Letter to Editor: Climate change is real

Mr. Elliot certainly is correct that climate change is an issue of humanity. Unfortunately, it's more an issue of cosmic physics more than it is an issue of depraved human indifference.

So you're worried about the beaches of Kiribati sinking under the waves? Laying aside for a moment that the 900 marines who gave their lives there died for the freedom of the people, and not the beaches. Let's examine the premise that somehow we are to blame:

Ever been to Cleopatra's Palace, in the ancient Egyptian port of Alexandria? No? How about to Port Royal, Jamaica? Or better yet, have you been to visit Yonaguni Jima, near Taiwan? It's obvious Mr. Elliot has never been to any of these exotic ports, because if he had he'd notice that they're all ......underwater. Yes, that's right, coastal cities and beaches have been sinking under the waves since time immemorial. Port Royal went down in the 1600's, after an earthquake. Alexandria? It mysteriously disappeared a few thousand years ago. Yonaguni Jima sank nearly 8000 years ago.

So is it your contention that, somehow, these are all 'evidence' that man-made global warming is causing the Oceans to rise and wipe out civilzation, too? Do you want to argue that human beings were industrious enough in the bronze age to change the weather? Or do you have some special proof that coastline shrinkage today is attributable to man-caused factors that had no bearing on these historical events? By all means, show us the proof that somehow, today, it's different.

And don't try telling us it's warmer now. We know that. We know that because global warming scientists have been measuring the temperatures around the globe with satellites and other high-tech devices (oops, spoke too soon. The satellite data contradicts the warming theory - but never mind). No, we know that warming is real because of the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change, and all their 'settled' science. Of course, we also know it because we haven't seen any Mastodons, Mammoths, or Saber-toothed Cats running around the neighborhood. For that matter, there aren't any glaciers on my street anymore either. It's only been getting warmer for about 9,000 years. I'm sure if we dig hard enough, we'll find 'evidence' that the GEICO cavemen caused that portion of climate change.

Climate change is real. It is obvious. So is human pollution of the environment. But we aren't changing the weather, kids. It's a little bigger than we are.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by KUBizGrad on October 6, 2009 at 8:04 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter to Editor: Climate change is real

Humanity has a long history of affecting things that are believed to be too big to be influenced by us. In the Gulf of Mexico, there is an area of 20,000 square kilometers (that's about the size of New Jersey) that has practically no oxygen in the water. This is directly (and we know this) due to heavy fertilizer use in the Midwest, which runs off when it rains, goes down the Mississippi River, and is eaten up by algae, which in turn use up all the oxygen in the water, preventing other organisms from living there. This is happening on a much smaller scale in our very own Potter's Lake on campus, and happened on a larger scale in the Baltic Sea, but that went away when people couldn't afford to fertilize their crops any more.

The Aral Sea, located in Central Asia, used to be the world's fourth largest inland saline body of water. Soviet Union policy throughout the 1900s caused it to lose 90% of its area and become two saline in parts to support fish. The loss of this large water body has caused local climate to become more extreme and dust storms to blanket to the area, destroying crops and causing health problems.

Obviously climate changes on its own, we know that from drilling ice cores, sediment cores, and tree ring samples. We also know that humanity has a huge impact on regional climate, and if maybe there's even a slight chance that what we are doing now has a negative impact on the entire world (and most science is telling us that there is), I think we should do something about it.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by reuben on October 6, 2009 at 9:35 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter to Editor: Climate change is real

Excellent points, Reuben. All of your examples are indeed man-made ecological problems, and have caused noticeable changes in local environmental conditions. No one seriously doubts that humans affect the environment. But all of your examples are very localized, affecting areas of hundreds of square miles. Large areas of damage compared to one, 5 foot- 9 inch, 170 pound human being - but tiny in comparison to a whole planet.

Climate change is more than the weather this season or even this year. It is planetary. It is truly Cosmic Scale, a size and scope that most humans do not understand. Cosmic scale is the sun producing an estimated 4x10 to the 23 power megawatts of electricity every second, and hurtling it 93 million miles into space to burn you on the beach. In the time it's taken you to read this post, the sun has produced as much energy as the human race has produced in its history. THAT is the kind of heat over which we have no control, and subtle variances in energy production on that size and scale will dwarf anything humanity is doing. The forces that drive climate truly exceed the comprehension of most human beings. We are a burp in a thunderstorm.

Of course, the True Believers say that this is just fatalism, a 'conservative' excuse to ignore the environment, pollute at will and desecrate our sacred natural habitats. Hogwash. Conservation of our environment is important - FAR too important to be left to the likes of Al Gore, the environmental movement and climate change alarmists, who would scare us with tales of the end of civilization if we don't follow THEIR vision of 'protecting the environment'. Cap and Trade, Kyoto, and the like are at best well-meaning but foolish attempts to 'fix' a problem with inefficient, top-down controls that do more damage than good. At worst, they are political red-herrings - brazen attempts to slide an unpopular anti-growth, even socialist agenda past an unsuspecting public under the flag of 'saving the planet'.

