes really would change the way you live. His first proposal is for an immediate freeze on CO2 emissions. New cars, new houses, new industries and new people (i.e. babies) are all sources of CO2. Would that proposal mean that there could be no new cars or houses or businesses or people? That seems like a problem to me… a serious problem. Also the fact that it’s immediate would leave no time to build alternative sources of energy.  In my estimation that proposal would send the economy into a tailspin. His second proposal is to reduce CO2 emissions by 90% by 2050. That would exacerbate the problem and make it virtually impossible to ever catch up.

The point about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is a valid issue but it’s not the same as reducing CO2 emissions. Let me give you an example: If the electric utility companies were confronted with an immediate freeze on CO2 emissions how would they meet that mandate while at the same time providing more electricity for a growing population?  Well one way might be to shift their electricity generation away from coal fired plants and utilize gas fired plants more. Possibly they could convert some of their coal plants to gas.  Natural gas produces less CO2 per KWH of electricity generated. The conversion should not be too difficult and they could get more power and less CO2. But coal is one energy resource we have in abundance. Is it wise to abandon it? Is it wise to use a valuable resource like gas to produce electricity when coal could be used instead? And we wouldn’t be reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. We’d just be shifting from one to another.

The most well known proposal for dealing with Global warming is the Kyoto treaty
People have evaluated the effectiveness of the Kyoto treaty in mitigating global warming.
The following graph which comes from the Senate’s website shows the expected temperature rise with Kyoto and with business as usual i.e. doing  nothing.


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Images.View&File_id=052e9760-802a-23ad-4150-a04af1ba1588&ImageGallery_id=04bf1b76-802a-23ad-438b-dec552db7c92
Click on "Wigley chart"


It may be hard to read the text field but it says that the warming predicted to occur by 2050 would still occur by 2053 if Kyoto is implemented. I doubt that anyone really has a handle on how much Kyoto would cost but it ain’t gonna be cheap. So is it worth it?

When you look at the potential effects of the proposals you come to the conclusion that we better be damned sure about CO2 induced warming before we start taking such drastic steps.

[David S]

The debate about global warming divides people into two major crowds - those that believe there is no debate and those that insist it's all a gigantic hoax of some kind.

What, so there's no group that believes that there may or may not be warming, that if it does exist that the human component may or may not be as significant as some claim, and that there is still ongoing legitimage scientific debate on the subject? Or there's no large group that doesn't believe it but just thinks it's flawed science rather than a hoax? Or people who firmly believe it but acknowledge that there's still legitimate debate going on? There are a lot people inbetween you know.

Piece of advice - don't try to paint things as only black and white. The global warming folks did that and that in my mind is a big reason why the full on opposite reaction (the folks who deny it outright) became significant.

I agree with this last sentence, but there's a bit of irony in it. If you read the scientific papers they do not speak in terms of a "black or white" view of global warming. If anything, I find them to err on the side of caution about their conclusions. The media and celebrities like to magnify those scientific conclusions, however. The serious analysis gets lost and the headline becomes the story.

Muon2 since you are a scientist I would like to ask your opinion on a few questions if you don't mind:
'
Regarding the graph which shows earth's temp and CO2 levels over the last 1/2 million years:
1)What causes CO2 to rise so dramatically at the start of the interglacial warming periods?

2)If CO2 causes warming and warming then causes more CO2 its a positive feedback loop. That should turn into a runaway greenhouse effect like on Venus. Also warming causes more water vapor which has an even bigger greenhouse effect than CO2 so it should exacerbate the runaway effect.
So what causes CO2 to suddenly stop rising and then decline?

3) Why does the CO2 curve lag the temperature curve?

4) Given that Kyoto would do little to stem warming what would you propose as a means to mitigate it?

I don't mean this to be argumentative, just imformative.

[David S]

Muon thanks for the response.  With regard to CO2 absorption, as I understand it the solubility of CO2 in water decreases as the temperature goes up. So it seems to me that the oceans should be giving up CO2 as they warm not absorbing it.

To my way of thinking it is equally plausible that solar activity causes the warming and the warming causes the release of CO2. When the solar event ends cooling starts and CO2 is gradually reabsorbed into the cooling oceans.  That would explain what causes the warming, the rise in CO2, the cooling, the decrease in CO2 and the time lag. I think this is more or less the theory advanced in the Global Warming Swindle video.

[David S]

there is no "time lag."  The reason it looks like it on the chart is that temperature marks are measured at different points in time than CO2 marks.

The time lag is noted frequently throughout the literature. The following comes from The National Climatic Data Center. I assume it can be regarded as authoritative. It notes that CO2 increased 600+/-400 years (i.e. 200 to 1000yrs) after the warming. It also notes that high CO2 concentrations can be maintained for thousands of years during glaciations, Meaning that the CO2 is still high after cooling occurs.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/vostokco2.html
Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations
Abstract:
Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 +/- 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.

[David S]

Nim first I appreciate your respectful response. Your last question really gets to the crux of the matter; what should be done? What other people believe in or don't believe in does not matter to me unless those beliefs mean they plan to make  draconian changes to our way of life. Before I agree to that I want to be absolutely certain that the underlying assertions are correct. But for the moment lets skip the questions of whether man-made cO2 is causing the bulk of the warming and whether we are even able to prevent further warming. Let me just temporarily abandon my doubts about anthropogenic warming and discuss only things that might reduce CO2 or warming.

