At Witz' End - Global Warming Pro
by Gary Witzenburg on Aug 3rd 2008 at 4:01PM 
There are cogent arguments on both sides
If you read my first ABG column a few weeks ago, you know that I'm no believer in human-caused global warming. My logical, data-driven engineering mind can't wrap around the idea that the 4% of CO2 created by all of the planet's human activity (96% is naturally generated), which goes into the less than 4% of greenhouse gases (95% is water vapor) and the 380 parts per million of the atmosphere that is CO2, can really be making much difference.
But wait! Before you begin writing the usual angry, insulting comments questioning my intelligence and ancestry, be aware that I recently wrote a pretty good argument supporting anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Why? It was an assignment for a major web site that wanted a balanced presentation of both sides so its readers could decide which to believe.
So I pried open my mind as far as it would go and went looking for expert evidence that we humans are, indeed, endangering the planet by burning carbon-based fuels, and breathing.
What follows is essentially what I wrote:
Yes, it's happening. But why, and what are the long-term consequences?
A lot has been said and written about the critically important issue of AGW. To understand what is really happening and why, and what might happen in the future, let's begin by separating truth from hype.
First, everyone should understand that the issue of global warming (or "climate change") has nothing to do with air pollution, because CO2 is neither "dirt" nor a pollutant.
Take a deep breath. Exhale. Much of what comes out of your mouth is carbon dioxide (CO2). All air-breathing creatures take in air, and their lungs separate oxygen from it. What emerges from the other end of this process is CO2, which is exhaled with every breath. The other side of this brilliantly designed system is plants, which absorb CO2 and "exhale" oxygen.
The Supreme Court confused the issue in 2007 by ruling that CO2 is a "pollutant" so they could compel the EPA to regulate it. But carbon dioxide -- not to be confused with potentially poisonous carbon monoxide (CO) -- is colorless, odorless and absolutely harmless. It is the bubbly gas in our beer and carbonated soft drinks.
But it is also emitted when carbon fuels are burned.
Atmospheric greenhouses gases effectively trap heat by absorbing some of what is reflected by the Earth's surface and re-radiating some of that back downward. Without them, scientists say, the surface temperature would average about zero degrees F. Water vapor is most of the other 96 percent, but the CO2 component has been increasing (due mostly to combustion of carbon-based fuels and fast-growing human and animal populations) since the industrial revolution. From a pre-industrial concentration of 280 parts per million (ppm), atmospheric CO2 has grown to 380 ppm today, and the current 1.9 ppm-per-year rate of increase predicts nearly 400 ppm in 10 years and 550 by the end of this century.
That is still a tiny amount – 380 ppm is just 0.038 percent, or 38 molecules of CO2 per 100,000 of everything – but many scientists contend that even that concentration is so far above the estimated range of 180 to 300 ppm over the past 650,000 years that the resulting increase in greenhouse gases has caused a warming trend over the last century. According to data accumulated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74 degrees C (roughly 1.3 degrees F) since the late 19th century, and the linear trend of 0.13 degrees C per decade over the past 50 years is nearly twice that for the past 100 years.
Where the debate begins and scientists split into warring camps is the issue of cause and effect. The separate facts that both atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures have increased may or may not mean that one is causing the other. Scientists believing that the two are linked have built that theory into complex computer "climate models" that attempt to understand global climate behavior and interaction of its components, then predict its future.
And projecting the undeniable temperature trend of the relatively recent past into the distant future shows some fairly scary long-term scenarios. Among them are melting ice caps and glaciers, rising sea levels and potentially catastrophic heat waves and droughts, especially in warm tropical regions. NCDC says global mean sea levels have risen an average 1.7 mm (0.07 in.) per year over the past century and could rise another 0.18-0.59 meters (0.6-1.9 ft.) over the next 100 years, "depending on which greenhouse gas increase scenario is used."
A Special Report on Emission Scenarios issued by The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is made up of scientists and environmentalists from around the world, predicts a range of possible future greenhouse gas concentrations based on population and economic growth and energy efficiency. "This leads to a wide range of possible forcing scenarios," says NCDC, "and consequently a wide range of possible future climates."
IPCC predicts a global temperature increase in the range of 1.1 - 6.4 degrees C by 2100, depending on which emissions scenario is used. But IPCC's mission of forcing CO2 reductions on nations, however, is that population and economic growth, by definition, consume ever more energy and produce increasing amounts of CO2. What nation will voluntarily cut its economic activity, let alone try to reduce its population?
It appears that the only realistic way to significantly decrease man-made CO2 will be to develop safe and affordable non-carbon energy sources that will, over time, enable the world's populations to consume the massive and fast-increasing amounts of energy they will need to survive and thrive without emitting proportionally growing volumes of greenhouses gases.
If you read my first ABG column a few weeks ago, you know that I'm no believer in human-caused global warming. My logical, data-driven engineering mind can't wrap around the idea that the 4% of CO2 created by all of the planet's human activity (96% is naturally generated), which goes into the less than 4% of greenhouse gases (95% is water vapor) and the 380 parts per million of the atmosphere that is CO2, can really be making much difference.But wait! Before you begin writing the usual angry, insulting comments questioning my intelligence and ancestry, be aware that I recently wrote a pretty good argument supporting anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Why? It was an assignment for a major web site that wanted a balanced presentation of both sides so its readers could decide which to believe.
So I pried open my mind as far as it would go and went looking for expert evidence that we humans are, indeed, endangering the planet by burning carbon-based fuels, and breathing.
What follows is essentially what I wrote:
Yes, it's happening. But why, and what are the long-term consequences?
A lot has been said and written about the critically important issue of AGW. To understand what is really happening and why, and what might happen in the future, let's begin by separating truth from hype.
First, everyone should understand that the issue of global warming (or "climate change") has nothing to do with air pollution, because CO2 is neither "dirt" nor a pollutant.
Take a deep breath. Exhale. Much of what comes out of your mouth is carbon dioxide (CO2). All air-breathing creatures take in air, and their lungs separate oxygen from it. What emerges from the other end of this process is CO2, which is exhaled with every breath. The other side of this brilliantly designed system is plants, which absorb CO2 and "exhale" oxygen.
The Supreme Court confused the issue in 2007 by ruling that CO2 is a "pollutant" so they could compel the EPA to regulate it. But carbon dioxide -- not to be confused with potentially poisonous carbon monoxide (CO) -- is colorless, odorless and absolutely harmless. It is the bubbly gas in our beer and carbonated soft drinks.
But it is also emitted when carbon fuels are burned.
Atmospheric greenhouses gases effectively trap heat by absorbing some of what is reflected by the Earth's surface and re-radiating some of that back downward. Without them, scientists say, the surface temperature would average about zero degrees F. Water vapor is most of the other 96 percent, but the CO2 component has been increasing (due mostly to combustion of carbon-based fuels and fast-growing human and animal populations) since the industrial revolution. From a pre-industrial concentration of 280 parts per million (ppm), atmospheric CO2 has grown to 380 ppm today, and the current 1.9 ppm-per-year rate of increase predicts nearly 400 ppm in 10 years and 550 by the end of this century.
That is still a tiny amount – 380 ppm is just 0.038 percent, or 38 molecules of CO2 per 100,000 of everything – but many scientists contend that even that concentration is so far above the estimated range of 180 to 300 ppm over the past 650,000 years that the resulting increase in greenhouse gases has caused a warming trend over the last century. According to data accumulated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74 degrees C (roughly 1.3 degrees F) since the late 19th century, and the linear trend of 0.13 degrees C per decade over the past 50 years is nearly twice that for the past 100 years.
Where the debate begins and scientists split into warring camps is the issue of cause and effect. The separate facts that both atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures have increased may or may not mean that one is causing the other. Scientists believing that the two are linked have built that theory into complex computer "climate models" that attempt to understand global climate behavior and interaction of its components, then predict its future.
