I have so far been called a jerk and a slack-jawed yokel. It has been suggested I am of the vile conspiracist crowd. I have been given instruction on courtesey by this crowd of name callers. I have been very impolitely asked to leave twice now.
Even now, after I apologised for my earlier transgressions I am being insulted. Seems to me, some people here just can’t take a healthy argument. Well too bad. I ain’t going anywhere. Except away for the weekend. See you all on Monday.
No, but you expressed doubt, here:
And what does photosynthesis have to do with it? Are you a plant? If you aren’t, then CO[sup]2[/sup] is bad for you.
Let me make something clear: You MAY be right when you claim that air pollution will not accelerate Global Warming. But it is a well-known fact that air pollution can cause serious health problems. So we ought to cut back air pollution for that, even if it has no effect on GW.
Oh, and instead of apologizing for being rude, why don’t you try not being rude in the first place?
ignorant question: what ARE the health risks of CO[sub]2[/sub]? Obviously, if you get it in high enough concentrations, you won’t get enough oxygen and this is a problem, but I don’t know of any serious other issues (not that I’m up on my toxic gases). Anyone know of any, or must I go so far as to gasp look for myself?
gr8guy: *ignorant question: what ARE the health risks of CO2? Obviously, if you get it in high enough concentrations, you won’t get enough oxygen and this is a problem, but I don’t know of any serious other issues (not that I’m up on my toxic gases). Anyone know of any, or must I go so far as to gasp look for myself? *
I wish I had let you do just that, gr8guy. Because while I did not find any specific information about direct health risks from excessive CO2 concentrations (most health concerns about it seem to be focused on the effects of CO2-related climate change), I did find a discussion list for (apparently, mostly) “bioenergy/digestion” specialists animatedly debating whether major soft-drink companies do, or should, carbonate their products with CO2 derived from waste-treatment plants. I am now thinking wistfully about how nice it would have been if I could have lived out the remainder of my days completely unaware of the very existence of this issue. However, since it’s too late now, I thought I’d share the misery. 
These are more opinions than facts. To deal with just a few of them, the proxy climate data (what you call “anecdotal scientific data”, whatever that’s supposed to mean) suggests that “the Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperatures for three of the past eight years are warmer than any other year since (at least) AD 1400.” [M.E. Mann et al., Nature 392, 779 (23 April 1998)]. Furthermore, ice cores from Antarctica show that “Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane correlate well with Antarctic air-temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.” [J.R. Petit et al, Nature 399, 429 (3 June 1999)]. These are just 2 of the many articles you can find on these topics in the refereed scientific literature.
As to the models being ridiculously wrong, see for example, a recent article by Thomas Crowley: Science 289, 270 (2000).
By the way, the “chaotic” argument is pretty meaningless here. The fact that a system is chaotic does not mean one cannot make predictions of average properties over time. Yes, anyone who tells you that they can predict whether it is going to rain here in Rochester on a given day 100 years from now is full of it, but that does not preclude them being able in principle to predict a mean temperature for the total earth climate system 100 years from now, and even a mean temperature for Rochester then.
So, let me get this straight, we’re supposed to rely on stuff published on the web, not in refereed journals, by people with very direct connections to the fossil fuel industry but a paper published in Science, which (along with Nature) is probably considered the premier refereed science journal in the world, is “hysterical junk science” and “trash”. Okey-dokey.
Just to let other folks in on the joke here, it is that fusion is always about 30 years away. It was 20 years ago, it was 10 years ago, and it still is now! But, who knows? Maybe some time they really will get it going.
These are more opinions than facts. To deal with just a few of them, the proxy climate data (what you call “anecdotal scientific data”, whatever that’s supposed to mean) suggests that “the Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperatures for three of the past eight years are warmer than any other year since (at least) AD 1400.” [M.E. Mann et al., Nature 392, 779 (23 April 1998)]. Furthermore, ice cores from Antarctica show that “Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane correlate well with Antarctic air-temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.” [J.R. Petit et al, Nature 399, 429 (3 June 1999)]. These are just 2 of the many articles you can find on these topics in the refereed scientific literature.
As to the models being ridiculously wrong, see for example, a recent article by Thomas Crowley: Science 289, 270 (2000).
By the way, the “chaotic” argument is pretty meaningless here. The fact that a system is chaotic does not mean one cannot make predictions of average properties over time. Yes, anyone who tells you that they can predict whether it is going to rain here in Rochester on a given day 100 years from now is full of it, but that does not preclude them being able in principle to predict a mean temperature for the total earth climate system 100 years from now, and even a mean temperature for Rochester then.
