With respect to Robert's statement: "Increased CO2 in the air, along with
the resultant increased temperature and water vapor has to increase primary
productivity, as we all know from basic principles that precipitation and
temperature are the prime regulators of primary productivity. I see
increasdPPP as a good thing overall. The catastophic predictions, the Al
Gore sorts of things, are embarassing to me as an ecologist, as the public
does see me as a person supporting such nonsense."
Perhaps someone has looked critically at the actual and potential effects of
increased atmospheric CO2 on primary productivity (I think Walt Ochel was
looking at this several years ago) and why CO2 levels have risen. Is this
due to deforestation and perhaps diminishment of plankton or?
What about other carbon forms such as methane? Have they increased in rough
proportion to anthropogenic influences or is CH4 concentration
limited/modulated by methanotrophs, and what fraction of atmospheric CO2
comes from their oxidizing activity? Lucky for us that these archaea are
still around, eh? Even though fluctuations occur, it seems that the earth
ecosystem takes stab at a kind of homeostasis, though, and while CO2 smites
the mighty for their sins against the system, it's probably nothing new.
Similarly, at least in the general lexicon, "beer can" "ecologists" do seem
to be outnumbering those who question the precepts of pop-ecology, eh? Hang
in there, Robert.
WT
Btw, my previous reference to the precautionary principle was intended to
make the point that if the UNNECESSARY fraction of anthropogenic carbon
emissions were reduced, no harm would be done (except to the
wasters-for-profit), CO2 would (measurably or immeasurably) go down, and
there would still be plenty available for photosynthesis, even if the
conversion of ecosystems to switchgrass farms, landscaping, and deep
injection, etc. was abandoned and nobody got any "carbon credits." (Do I
presume correctly that CO2 emissions from volcanic regions sufficient to
kill vegetation and researchers disappear into the background and there is
no cause for alarm that such conditions might be mimicked, in effect, from
injection sites--or does anyone know?)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Hamilton" <rhami...@mc.edu>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
That is a reasoned response, IMHO. However! I see no evidence that increased
CO2 in the atmosphere, and "global warming" is destructive. A lot of
anecdotal hyperbole more directed at pseudoscientific social engineering
than scientific inquiry. Where I live Hurricane Katrina did a lot of damage.
We had no power for over a week. I hear people passionately insisting that
Katrina was caused by global warming; there is no evidence of this, of
course.
Increased CO2 in the air, along with the resultant increased temperature and
water vapor has to increase primary productivity, as we all know from basic
principles that precipitation and temperature are the prime regulators of
primary productivity. I see increasdPPP as a good thing overall. The
catastophic predictions, the Al Gore sorts of things, are embarassing to me
as an ecologist, as the public does see me as a person supporting such
nonsense.
The type of lifestyle we live, especially in urban modern centers, requires
massive imports of energy, and the price is always paid by people in rural
areas. People in urban centers need cheap food, so farmers must farm large
tracts of land for low per unit return. We then charge farmers outrageous
prices for things like education, for example. Same thing holds for energy.
We want cheap energy from Louisiana and Kentucky. We then charge outrageous
prices for things like banking and "asset management". The most outrageously
priced urban resource, entertainment, be it sports or movies or television
is absolutely inconsequential when compared to rural resources such as food,
energy, building materials and minerals, all which are taken at minimal
cost.
So it seems we want to drive the socio-economic status of the people of
Appalachia, for example, down lower because "we" don't "like" coal, and want
to enact policies to discourage and possibly eliminate the use of coal
because "we" don't like CO2 in the air; lacking any solid scientific
evidence that the CO2 does any damage, but go on taking the resource we want
as cheaply as possible from people like those in Appalachia as suits our
needs and prejudices.
To my minds eye, it's just a furtherance of attacking the weak to sooth our
guilt on these issues. We need a 20 dollar loaf of bread and 2 dollar DVDs
more than we need to reduce CO2 emissions. Even the urban poor, who where I
live seem to have no problem buying 20 dollar DVDs, would be better to
transfer the wealth to farmers than movie producers...that's JMHO of course,
and we'd be better off to use coal, but pay more for it, at the expense of
lower costs to banking services and football tickets..again, JMHO. Higher
cost translates to lower energy use. That's what we need.