First whatever we do must not send us back to the stone-age. The Global warming crowd always talks about the possible ill effects of using fossil fuels but not the ill effects of not using them. Our society is very heavily dependent on fossil fuels. In my opinion Al Gore's proposal to freeze CO2 emissions and then reduce them by 90% by the year 2050 would stop our economy dead in its tracks and then send it into a downward spiral. That idea I don't agree with.

I also don't agree with Kyoto because its effects would be minimal and because it would be costly.

The one idea Al Gore proposed which intrigues me is the idea of creating a CO2 tax to replace another existing tax. He proposed replacing the employment tax. I might suggest the income tax instead. The idea is that it would be revenue neutral. That would create a very large increase in the price of fossil fuels but on the positive side it would get rid of that miserable income tax.

The CO2 tax would give everyone an incentive to reduce consumption of fossil fuels. Gasoline prices would rise by about $1.50 per gallon which would create an incentive to buy more fuel efficient cars or drive less.  I estimate the cost of electricity generated by coal fired plants would double or triple. That would make wind and solar plants more competitive. And people would have an incentive to use less electricity. Natural gas prices would rise too but I don't know by how much.

All that would require no government coercion and no goofy credit trading schemes and would be somewhat of a market oriented plan.

Other people have proposed means of cooling the earth without changing cO2 levels, mainly by various plans to reflect more of the sun's light away from earth. The proponents of those plans say they could be done at much lower cost. And those plans could reduce the earth's temp even if CO2 is not causing warming. Those ideas could also be investigated and implemented if they are in fact  economical solutions.

[David S]

Long story short, warming can actually result in eventual cooling.

The more immediate concern is sea level rise. What happens when a couple of billion Chinamen are looking for a new home - and the like.

Nim you're doing a bit of fear mongering.  The UN says sea levels might rise something like 1 or 2 feet. Most of China is well above  sea level. And there aren't a couple billion Chinamen in all of China let alone in low areas that might be affected by a 2' rise.

[David S]

Long story short, warming can actually result in eventual cooling.

The more immediate concern is sea level rise. What happens when a couple of billion Chinamen are looking for a new home - and the like.

Nim you're doing a bit of fear mongering.  The UN says sea levels might rise something like 1 or 2 feet. Most of China is well above  sea level. And there aren't a couple billion Chinamen in all of China let alone in low areas that might be affected by a 2' rise.

No, no. The UN projections are based on current melt rates. They do not account for the possible lose of a major ice sheet. If we lose the Greenland ice sheet or the Lawance ice shelf sea levels will increrase by over 21 feet, if we lose them both sea levels will increase by over 42 feet. I'm not saying we are going to - but the sub glacial water flows beneath both make it an mmediate concern.

"If we lose the Greenland ice sheet ..."    That's speculation. Who said those things are going to happen?

[David S]

Long story short, warming can actually result in eventual cooling.

The more immediate concern is sea level rise. What happens when a couple of billion Chinamen are looking for a new home - and the like.

Nim you're doing a bit of fear mongering.  The UN says sea levels might rise something like 1 or 2 feet. Most of China is well above  sea level. And there aren't a couple billion Chinamen in all of China let alone in low areas that might be affected by a 2' rise.

No, no. The UN projections are based on current melt rates. They do not account for the possible lose of a major ice sheet. If we lose the Greenland ice sheet or the Lawance ice shelf sea levels will increrase by over 21 feet, if we lose them both sea levels will increase by over 42 feet. I'm not saying we are going to - but the sub glacial water flows beneath both make it an mmediate concern.

"If we lose the Greenland ice sheet ..."    That's speculation. Who said those things are going to happen?

Read a bit about sub glacial water flow under the greenland ice sheet - how those flows affect the ice above them and how they are increasing. Those flows and the changes in them are not a matter of speculation. the ice sheet is already moving at a rate of 1.6 meters an hour into the sea - which is 3 times faster than it was moving just a few years ago.

I would also note that the UN projection doesn't account for any major ice break up - regardless of if we lose an entire shelf or sheet, those shelves and sheets are currently breaking up.

OK several things. First I could say that if the earth suddenly stops spinning the oceans will flood over the land, people, buildings, trees and everthing else will be hurled horizontally at 1000 mph and all life will die. That's scary and everthing I said is true. The zinger is that big if. But the earth is not going to stop spinning so none of those things will happen. Now who said the greenland ice sheet will fall into the ocean? What are the odds of that happening? 90%? 50%? 10%? 1%?

From what I have been able to find of the current IPCC report the maximum expected sea level rise is about 3 feet. The mean would be more like 16 inches. And this is not going to happen tomorrow. They have 100 years to adapt. China built the great wall thousands of years ago. Its 4000 miles long and they built it without modern construction equipment. Can they build dykes to protect important areas today? Holland has done that for years.

The picture nim paints is China being flooded out.  But that will not happen. Most of China is way above sea level. Even Beijing which is near the coast is at 120 feet above sea level.

But if you want to get past the issue of whether warming is anthropogenic or not then come up with a plan which will actually work (Unlike Kyoto) and which won't destroy the economy, or create hardships on people.

[David S]

If the greenland ice sheet continue to accelerate at it's current rate - it will be gone by 2060, 100% chance. The IF here is if it continues to accelerate at its present rate. The concerning thing is that there is no evidence that suggests it will not.

If you want economic hardships - that will provide them in spades. The lose of infastructure alone would bring the global economy to its knees.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. That's why everything depends on what you plan to do. If it results in shortages of electricity, natural gas or gasoline then it will cause great hardships and in some cases will cause loss of life. Rationing or extreme taxes might do the same. They will also piss off the people so much that Al Gore will go from being a celebrity to a persona non grata.

So what is your proposed solution?