Ray,
It's time you quit downplaying the role and amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Frankly, it's kind of infantile (even with smileys), and it is in blatant contradiction with the overwhelming scientific evidence.
Why is it time? I agree there's an overwhelming
quantity of evidence. However, I'm concerned with the
quality of the evidence. By quality, I mean evidence that conforms to those fundamental requirements of the methodology of science, which, in order for certainty to be achieved, necessitates experimentation over the relevant periods of time, under controlled conditions where just one variable can be changed in order to observe the role and influence of that one variable, such as CO2, on the rest of the very complex system.
In order to get this point across I've used the analogy of our medical system and human health. Despite massive quantities of evidence on many types of drugs, natural supplements, and various diets, there is still frequent uncertainty about the long-term effects of such drugs, supplements and certain dietary ingredients.
Ask yourself, why is there this uncertainty? Do you think it might be due to the impracticality of conducting long-term experiments under controlled conditions?
Ask yourself, if a major pharmaceutical company were to experiment with a new drug in a petri dish, and deduce through computer simulations that the drug could be effective in increasing the health and longevity of humans, or cure a particular illness, would you take the drug, assuming you could get your hands on it?
If not, then why do you buy the CO2 hype?
As I'm sure you know, even when drugs have passed the fairly long period of experimentation beyond the petri dish, and beyond experimentation with mice and monkeys under very controlled conditions, and have finally been approved after experimentation with real humans,
under less controlled conditions, there are often long term adverse effects which are discovered later, and the drug is removed from the market.
Yes, CO2 is only 0.04 volume percent of the composition of our atmosphere. But that small amount has a huge impact on our planet and its inhabitants. Without it the average global temperature would be -23 °C (-10 F). At night the temperature would drop to -170 °C (-274 F).
CO2 also sustains life, by plants that absorb CO2 and through photosynthesis they produce Oxygen.
So, that small percentage of CO2 plays a crucial role for our planet.
Absolutely! Without any CO2 at all, there would be no life (as we know it) on our planet, no trees or plants of any description, no wild-life and no humans. The climate and temperatures would be affected enormously.
The debate is not (or should not be) so much about the absolute level of CO2 (which BTW reached a record high last month), but more about the unprecedented rate of increase which (if not controlled) will trigger tipping points that will lead to disastrous climate changes that spiral out of control. Last month recorded the highest level of CO2 in the atmosphere in recent history, and at an accelerating rate.
Any event can be described as unprecedented if one adjusts the context of the time period involved. For example, if a certain location on the planet experiences, say, 50 mm of rain in 24 hours, that could be described as unprecedented within the past year or two years, but not necessarily unprecedented in the past 5 or 10 years. If you go back far enough, there's very little that is unprecedented, regards weather and climate.
Your usual rebuttal that CO2 is good for plant life, is true (that's why it is used in modest amounts in greenhouses), but you never mention that the growth effects of biomass (and weeds, insects, etc.) will be smaller than the failure of food crops due to droughts and extreme weather events. There's a net loss when it comes to food security. How convenient (and stupid) to only focus on the benefits ...
I only mention what is either supported by sound evidence, which conforms with my high standards of the methodology of science, or which, in the absence of sound evidence, seems a reasonable and plausible deduction.
I can find no sensible reason to deduce that food crops will fail due to a very gradual rise in CO2 levels, which is why I don't mention it. Modern agriculture uses pesticides to deter insects, and chemicals such as Glyphosate to control weeds.
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, say 1850, CO2 levels have risen by about 129 parts per million, or roughly a little more than 1 ppm per year, on average. Surely it must be obvious to you that an increase of 1 ppm of CO2, in any growing season, is not going to produce any observable increase in crop growth or any obervable decrease in crop growth due to an increase in insect attacks.
The benefits of enhanced crop growth occur very gradually, over many seasons. As CO2 levels increase very gradually, the benefits are hidden from year to year, or are obscured by the better application of fertilizers and more efficient farming techniques.
It is only through controlled experiments, that meet the high standards of the scientific methodology, that we are able to be certain that CO2 enhances crop growth. Those controlled environments are conducted in physical greenhouses where just one variable, CO2, can be changed.
The greenhouses can be placed in the same area so they receive the same amount of sunlight and heat. The same breed of crops can be placed in the same quality of soil, in each greenhouse, and given the same amount of water. The only difference can be the percentage of CO2 in the air within each greenhouse. We can also introduce 2 variables, CO2 and the amount of water, and learn that in water-stressed conditions, increased CO2 levels produce even greater degrees of increased growth, comparatively.
Experiments outside of greenhouses, in the natural environment where CO2 gas is wafted over crops, are
less sound scientifically. They're known as FACE (Free-Air Carbon dioxide Enrichment). I suspect it is from these experiments that the alarmist claims about increased insect attack originates.
Imagine if you were an insect nibbling on leaves, moving around continually, looking for the best food, and you were to come across an unusually rich and green part of the landscape (as a result of humans wafting CO2 over the plants), wouldn't you be overjoyed and bring all your relatives for a banquet?
However, this is not how it works in normal circumstances, with very small and gradual increases in CO2 occuring. Can't you see that, Bart?
Regarding the possible failure of crops due to drought and extreme weather events, we've been through this before. The last IPCC report, in its technical summary, stated quite clearly that there was no strong evidence that drought, floods, and hurricanes,
on a global scale, had been increasing during the previous 50 years. Their terminology was 'low confidence', and we spent a few posts arguing about the meaning of 'low confidence'. Let's not go through this again.
It seems reasonable to me that any global warming, for whatever reason or cause, will result in increased evaporation and increased rainfall. Of course, the increased rainfall is not going to be evenly spread across the planet. However, with sufficient energy supplies and the political motivation, we can transport water from where it's over-plentiful to where it's scarce, benefiting everyone.
The heat-trapping properties of CO2 also cause the expanding air to contain more water vapor, which is another gas with greenhouse properties, and it complements the IR radiation absorption by CO2.
Water vapor in total is a much more significant 'Greenhouse' gas than CO2 and Methane combined. If water vapor did not form clouds, we'd all be stuffed. Fortunately it does form clouds, which are very small water droplets. As the water droplets get larger, they begin to fall as rain.
The evaporation process that take place at the planet's surface has a cooling effect. The heat is carried up into the atmosphere, and when clouds form, that heat is released and carried away by winds, rather than reflected back to earth, although some of it will be reflected back to the surface. This is just one way that nature creates a balance.
The presence of the clouds, at a significant height above the surface, also has an effect of partially blocking and reflecting the heat from the sun, which is another way that nature creates a balance. This is known as the albedo effect.
The increased temperatures will also reduce the ocean's capacity of storing of the CO2, adding to yet another feedback forcing that heats up the atmosphere and the oceans. Warmer water simply cannot hold as much Carbon as cooler water, and it currently roughly takes out 40-50% of the CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans are acidifying as a result.
I see a contradiction here. If the oceans release CO2 due to warming, wouldn't that also reduce acidification? Isn't this yet another way that nature creates a balance?
We've also discussed in the previous thread on this subject, that the degree of acidification that has taken place during the past 200 years or more, is of the order of only 0.1 pH, a drop from 8.2 to 8.1. A pH of 7 is neutral (for the benefit of those who are not familiar with this concept). Below a pH of 7 is considered to be acidic, and above 7 is considered to be alkaline.
I remember your response, because it was typically non-scientific and alarmist. You claimed that a reduction of 0.1 in pH was equivalent to a 30% increase in acidity. Other alarmist sites don't go that far, and claim it's a 25% increase in acidity.
However, the question is, why would you convert a logarithmic scale into percentages? Isn't this another example of the deceptive techniques of the alarmists? Try to express things in the most alarmist manner.
If you wish to convert pH changes to percentages to emphasize the drop in alkalinity towards the acidic end of the pH scale, which is below a pH of 7, you need to place the percentages in context, in order to avoid the confusion that maybe a 100% increase in acidity leads to a state of neutrality.
The attached image displays the pH progression towards neutrality, in terms of percentages. A drop from pH 8.2 to pH 8.1 represents a 26% increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions, and therefore acidity. However, a drop from a pH of 8.2 to 7.2, which is still slightly alkaline,
represents a 900% increase in hydrogen ions.
Also, the pH of the oceans varies considerably according to location, season of the year, and depth of water. Most creatures will naturally and instinctively move continually to the parts of the ocean that they find more suitable, pH-wise.
However, I do understand that many climatologists and their alarmist supporters are stuck in cities, in offices, in front of their computers, massaging climate models to fit their agendas, and are not free to move, like fish, if they want to retain their jobs.
I'll leave it here for the time being, otherwise the post will become ridiculously long.