So, let me get this straight, we’re supposed to rely on stuff published on the web, not in refereed journals, by people with very direct connections to the fossil fuel industry but a paper published in Science, which (along with Nature) is probably considered the premier refereed science journal in the world, is “hysterical junk science” and “trash”. Okey-dokey.
Just to let other folks in on the joke here, it is that fusion is always about 30 years away. It was 20 years ago, it was 10 years ago, and it still is now! But, who knows? Maybe some time they really will get it going.
Whoops…Sorry about the double post. I thought I had hit the “Stop” button in time on the first one … I guess not.
Sorry to go for the “most frequent poster” award here but I just remembered that I did want to respond to Aodoi too.
Actually, I agree with you to a certain degree on this point. Usually in science, it is best to let the arguments just play themselves out without trying to declare a “winner” or “loser”. However, the issue gets a bit more complicated when science collides with public policy, particularly with fairly time-critical issues. The issue of whether to teach creation “science” alongside evolution is one example; I would assert the issue of what to do about the danger posed by global warming is another. So, I think it is necessary to take stock of where the scientific opinion stands which is what IPCC and NAS have tried to do and what the Western Fuels Association, Exxon-Mobil and that crowd have tried their best to obfuscate. (To their credit, some…perhaps even most… of the other oil companies, like British Petroleum for one, have essentially gotten out of that game, at least to the point of quitting the Global Climate Coalition.)
This is a common argument made by the do-nothing crowd. There are a couple of problems with it: (1) Since the Kyoto Protocol only mandates emissions reductions to the year 2010, it relies on making assumptions about what will happen after that. None of the estimates I have seen of this sort tell you what those assumptions are. [I asked Patrick Michaels about this when I saw him speak but he essentially just avoided that part of my question.] (2) The whole point of the Kyoto Protocol is to be a start and try to get us moving in a new direction, developing new technologies, etc. The markets have failed to provide the proper incentives to do this because they have failed to account for the large costs (both in terms of GW and other environmental problems) posed by fossil fuel technologies. These technologies can then used not only in the First World, but also transferred to the Third World.
jab1 wrote:
The same way we reduced the soot produced by diesel engines over the last decade: by making the combustion process more efficient. A 100% efficient diesel engine, for example, produces only CO[sub]2[/sub] and H[sub]2[/sub]O. A 95% efficient diesel engine would produce 95% CO[sub]2[/sub] and H[sub]2[/sub]O, and 5% crap. Said crap is what makes up air pollution; it includes carbon monozide, ozone, incompletely combusted hydrocarbons, a few nitrogen compounds (due to the nitrogen in the air getting mized up in the combustion environment), and … soot.
But note that at 100% efficiency, all of the carbon in the fuel is converted into CO[sub]2[/sub]. You can theoretically have an engine that produces no “smog” chemicals at all, due to a 100% efficient combustion process, and it would still produce greenhouse gasses. Incidentally, the “smog” chemicals (with the exception of ozone and nitrogen compounds) all contain carbon, and will all eventually break down into CO[sub]2[/sub] in the environment as well.
jshore,Fusion was 30 years away 30 years ago too, but now I hear that nanotech and DNA based quantum computers are just around the corner. Maybe that’ll finally give us the leg up we need. 
Kimstu, CO2 is not horribly toxic, but is a problem for divers, submariners and astronauts. If you saw the movie Apollo 13 you might recall that the astronauts went to a lot effort attempting to keep the CO2 concentration in the cabin below 12%. Muddled thinking, panic attacks and eventually blackout were the consequences of rising concentrations of the gas.
Carbon dioxide normally regulates both the pH of blood and the breathing reflex, so the physiological effects of changing atmospheric concentrations will be complicated. (For more information than you want, do a Google search on: Respiration physiology CO2
The science is a hundred years old or more, and it’s found in all the first year med student texts.
If I remember correctly from my old plant biochem classes (back when the atmosphere concentration was only 300 ppm) plants start dying from CO2 poisoning at about a 5% concentration. The levels now present in the atmosphere are selectively favoring C4 (monocots/grasses) vs C3 (most dicots) species. No one is sure what the ecological consequences of that will be. The oil companies like to bandy about the “CO2 fertilization” effects at 300-600 ppm CO2, but it’s incredibly naive, at best, to think that selectively favoring the growth of one subgroup of the plant kingdom over another will only bring about good consequences.
Unless we screw things VERY badly, atmospheric CO2 isn’t likely ever rise to levels where it’s directly toxic to humans. But that doesn’t mean that the effects will be small, ignorable or easily correctable.
{ And yes, there was a good reason I gave a reference on Ozone and left CO2 to the complainer 
}
GreyMatters wrote:
Gee, that’s funny, in the post you made just prior to this, you wrote:
Why would you even need to find the actual studies that conclude this, if you didn’t think ozone was toxic?
Squink wrote:
<nitpick>
They were trying to keep the partial pressure of CO[sub]2[/sub] below 15 millimeters of mercury. (This is what their gauges were calibrated in.) Since cabin pressure on a space flight is typically 1/5 of an atmosphere, and one atmosphere pressure is 760 millimeters of mercury, this would be about a 10% CO[sub]2[/sub] concentration, not 12%.
</nitpick>
Squink, thanks. I dimly remembered hearing about some of these health issues (in chemistry, one of the classic examples given of a buffer system is the carbonic acid system in the bloodstream), but I couldn’t see how CO[sub]2[/sub] levels in the atmosphere would get so high as to be toxic to us. The information on plants was most helpful. What implications does this have for the “carbon sink” idea? I mean, if levels of CO[sub]2[/sub] are rising to the point where things like grasses are being favored more and more over trees, does that mean that a REAL carbon sink would be to turn Nebraska into a gigantic lawn rather than turning Washington into a gigantic forest?
I ask this somewhat flippantly, but I’m actually serious. To what extent would a carbon sink actually work, and how would this effect other things? In other words, even if Kyoto isn’t worth the paper it’s written on and anthropogenic GW doesn’t exist, I presume there must be ecological implications for rising CO[sub]2[/sub] levels that we ought to consider in any event.
(And Kimstu, thanks ever so much for sharing. Sometimes it’s just not worth it to learn your new thing every day. )
Thanks for the nitpick tracer. I knew the value for human toxicity was somewhere up there, and Apollo 13 seemed like an example most people could relate to. I suppose someone might complain that that’s not an accurate value for normal atmospheric conditions, but the relevant point is that CO2 only becomes acutely toxic to humans at a level far beyond what mankind is ever likely to do to the atmosphere. It might make us dumber or crankier, but it’s not going to kill us outright.
g8rguy The C3/C4 story is another (large) complicating factor in the already over-complex carbon sink story.
Lots of people are saying it’ll save our collective asses, but the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration implies that we’re already working the planets CO2 buffering capacity pretty hard. It’d take some sort of dramatic effect to have carbon sinks suddenly become able to compensate for additional CO2 emissions.
Biological systems are known to do things like that, but proving it’ll happen in this case will take a lot more data and a lot more computer power than we’ve so far devoted to the relatively simple meteorological calculations.
In other words, I think “carbon sinks” are a pretty idea, and a useful political poker chip, but I have no faith whatsoever that we really know anything at all about how changing CO2 concentrations will affect them.
(and Kimstu, Ain’t beating your head against a brick wall because you can’t find the right keywords FUN )
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by jshore *
**Beagle,
“With all due respect to you, do you think you are the first person to come up with these issues and that those with PhDs in climate science are blissfully unaware of them?”
I was the first one here to. You did not respond to the arguments, I noticed. Most people are blissfully unaware of the risks of impacts, yes. Climate scientists are no more aware of this than anyone else. Why were you so dismissive, at a loss perhaps?
“Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward)…”
Nuff said. Even your own evidence says that nobody can predict global warming accurately, if it exists. Note, your evidence assumes my point, “…uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gasses.” My point exactly, new evidence about the frequency and severity of impacts changes everything. Don’t just throw out “PhD” and expect me to cower, try and defeat the actual arguments next time.
My point, Beagle, is you are not saying anything new. E.g., you are not arguing against any of the conclusions of the IPCC report or the NAS report because they discuss these sort of natural variations in climate and other uncertainties and take them into account in estimating the certainties of their conclusions.
So, what exactly is your point? Do you want to sit blissfully back and do nothing until there is some airtight “proof” (which is essentially unheard of outside of the mathematical sciences) of global warming and they know what its effects will be down to a few significant figures? Or do you somehow feel that the peer-reviewed literature has insufficiently dealt with the points that you raise?
P.S. The references I provided to Grey Matters in an above post (Mann et al., Petit et al., Crowley) are good references into the literature on the subject of how this current warming episode (both in terms of real measurements and in terms of model extrapolations into the next century) compares to past climate variations.