Show me real science, not the fake kind, and then we'll talk about a Big Global Solution. Until then, I'll keep recycling, combining trips in the car to use less gas, and generally doing the LITTLE things that actually help.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by KUBizGrad on October 6, 2009 at 12:43 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter to Editor: Climate change is real

You say to show you real science, but I don't know what that means if you don't count the process of observing data and then making conclusions based on that data.

I realize my examples are somewhat localized, but they were not exactly meant to demonstrate man's ability to radically alter global climate. Rather, hindsight has shown that our ability to negatively impact our surroundings is almost always underestimated at first. They do, however, have show more impact than you seem to give them credit for: the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico is 8,000 square miles, not hundreds, and the result of land use decisions covering the entire Mississippi River drainage basin, which is over one million square miles. The Aral Sea used to be 26,000 square miles; the climatic impacts are spread well throughout Central Asia.

If you don't believe in humanity's influence on the world as a whole, then why do you bother recycling and using less gas? I mean, aside from saving you money, what does it actually help?

Here's one example of global influence: since 1959, CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa have increased from below 320 ppm to almost 390 ppm. In Antarctica and Australia, the concentrations have been observed to be increasing at roughly the same rates.

In the last 400,000 years, CO2 concentrations, as measured from ice cores drilled in the Antarctic, have peaked above 300 ppm only once, more than 300,000 years ago, but then it dropped back down again. Only in the last 200 or so years has the concentration been rising; it was fairly steady for the 1000 or so prior to the Industrial revolution, then mysteriously jumped and is still accelerating upward as we continue to burn fossil fuels faster and faster.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by reuben on October 6, 2009 at 11 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter to Editor: Climate change is real

KUBizGrad,

I don't have time properly reply to your comments. However, they mimic the work of a spoon-fed denialist, who regurgitates whatever anti-AGW propaganda they can find. These are the same people who play arm-chair climate scientist, denying the current science, in favor of their favorite climate myth, no matter how many times they get debunked by the climate science community. None-the-less, these people continue on, grasping at the same old straws. Faulty satellite data, the sun is the cause, blah blah blah.. which one is it?

"Climate change is more than the weather this season or even this year. It is planetary. It is truly Cosmic Scale, a size and scope that most humans do not understand"

"Most humans" would include you as well. Haven't you heard? It is a rarity to find a square inch on this planet that humans haven't impacted in some way. You truly haven't grasped the colossal scale of anthropogenic impacts to our planet, from the moment we first discovered fire thousands of years ago, until now.

To give you an example, here is a map just put out by NASAs EO: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=40554&src=eoa-iotd

Does the fact that humans emit 24 gigatonnes of CO2 per year, by the same anthropogenic factors that are responsible for the highest atmospheric (you know, that thing you said is too big for us to influence) concentrations of CO2 in 650,000 years, mean anything to you? Probably not, huh.

"Show me real science, not the fake kind, and then we'll talk about a Big Global Solution."

This is laughable. Since when does scientific consensus rely on convincing you? What kind of evidence to you want anyway? Judging by your posts, you don't need much evidence to be convinced, as long as it falls in line with your political persuasion, ie incorrect satellite data, sun is the cause, historical warming, or whatever straw you grasp.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Fugu on October 6, 2009 at 11:12 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter to Editor: Climate change is real

It is amazing how much rhetoric can fill a statement of several paragraphs coming from one who is so certain in his or her opinion.

Fugu, in order for it to matter how much CO2 humans emit per year, you can't just give us the number of gigatons of carbon emitted by humans. You must also include the amount released from natural sources, the amount taken back into the natural cycle, and most importantly other factors that contribute to the greenhouse effect. What is the strongest absorbing greenhouse gas? Which one has the highest composition in the atmosphere?

What are the effects of increased CO2 concentration? Is the resulting temperature increase linear or does it undergo diminishing returns just as a third, fourth, and fifth layer of paint on a wall are each consecutively less effective at altering the shade of the wall? Do existing climate models accurately predict climate change? Do they consider all of the variables involved in climate variability or have they neglected to include important factors such as the presence of water vapor in the lower 2 km of the atmosphere, the place where it is most abundant and has the most effect on climate variation?

It's laughable that you are so condescending towards someone with a different viewpoint from yours while you are simply spouting out numbers with no sense of scale. Not only that, but you are coming dangerously close to making the assertion that carbon emissions contribute to environmental pollution outside of the climate change process.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by connerm on October 7, 2009 at 11:28 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter to Editor: Climate change is real

Hi connerm,

Did you want me to offer you a full semester course in climate science as well? I wasn't "spewing" out numbers in order to prove AGW. I was refuting Mr. Biz's assertion that the climate is too "colossal" for us to impact, not giving a lecture in climatology. I said that humans emit "24 gigatons of CO2 per year" by the same processes that have resulted in the highest atmospheric CO2 ppm in 650,000 years. No matter if the current anthropogenic CO2 is causing GW, it goes to show that humans are capable of profound global changes. If the science behind the heat trapping abilities of greenhouse gases is solid and that we have drastically increased the atmospheric levels of these gases, how could one posit that humans are not even CAPABLE impacting something on such a magnitude as climate? I think that to even deny that possibility is to have your head in the sand. This was the point I attempted to convey.