Anyone wants to put up windmills is also doing a good thing, IMHO. If my
homeowners association allowed it, I'd have one in my yard, they aren't all
that expensive.
Rob Hamilton
Gene Hannon <gene.han...@gmail.com> 3/3/2009 5:55 PM >>>
Rob,
I think we all agree with the importance of habitat preservation
(species conservation, preserving ecosystem functions, etc). And I
think we all are on the same page about the disproportionate "tax" on
the environment that urban areas have compared to rural areas (or for
that matter: developed countries vs less developed countries).
Furthermore, I think we can all agree that there is a lot of hype
related to most issues *including global climate change.
But I feel it worth saying that it might be unproductive and
imprudent (in my humble opinion) to make this problem into one of a
false dichotomy: into either human habitat destruction or human
climate warming. They are both worrisome. And they are both
symptomatic of the same problem *a non sustainable life style
(economy, or what have you); by me, you, us, them.
Furthermore, while there are lots of anthropogenic (as well as
non-anthropogenic) processes that result DIRECTLY in habitat
destruction NOW, why not be concerned about those effects that will
indirectly (and or directly) result in habitat destruction later? Such
as our carbon foot print.
But perhaps this is all circular. I guess I see this as a spin off of
the chicken and the egg argument. If we truly did stop habitat
destruction it probably means we are living sustainably, which might
then cause carbon in the atmosphere to drop to or below 350 ppm (or
some ideal value: see 350.org). Or we could save habitat, not live
sustainably, and have weather patterns change ecological patterns and
processes in a way that will result in those saved habitats being for
a collection of species that are different than originally intended.
Or we could destroy habitat, to make carbon neutral bioenergy, to
"live sustainably" so that carbon in the atmosphere goes back down to
350 ppm, but species diversity and ecosystem processes still go to pot
because we have destroyed habitat (i.e. the means does not justify the
end in this scenario). ETC. So really, it is not so much what the
impending or most dire problem is per se, but whether our actions
result in a sustainable and equitable society for us as well as a
viable habitat for the rest of the planet *. But I suppose I am
preaching to the choir.
-Gene
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Robert Hamilton <rhami...@mc.edu> wrote:
Don't know if you want to post a contrasting view, but I'll offer one
up.
No question that human generated CO2 is causing global warming, in my
opinion. There is, however, no evidence of a deleterious effect,
especially given the fact that the climate does and will change one way
or another anyways. Models predicting catastrophes have been overblown
to a degree that is embarrassing to an informed scientist, and results a
in classic "boy who cried wolf" type loss of credibility for informed
scientists.
With respect to our ecological impact, habitat destruction is the #1
negative human impact, and the overall ecological footprint is the real
issue, not just the "carbon footprint". There is no activity we engage
in as humans that is worse than the building of modern cities,
especially when you factor in the type of agricultural practices needed
to support those cities. The carbon footprint approach also strongly
discriminates against those living in poorer, more rural areas, singling
out the activities that support the economies in those areas as the
major problem, as opposed to the much more destructive activities of
people who live in urban areas, particularly modern urban areas. It's
obvuiously more politically prudent to attack the weak.
There is an issue with global warming, but it is relatively minor, as
far as we know at this point in time, and it appears to be just another
way of deflecting the real issue, habitat conversion. Allowing people in
large modern cities to feel good about themselves re environmental
issues while continuing on with the most destructive of lifestyles.
I recall reading many months ago about Leonardo DeCaprio wanting to buy
a tropical island and build an eco friendly resort being presented as
evidence of some sort of environmentally responsible act. Ridiculous, of
course, but one of the best examples of the sort or poor thinking that
drives a lot of the pop culture based environmental movement.
Rob Hamilton
"So easy it seemed once found, which yet
unfound most would have thought impossible"
John Milton
________________________________________
Robert G. Hamilton
Department of Biological Sciences
Mississippi College
P.O. Box 4045
200 South Capitol Street
Clinton, MS 39058
Phone: (601) 925-3872
FAX (601) 925-3978
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.7/1983 - Release Date: 03/04/09
07:41:00
