My skepticism regrading the CO2 argument comes from looking at what causes the greenhouse effect and the relative contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect. As we all know water vapour is the cause of the greenhouse effect, and lacking water vapour in the atmosphere there likely wouldn't be a greenhouse effect. A small change in water vapour concentration, say +- 0.1%, is a change several fold greater than the total effect of CO2, and such changes in water vapour concentrations occur continuously. And then there are winds....
I personally don't care one way or another about the CO2 argument though, it's the bad science that I don't like. If we were looking at human driven climate change properly, we would investigate all possible drivers, generate some basic statements (that are either true or false), do some experiments and see which explanations most accurately predict reality by rejecting those that don't. Statements left standing following experimentation will have that empirical base. With CO2 some "decider" has simply decided it has to to CO2, and to look at anything else makes one a heretic. Why is it political? Consider fracking gas as one example (I use that name just so you know what gas I am talking about). Big oil discovers this gas, a large energy reserve. One thing we use such energy for is boiling water to produce electricity. However we have coal, which is cheap and plentiful, and far cheaper than fracking gas even when all you emit is CO2 and water when you burn the coal. So what to do? Make coal more expensive so the fracking gas is more competitive. So you push the CO2 argument to force people to eliminate the CO2 when they burn coal so as to make coal more expensive allow the fracking gas to be more competitive, and we do that. Note that there is no mandate to burn fracking gas such that no CO2 is emitted! We even have a political edict that CO2 is a pollutant, which is amazing to me. This is not a democrat or republican thing, FWIW, as both Bush II and Obama have pursued this. I also really don't care much if we use coal or fracking gas to boil water, just the quality of the science. Since the ozone hole problem is still ongoing, I have to wonder if CFCs are the only cause. Again, some "decider" decided is had to be caused only by CFCs, even though that theory has not gone through the rigors of normal science. I have no problem with banning CFCs; good riddance IMHO. I do have a problem with the poor quality of the science. As we all know, any "consensus" in science is derived from the empirical support for a theory, not arm-twisting and other political hackery. Any political consensus is invalid scientifically. This isn't the Environmental Science Society of America, it's the Ecological Society of America, and we should do better, IMHO. IMHO we should be more the voice of reason and less the voice of various political trends of the day. Rob Hamilton -----Original Message----- From: Jane Shevtsov [mailto:jane....@gmail.com] Sent: Thu 7/5/2012 2:57 AM To: Robert Hamilton Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum Seriously? In my undegrad physics class, we did a problem that involved calculating the effect of a doubling of CO2 concentration on temperature, using only the fact that CO2 blocks long-wavelength infrared radiation -- stuff that was known to Arrhenius a hundred years ago. Even though this was just a textbook problem, I remember being struck by how close our prediction was to that generated by complex models. Saying "There is no evidence that changes in CO2 levels have caused any sort of atmospheric warming" is just denying basic physics -- or claiming that the climate system is so wonderfully balanced that some effect or other will exactly compensate for the increase in CO2. On a related note, I recommend that everyone read "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer R. Weart. This is available both in book form and as a free online text. (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm) It's a great review of how we know what we know. Jane Shevtsov On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Robert Hamilton <roberthamil...@alc.edu>wrote: > Actually this climate debate is more about hocus pocus than anything else. > at least a it is. That climate change is occurring is undeniable, and the > oddity would be no climate change occurring. The climate is going to change > regardless. The issue of why is where the hocus pocus comes in. There is no > evidence that changes in CO2 levels have caused any sort of atmospheric > warming; none. It is a predicted outcome of climate models designed to show > that CO2 can affect atmospheric temperatures. We know for a fact that > atmospheric warming would cause CO2 levels to increase because all the > various organisms would increase respiration rates. It is dubious to > suggest that CO2 levels that we observe could have any influence on the > greenhouse effect on earth given the overwhelming effect of water vapour, > and the flux of water vapour, which in itself is substantially greater than > the total effect of CO2, let alone the difference in CO2 past and present. > > Many of the things we do could cause climate change. The massive increase > in runoff of freshwater from terrestrial systems; various drainings and > fillings in of wetlands and floodplains, channeling if rivers along with > rapid runoff through sewers and other means. A lot less standing water in > the spring to ameliorate continental warming through the summer. Conversion > of heat sinks like say Manhattan Island (via urbanization) into heat > sources, possibly radiating more energy back than is input from the sun due > to additional heat from things like air conditioners and automobiles, and > this sort of thing occurs on a massive scale (like say Germany, which used > to be a very moist deciduous forest) in the northern hemisphere. But such > issues are not allowed to be investigated for the sake of the political > hacks with their CO2 argument. There is no science to this process, and > amazingly the public in general sees the weakness of the science. > > The thing of it is that what goes around comes around, and the truth will > out in the end. If we are wrong about CO2 but right about human impacts the > political hacks will blame us for being unscientific even though it is they > that force us this way via the way they dispense power in the form of > academic appointments and funding. A bit like CFCs causing the ozone hole. > They could cause the ozone hole for sure, but do they actually cause it? > Never seen any evidence of that. Could be that flying jet aircraft is > causing the ozone hole, but political hacks don't want to go there! If it > isn't CFCs, they will blame us for sure, because we are supposed to know > for sure in their eyes in such situations. We are the scapegoat if they > (we) are wrong). > > I suppose I am a "denier" because I reject politically motivated science, > and that sort would shout me down, pull my hair and throw things at me if I > were ever to present such heretical arguments to the public. But I don't > need to. As the consequences of the CO2 based policies sink in, they will > be revisited with a more skeptical eye. We move forward, but do bumble > along, and that seems to work in general, although there are casualties > along the way, and the way it looks now is Ecology will be one of those > casualties, which is the real crime here IMHO. > > Rob Hamilton > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of > malcolm McCallum > Sent: Tue 7/3/2012 10:07 PM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - > EOS Forum > > society has never been trusting of scientists. > However, the same could be said of business with identical survey > mechanisms. > So what. > > This isn't about a bunch of hocus pocus and its not about baseless > opinions. > ITs about the facts that exist. > Period. > > As for track records of academics, virtually all of our discoveries > were by academics. > Very few were made by others. > Do your homework. > > Malcolm > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Paul Cherubini <mona...@saber.net> wrote: > > On Jul 3, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Jerome Joseph Howard wrote: > > > >> See the Goddard site at > >> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/. > > > > > > Those graphs also show a flattening of global mean temperatures > > over the past decade or so. Therefore the flattening trend > > could conceivably continue for another 20-25 years, just > > like the 30-35 year flattening trends of 1880-1910 and 1940-1975. > > IF the anthropogenic factors that contribute to warming are > > relatively minor or moderate in relation to the natural factors > > which may well turn out to be the case. > > > > In view of these uncertainties it is understandable why > > industry and agriculture appear to be taking a wait and > > see approach instead of making plans for a much warmer > > world. > > > > The track record of academia is not stellar in the minds > > of conservatives that run industry and agriculture. > > Surveys indicate educated conservatives have grown > > increasingly distrustful of scientists (but not science) > > http://tinyurl.com/7dkgolp > > > > > > Paul Cherubini > > El Dorado, Calif. > > > > -- > Malcolm L. McCallum > Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry > School of Biological Sciences > University of Missouri at Kansas City > > Managing Editor, > Herpetological Conservation and Biology > > "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - > Allan Nation > > 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert > 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, > and pollution. > 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction > MAY help restore populations. > 2022: Soylent Green is People! > > The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) > Wealth w/o work > Pleasure w/o conscience > Knowledge w/o character > Commerce w/o morality > Science w/o humanity > Worship w/o sacrifice > Politics w/o principle > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may > contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not > the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and > destroy all copies of the original message. > -- ------------- Jane Shevtsov, Ph.D. Mathematical Biology Curriculum Writer, UCLA co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org "In the long run, education intended to produce a molecular geneticist, a systems ecologist, or an immunologist is inferior, both for the individual and for society, than that intended to produce a broadly educated person who has also written a dissertation." --John Janovy, Jr., "On Becoming a Biologist"