I find it interesting that you can read through Mr. Biz's senseless, arrogant, and idealogical dribble and then only pick me out as being the rhetorical and condescending one. Mr. Biz effortlessly claims that we are but a "we are a burp in a thunderstorm" and that because the sun is the main driver of climate on Earth, AGW can't be real. Why didn't you query him into the physics behind greenhouse gases? or how thermohaline circulation effects global climate patterns? or why Mars, Venus, and Earth all have drastically different climates that can't be explained merely by their distance from the sun?

There is no point in debating the actual science behind global warming when someone's argument is that ideologically driven and doesn't even make in the ballpark as far as current scientific understanding goes. Refuting the common contrarian arguments, such as those brought up by both you and Mr. Biz, usually prove not to be worthy time investment. However, you actually seem to have an inkling of understanding of climate science, so I am not necessary including you.

People have the right to be skeptical, however, when they arrogantly play arm-chair climate scientist while repeating the same ole erroneous trite, it is hard to take them seriously. It is unfortunate that GW has turned into such a political issue and not one based on science. Faulty remote sensing data, the sun argument, water vapor forcing, actual % of CO2 forcing, have all been addressed over and over again.

Want answers to your questions? Ask the people who represent the current understanding on the issue. They have likely addressed your concerns on many occasions and in a scientifically robust manner. Here is a place to begin: http://www.realclimate.org/

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Fugu on October 7, 2009 at 10:34 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter to Editor: Climate change is real

Admittedly I am partisan. I hope that someone will check any erroneous assertions by KUBizGrad. I'm sure that he is full of them. However, as far as I can tell all he claimed is that mankind does not necessarily have the effect on the climate system that pro AGW theorists think it does and that the examples of environmental pollution that were given by other commenters was a little off-base in application to the debate at hand. He did use a lot of irritating rhetoric as well, though. Anyways, here are some thoughts:

-In order for the quantity of CO2 released by mankind annually to matter, we must put it into perspective as a part of the whole system. If there are 100 gigatons of "natural' CO2 in the atmosphere, a 24% increase is huge. If there are 1000000, this amounts to an insignificant quantity that will not affect the climate. I think the true number is something like 2,000 gigatons. Complicating matters is the presence and relative effects of other greenhouse gases such as H2O and methane, not to mention the change in CO2 equilibrium caused by increased anthropogenic CO2 release. More on H2O a few hyphens down.

-Having the highest CO2 levels in 650,000 years also means little if we cannot demonstrate that CO2 is the driving factor of climate change and that mankind is behind the rise in CO2 levels. Since ice core data demonstrates an 800 year lag between temperature increase and CO2 concentrations, with CO2 concentrations being the delayed quantity, I am curious as to how ice core data demonstrates a cause and effect relationship in the manner our friend reuben asserts. Not only that, but temperature increases in the troposphere (the layer of the atmosphere in which CO2 tends to settle) have not been large enough to demonstrate CO2's ability to significantly alter the temperature.

-Furthermore, we are left with the law of diminishing returns. CO2 is undoubtedly important in maintaining the current temperature on Earth. If CO2 concentrations were 0 ppm, Earth would be about 18 C colder than it is now. However, how much effect on temperature does an increase in current CO2 concentrations cause? Where is the data verifying that a doubling of CO2 will lead to a large increase in temperatures, all other factors staying the same? CO2 absorption becomes saturated at some point.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by connerm on October 8, 2009 at 3:28 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter to Editor: Climate change is real

-Pro-AGW theory climate scientists claim that there is positive feedback in the climate cycle, that though there is a diminishing return on the absorption of CO2, there is amplification of the effect by other factors such as ice albedo, humidity, etc. The idea of a positive feedback process as the driver of climate on Earth is a dangerous assertion that is yet to be proven. What other processes in nature are driven by positive feedback? Nuclear fission, apples falling off of trees, birth of offspring, see where this is going? These are not processes that govern systems, they are linear occurrences with a definite end. If positive feedback exists in the climate system at the scale predicted by pro-AGW scientists, we should have never existed because of all of the time periods when CO2 concentrations were higher than today. The Earth would have slipped into uncontrollable warming several times.

-Climate models up to this point have failed to include the presence of the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, H2O, in the location where it is most prevalent, altitudes of less than 2000 feet. This is because until recently this quantity was undetectable. A very clever paper published in Nature recently finally made it clear that there is a high concentration of water in the lower altitudes. Climate models will have to be adjusted to account for this.

-I read Realclimate, I read Stephen Mcintyre's blog, and I read as much as I can at websites like www.climatedebatedaily.com , which attempts to relay the best arguments from both sides. This is a topic of endless interest to a biologist because the climate system is in many ways just as complicated and mysterious as a biological system.

I tend towards skepticism because I don't think we understand enough about the climate system to make assertions of the grand nature that many pro-AGW theory scientists do. The misallocation of resources that would result from reducing anthropogenic CO2 output would be unfortunate on many levels.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by connerm on October 8, 2009 at 3:28 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal