Response: Global Warming
This is a response to Phil’s Global Warming post (also posted as a reply on his site):
First, there is no “correct” amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - the concentration has varied dramatically throughout history, sometimes being many times the current value (such as during the Mesozoic Era). Using the weight of carbon dioxide is a poor metric, so I’ll use a percentage concentration value instead. Over the past 600,000 years (using a time-frame more appropriate to the evolution of our species), we can get a pretty good estimate of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere from ice core samples. Based on those results, the value has fluctuated from about 200 parts per million (ppm) to 300 ppm up until the time of the Industrial Revolution. Since that time, it has jumped nearly 100 ppm to almost 400ppm. Based on the Vostok Ice Core samples, a variation of 100ppm correlates to (but not necessarily causes) a 6-8 degree temperature change.
Your use of the hurricane example implies that humans are the primary source of energy. In truth, the sun provides virtually all of the energy driving any climate or weather. The human activity that may threaten global climate change need not be massive or focused. It need only take advantage of the effects of resonance - a small change made in the right circumstance can cause a dramatic effect. By increasing the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere, we may slightly increase the global temperature. That small increase can perturb the normal carbon cycle - releasing greater quantities of natural CO2 from the oceans, increasing H2O (another greenhouse gas) evaporation, both of which will increase the temperature change. Those changes will in turn force other changes, eventually driving the climate to a new equilibrium when (and if) the forcing effects are either balanced or removed.
Your example on volcanism as a superior greenhouse producer is flawed in several points:
First, your use of Mount Pinatubo as a “typical” eruption is far from accurate. Pinatubo rated a 6 on the VEI scale - making it one of about 40 or so eruptions in the last 10,000 years. On average, we’d expect one such eruption every 250 years. Consider also that the VEI index is exponential, such that VEI 5 is only 1/10 as explosive as VEI 6. The typical “10 daily” volcanic eruptions have a VEI of 0 or 1. Therefore, your “for the cheap seats” calculation - that the volcanoes erupting daily were even 1/10th as powerful as Pinatubo - is off by several orders of magnitude. The daily eruptions are typically less than 1 millionth of Pinatubo’s power. That means that the actual daily volcanic contribution to global warming is approximately equal to about 2 hours worth of human pollution. Or, humans produce twelve times as much “pollution” as volcanoes.
If we instead use Pinatubo as the benchmark and based on historically documented eruptions, we’ve had approximately 200 VEI6-equivalent eruptions in the last 10,000 years, or one every 50 years. That would make volcanism approximately 6 times as effective at polluting as humans.
The EMA quote does mention that Pinatubo released the largest cloud of “climate-modifying” gases since Krakatoa. While the volume of aerosols is most certainly accurate, and far in excess of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, that statistic is misleading - it strongly implies that all the aerosols released in the eruption have greenhouse effects. It ignores the fact that only very few gases have a greenhouse effect (in that they strongly absorb infrared radiation at specific wavelengths). The vast majority of volcanic aerosols do not exhibit the greenhouse effect - I’ve seen estimates that CO2 concentration in volcanic aerosols is as low as 1%. In fact, the vast quantity of larger particulates - which act to shade the earth from insolation - dominate the relatively small effect of what few greenhouse gases are released. This is born out by worldwide temperature charts which routinely show a drop in temperature following a major volcanic eruption.
Still, let’s assume that volcanism is a significant source of atmospheric CO2 - on the order of 6 times more effective than human pollution (i.e. assuming that the entire volume of volcanic aerosols have greenhouse effects). Even at 1/6th intensity, the human contribution will have some effect on the equilibrium concentration of CO2. If the climate was “balanced” before the addition of the human effect, then that effect will serve to steadily drive the climate in that direction. It really doesn’t matter how large and dramatic the natural cycle is - human contribution represents an unbalanced variable to the equation. Imagine a scale with two 60-ton weights balanced equally - adding an extra ton to one side is going to tip the scales. If you add a ramp between the two 60-ton weights - such that the higher one pours material into the lower, representing the forcing effects in the carbon cycle - you may not even need a full ton, it’s possible a single pound difference may start the transfer, resulting in a dramatic imbalance.