And projecting the undeniable temperature trend of the relatively recent past into the distant future shows some fairly scary long-term scenarios. Among them are melting ice caps and glaciers, rising sea levels and potentially catastrophic heat waves and droughts, especially in warm tropical regions. NCDC says global mean sea levels have risen an average 1.7 mm (0.07 in.) per year over the past century and could rise another 0.18-0.59 meters (0.6-1.9 ft.) over the next 100 years, "depending on which greenhouse gas increase scenario is used."
A Special Report on Emission Scenarios issued by The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is made up of scientists and environmentalists from around the world, predicts a range of possible future greenhouse gas concentrations based on population and economic growth and energy efficiency. "This leads to a wide range of possible forcing scenarios," says NCDC, "and consequently a wide range of possible future climates."
IPCC predicts a global temperature increase in the range of 1.1 - 6.4 degrees C by 2100, depending on which emissions scenario is used. But IPCC's mission of forcing CO2 reductions on nations, however, is that population and economic growth, by definition, consume ever more energy and produce increasing amounts of CO2. What nation will voluntarily cut its economic activity, let alone try to reduce its population?
It appears that the only realistic way to significantly decrease man-made CO2 will be to develop safe and affordable non-carbon energy sources that will, over time, enable the world's populations to consume the massive and fast-increasing amounts of energy they will need to survive and thrive without emitting proportionally growing volumes of greenhouses gases.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
mcleodtim 4:14PM (8/03/2008)
well done, and includes several facts [i assume the current numbers are not under dispute] that i was unaware of; interesting to see this point of view, considering the venue; i will try to use it to pry my little closed mind open just a tad; hope we can continue to discuss without becoming religious-minded . . .
Reply
Luke 4:56PM (8/03/2008)
How dare you!! LOL!
Reply
Alric 5:07PM (8/03/2008)
Thankfully. I don't have to read your opinion and mischaracterization of the science behind AGW.
"Where the debate begins and scientists split into warring camps is the issue of cause and effect."
The scientific consensus is that AGW is real and should be addressed. All major scientific organizations back this consensus, to the same level the theory of evolution is a consensus.
So please stop arguing there is debate or that there should be balance. We have to deal with the facts before is too late and facts deal with us..
Reply
rj 10:37PM (8/03/2008)
CO2 production is going up, up, up. You live in a beautiful fantasy dreamworld if you think the human race can get together and put the brakes on that particular train. not gonna happen - no way.
James Bowe 10:52PM (8/03/2008)
ok rj, so what are you suggesting? That we just keep on keepin on, enjoying our selfish destructive ways, right until the end? Isn't this a bit unfair to all those that come after us? Is it better to fail at attempting the right thing, or to be a rousing success doing the wrong thing?
Der Alte 5:06PM (8/03/2008)
The issue of global warming is tremendously complex. It is probably one of the most complex endeavours the scientific community has ever embarked upon because there are so many variables and uncertainties. I think for the average person, the main message to take out of all this is that we as a species must pay more attention to living our lives in a sustainable manner. What does that really mean? Leave the earth in just as good shape as when you arrived, and hopefully in better shape. How far should we go in our aims to do this? We should not throw our collective economies into ruins as the wealth they generate will help us make things better. There may be a requirement for some pain and tough choices however....the right thing is not always the easiest or most profitable thing to do.
I think that this is common ground and a common approach that most people can agree upon. The earth is not a toilet or dumping ground to use and humanity's convenience. We must ensure our everyday actions, both personally and in the business world, reflect sustainable practices.
In terms of the world of automobiles. Oil won't last forever. While there is debate as to how much is left, what is certain is that what is left is either expensive to get at or in sensitive ecological areas. The earlier we start to wean ourselves off of oil, the better. Focus should be placed on low carbon alternatives that are economically viable and sustainable. Getting ourselves weaned off of oil will take generations and will rank as one of humanities greatest achievements should we ever get there. It is a worthwhile goal.
Now that is something I think everybody on both sides of the global warming debate should be able to agree upon. Focussing more on common aims gets you a lot further than focussing on the differences.
Reply
John Hollenberg 5:42PM (8/03/2008)
> Where the debate begins and scientists split into warring camps is the issue of cause and effect. The separate facts that both atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures have increased may or may not mean that one is causing the other.
This has been debunked a long time ago:
http://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
I see the author didn't dig very deeply into this issue, and repeats a lot of misinformation. For some real information from climate researchers, see:
http://www.realclimate.org/
Reply
meme 9:42PM (8/03/2008)
"This has been debunked a long time ago: http://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm"
This is why people who aren't familiar with a complex scientific topic shouldn't pontificate about it. First, we must define the terms "forcing" and "feedback":
Forcing: a trigger that causes atmospheric changes down the road
Feedback: a response mechanism that amplifies or suppresses forcing
In the short term, classic examples of forcing and feedback are CO2 versus water vapor. Water vapor has an extremely short residency period in the atmosphere; it's always entering and leaving in it. Even if something caused water vapors to go way out of whack, it'd be back to normal in short order. What "back to normal" is, however, depends on the various forcing elements determining how much water vapor, on average, will be in the atmosphere. CO2, in contrast to water vapor, has what might be analogized to a "half life" of many hundreds of years. For example, the oceans are a huge CO2 sink (CO2 from the air exchanges with that in the water). Unlike water vapor, if you throw the CO2 out of whack, it's not going to get back to "normal" for many hundreds to thousands of years. So, even though water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, it cannot act as forcing on the time scales we're looking at.
Now, let's go back to an entirely different timescale: the hundreds of thousands of years that you see on the Vostok ice core data. What is a couple hundred years of CO2 residency to the Vostok ice cores? A blink of an eye. On these long timescales, CO2 is *feedback*, not *forcing*. Forcing on these timescales is things like the Milankovitch cycles.
This is really basic stuff, but the fact that people who've probably never read a peer-reviewed paper on the subject suddenly feel fit to declare themselves experts is a good example of the importance of peer review.
steve 6:13PM (8/03/2008)
There are arguments on both sides. 95% of the scientists in the world disagree with you,but you seem to suggest otherwise.
Shame on you.
Reply
Hans Wurst 6:35PM (8/03/2008)
>So please stop arguing there is debate
Awww, come on, what fun is that?
>...or that there should be balance
Balance was a good thing in my book, last time I checked (but it keeps changing, naturally)
>All major scientific organizations back this consensus
And all major scientific organizations have been way off before, and any real major scientist will admit, even if only to herself in a quiet and honest moment, that they have nothing but wild theories about everything, which keep changing.
>...to the same level the theory of evolution is a consensus
You know that the consensus on this was very different not too long ago. And just because the current consensus is newer, does NOT mean that it is truer.
Reply
Bob 6:36PM (8/03/2008)
Perhaps it's my opinion that I don't see how light rays can possibly be bent by the gravity field of a star, and therefore I think Einstein was wrong. Does my opinion count as much as his?
These kinds of columns are really a disservice. We have an entire scientific community doing a tremendous amount of research - what is the point if we're not going to listen to them?
Reply
John 6:53PM (8/03/2008)
Since when does being an auto engineer makes you smarter than scientists specializing in the field?
Reply
Jay 7:04PM (8/03/2008)
I find it very odd that a self-avowed disbeliever was asked to argue the case FOR AGW:
"It was an assignment for a major web site that wanted a balanced presentation of both sides so its readers could decide which to believe."
Could the major web site be related to FOX news, or their ilk?
Your half-hearted attempt to "wrap your mind around" the idea that the Earth's climate could experience sensitive dependence on initial conditions reveals the shortcomings of a worldview shaped by an engineering education. Please leave the climate science to climatologists who, contrary to your spin, are not "separated into warring factions", but have repeatedly issued consensus warnings that action must be taken ASAP to avoid drastic changes in the state of the climate system.