Now, there is still plenty of debate on exactly how the climbing CO2 concentrations will relate to climate change. The effect will definitely increase global temperatures, but how much? Is it dominated by other effects (such as increased cloud cover)? While the Kyoto Protocol does recommend the prudent step of limiting CO2 emissions, it’s effect is not uniformly applied to the global community. Kyoto specifically does not address the potential dangers of the Chinese Industrial Revolution - the world’s largest population using heavily CO2-emitting technologies that have long been replaced in first-world countries. It’s probably not the time for dramatic or draconian measures to restrict CO2 emission, unless they are applied universally to the entire planet. Even if we were to stop all anthropogenic emissions today, some estimate it would take 60-100 years before CO2 concentrations return to pre-Industrial Revolution levels. If existing CO2 concentrations are going to cause a change, there is little (if anything) we can do about it. I’ll also agree that it’s possible that conditions in some areas will improve with climate change, but I strongly suspect that such changes will be balanced by deterioration in other areas, resulting in a zero-sum game. Furthermore, the primary reason to restrict CO2 emissions is to prevent the change in climate - if that change is already inevitable, we are likely better off investing our resources in minimizing the effects of that change than trying to prevent it in the first place.
Of course, the primary effects of global climate change will be felt by those without sufficient resources to cope with the change (mostly Third World countries). Given that those primarily responsible for the change are First World nations, the entire process of climate change is yet another massive transfer of wealth from the impoverished nations of the world to the wealthy. Thus it doesn’t seem particularly fair (at least to me).
Finally, I find it hard to take seriously the scientific opinion of a man who says 2.97E12 has no common English word for it. I’ve personally heard the word “trillion” bandied about in fairly pedestrian conversation. If he doesn’t know it, that casts some serious doubt on his scientific credentials. I’d especially call into question his “junk science” statement. I’ve read a several of the scientific papers in support of (and in opposition to) Global Warming - all of them were far more scientific in their presentation than his article.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
While fascinating; to me the argument is moot. Why should we toss our hands to the air and act irresponsibly even if the burden of “fault” is removed from our shoulders. I was on a blind date last weekend with a dopy fellow who stated, “What does it matter if I pollute? It’s just a drop in the ocean.” In response to his comment I quipped, “If everyone ‘drops’ in the ocean, it will turn yellow.”
But at the end of the day that IS the problem isn’t it? Everyone drops in the ocean and points at volcanos, major industry, or even wild life (who seem to drop where ever they please).
And yet Volcanoes serve a purpose, wildlife serve a purpose, even a major company has the potential to make a more positive mark on the world then most humans; humans who leave nothing behind but a scar.
Instead of thinking, I can’t live my life the way that I want to with out causing this damage. Maybe we should embrace Zen self loathing enough to ask, what do I do that gives me this Privilege, the right to live this way, am I living up to my responsibility, or am I shitting in my plate and blaming the spaghetti monster?
I love writing sermons.
April 4th, 2008 at 7:09 am
I’m generally opposed to large-scale initiatives that lack universal coverage - like the Kyoto Protocols. It’s a good idea, but poorly executed. It may not be fair to China or India that they be forced to limit their emissions when all the developed countries had the opportunity to do so unchecked. At the time, however, no one really knew that any potential problem could exist. Without any science done on the matter, it really does seem implausible that simple human activity could result in a dramatic change in something so large and seemingly untouchable as Earth’s climate.
I am strongly in favor of reduced environmental impact at the personal level. I drive as seldom as possible, choosing instead to walk, bike, or take mass transit. My thermostat is set as high as possible in the summer, and as low as possible in the winter. I minimize my electricity usage by replacing incandescent bulbs, turning out lights whenever possible, and unplugging devices that don’t see regular use. In addition to saving the planet, almost of all of these measures also serve to save me money - giving double incentives to continue.
I’ve done calculations on my resource impact - figuring out approximately what percentage of Earth’s resources that I consume. Despite all my efforts, if everyone in the world were to consume as I do, we’d be using more than the entire Earth’s resources (but less than double). Of course, if everyone were to consume like the average American, we’d be using in excess of seven times the Earth’s total resources. That degree of selfishness and pride - the assumption that we, as Americans, somehow deserve more resources than the rest of world - is sickening.