No name-calling or ancestor disparagement required.
Reply
Snowdog 7:01PM (8/03/2008)
Where is ABG going? Between posting unfiltered GM propaganda videos to hosting corporate shills like this guy. Does ABG have any credibility left?
Of course this guy is repeating arguments that are known to be debunked, implying there is a big split in the scientific community that doesn't exist. That is what he is paid to do. These eels are hired to create the very controversy he claims exists.
But the main question remains. Why is ABG hosting this stuff?
Reply
Mike!!ekiM 7:05PM (8/03/2008)
Can you get your head around the fact of Human population growth? Of Species Extinction? Of Oil and Food Shortages? Global warming is JUST one more symptom of rampant human population growth.
http://www.conservation.org/learn/species/Pages/overview.aspx
Here's some clues:
- On the "open road", when's the last time you saw an "open road"?
- When is the last time you saw anything other then birds and squirrel's in your back yard?
- When's the last time you drove to a major city and watched the start and end of rush hour? Starts at 4PM in Philadelphia and ends around 8PM.
- When's the last time you dropped by a major city's ports? And watched the number and scale of the unloading operations?
- When's the last time you went to an airport and counted the number of planes taking off and landing in one hour?
Suburban people haven't a CLUE to the TRUE SCALE of the Human Impact on the Planet.
From the beginning of time, to 1000 AD, human population never exceeded 250 million people.
Then the Jump occurs, in 1776, 232 years ago human population was just 1 Billion people. Today: 6.5 billion.
Have you tried getting your head around a 5.5 billion jump of people in just 232 years?
We use SCIENCE as an Early Warning System. I don't know if a new plague will hit our country, but, we've built Health organizations to monitor new flu in other countries to help protect us before our population is affected or wiped out. So to, we depend on established science to warn us of our impact on the planet.
Your unqualified opinion that 95+% of the worlds scientific community is wrong about this doesn't hold much of an argument for me, because, for anything that affect human population we don't take a Vote, we listen to people of have expertise on the matter.
If you don't "believe" in global warming you haven't done your research. ( Scientific American and Science are good web sites to visit. )
Reply
Mike!!ekiM 7:30PM (8/03/2008)
Stealing from Wikipedia, we are currently in the early stages of a HUMAN-CAUSED Mass Extinction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction#Modern_mass_extinction
Modern mass extinction
Main article: Holocene extinction event
According to a 1998 survey of 400 biologists conducted by New York's American Museum of Natural History, nearly 70 percent believed that they were currently in the early stages of a human-caused mass extinction,[20] known as the Holocene extinction event.
---
Can I SEE a Mass Extinction from my back yard? No. Does that mean it isn't happening?
Which is more likely:
1) Mass Extinction will be good for mankind
2) Mass Extinction will lead to Human extinction.
rj 10:49PM (8/03/2008)
95% is a low number if you ask me. If 5% of scientists have doubts about the current thinking on the effects of man made CO2 - thats huge. more work needs to be done.
BlackbirdHighway 7:09PM (8/03/2008)
I'm sort of curious, where exactly does your "logical, data-driven engineering mind" find a flaw in the modeling and calculations that hundreds of highly trained scientists have been working on and peer reviewing and comparing against data measurements collected in the field for decades?
Have you made your own calculations or models? And backed them up with observations in the field? Because if you have some specific problems with the work that has been done, I'm willing to explore that.
Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I get the impression that your comments are just based on your "gut feel". If that's the case, then I'm sorry, but that's not how engineering, or science, works.
Reply
Nicholas 7:18PM (8/03/2008)
Get this scumbag off ABG now before I puke!!!! NO WAY he will be able to infiltrate ABG without a fight from my side. This asshole is probably paid by Exxonmobil.
Reply
rj 10:52PM (8/03/2008)
this kind of language and attitude totally sways me to the other side of the argument - good job sir!