So how much CO2 is released when a politician farts? As much as when he or she speaks? It's a conundrum and no mistake, but let's just take a little look at the whole environmental thing. I don't like it. It smacks of religion.
Regular readers will be painfully aware that I'm a sceptic. I am sceptical of many things of which this is just one. But I also hope those same readers will attest that I'm perfectly happy to stand corrected if the math proves me wrong.
I've been wanting to vent my frustration at this subject for quite some time so within the spirit of being proven wrong, I thought I'd best dig a little deeper before I opened my big mouth and spilled type and invective all over my blog. Alas, I'm none the wiser but none the less, here I am...
Did you know that man, with everything he does in this world, produces bugger all in the overall carbon emission stakes? Really. We deforest and burn hydrocarbons at unprecedented rates and consequently produce an estimated 26.4 giga tons a year. Now that sounds like a lot but when you consider that just the respiration of plants globally produces an estimated 220gt a year, add 100gt or so for rotting vegetation and dead animals, and it doesn't seem like so much anymore.
Then there's volcanoes. I used to like volcanoes but now I'm not so sure. Stick your probe in a volcanic vent at a new eruption and you will find amazing concentrations of CO2 spewing forth. Check the local atmospheric ground station nearby however, and there's no spike at all in local concentrations of atmospheric CO2. How can this be? Where does it go? Do the rocks reabsorb it? Is it averaged in the atmosphere somehow? Does convection drive it to the troposphere where we don't measure it? We simply don't know, but if even half the concentrations we measure at various ground level vents are mixing with the atmosphere, we're talking thousands's of giga tons, not tens or hundreds, so you see why it's an issue, even if some say it isn't.
Then there's evidence from the Vostok ice core that would tend to suggest that global warming and the resulting "ice age" is cyclical. About every 10,000 to 12,000 years, or so it seems, the earth suffers a short (geologically) but intense period of global warming, followed by rapid cooling that seems to result in a major glaciation (ice age) that lasts for about 10,000 years. Evidence would suggest that this has happened at least four times in the last 100,000 years or so and that the last ice age ended about 11,000 years ago. So could it be a cyclical event we're witnessing? The timing seems about right but once again, we really don't know.
So you can see my problem. It seems to me that we're being extolled to believe something that as yet, has not been entirely proven and that my friends, is what smacks of religion. It's as if we've simply employed Pascal's wager and are just believing because it's better to believe than to take the chance.
But unlike the god of Pascal's wager, these claims are provable, one way or the other, if we get the science right. The math so far suggests that in the context of global emissions, man's activities may account for as little as 0.1% of the total carbon footprint produced at ground level. That really doesn't sound like much, but there is such a thing as "the straw that broke the camel's back". Are we that straw? It wouldn't seem so, but who really knows? The answer unfortunately, just as it is with god, is "no-one knows...yet".
I'm all for being cautious and responsible but if the net effect of this argument is simply to make my life more expensive, I shall be extremely annoyed.
A couple of references I used:
Google "carbon emissions" for a myriad more links and references but 'ware the doomsayers...On both sides...
23 Comments:
The answer unfortunately, just as it is with god, is "no-one knows...yet".
I like this sentence.
Is that it? Well, I'm glad you found something of merit...;)
How much gas is emitted when a politician _arts? Apparently, quite a bit, if you live "here", now. I am sick of it. If they'd
all shut up and WORK, that should
help, some, shouldn't it????
Donna:
How much gas is emitted when a politician _arts?
Ah yes, but is it as much as when they speak?
Are you still stirring? ;o) Just as well I dropped by to keep an eye on you. The link below from the New Scientist article seems to suggest that there is little doubt at all from the overwhelming number of people who should know about these things.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11654
P.S. I don't think much of blogger. Why don't you come over to Vox where all the trendies are?
Snowy (who else)
G'day Snowy...:)
What, the one from New Scientist I provided wasn't good enough?
An overwhelming number of scientists have also complained for a great many years that their grants depend on you not rocking the boat. Try and get a research grant to study a lack of man's influence on the atmosphere and it just won't happen. There's a reason the numbers are lopsided here, just as there's a reason why there's more christians than atheists.
Check the science Snowy. Neither side is convincing or can prove their claims...yet... But I'm sure a time will come.
G'day Plonka.
I must admit having just read Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers, I'm not sure that I'm able to dismiss this so readily.
For example, it's true that human CO2 emissions are small. But it's also true that CO2 makes up a stunningly small percentage of the atmosphere.
And so far, we also know things like the rate at which oceans absorb CO2 (not fast) forests (faster) algae (moderate) and the rate at which forests are being cleared - last I heard it was an area the size of a football field every second.
Emissions might not be great (quantitatively), but if we're also clearing away our most efficient carbon sequestration mechanisms quickly, it doesn't take a genius to add up the numbers and see that we're producing CO2 faster than the world can get rid of it.
We also know from various modelling and experiments what would happen to temperatures if the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was to double. We also know that since the industrial revolution, as measured by ice core samples and Keeling's work atop Mauna Loa (Hawaii), that CO2 concentration has increased from 280 parts per million to 380 parts per million.
In overall atmospheric terms, this may not sound like a lot, but in terms of the increase in CO2 itself, this represents an increase from 586 gigatonnes to 790 Gt. Or an increase of about 34%. Considering this increase to be material is really putting it politely.
Add to this the the impact that increased CO2 has on water vapour levels - H2O vapour is also a serious greenhouse gas. It's generally agreed that the level of CO2 in the air has a direct influence on the retention of H2O.
Oh sure there are other greenhouse gases out there that are just as bad - methane is one. Hydrogen sulphide is another. So's nitrous oxide, HFCs and CFCs. But the reason that we're focussed on CO2 emissions is really because of one reason - it's more readily manageable than the others.
It seems to me that we're being extolled to believe something that as yet, has not been entirely proven and that my friends, is what smacks of religion.
Hmm. Plonka, was it intentional for that statement to come out sounding like a creationist's argument against evolution?
There might not be actual proof per se, and maybe not even evolution levels of evidence, but questioning global warming doesn't appear to be regarded as skepticism anymore. Indeed I have heard the word "denialism" bandied about. That's usually the point where it's fair to say that that scientific consensus is behind it.
I didn't deny global warming. In fact, I'm quite happy to agree that the average temperature of the earth has risen .8C since records began. It doesn't sound like much but being an average, it is.
It's simply all this talk about our production of CO2 being the cause of it that is my problem. As you say, there are many other factors that the average person doesn't seem to know or hear anything about.
Yes, we do know how much CO2 levels have increased since the industrial revolution began, but ice cores also tell us that CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today, that the earth has been much warmer than it is today and that the earth's climate oscillates between hot and cold. How did all that happen without the steam engine you ask? Well, that's what I'd like to know.
Check the summary for the last 130,000 years of the current "ice age" here. Minor events happen a lot more often than they're given credit for and it's a proven cycle that I never seem to hear about in main stream news or politics, except where it's being denied.
it's more readily manageable than the others
Only if there's an alternative and sequestration doesn't cut it. And how do we manage the 1000's of gig tons that next summer's bush fires are going to produce? It really isn't as manageable as we'd like to think.
Hmm. Plonka, was it intentional for that statement to come out sounding like a creationist's argument against evolution?
Quite the opposite Dikkii. Prove God exists and I'll believe it. Likewise, prove I'm making a significant contribution and I'll believe it. There are far to many unanswered questions and un-addressed possibilities for my taste and you've touched on just a few.
CFC's for instance are 5 times denser than the atmosphere and can be poured from bucket to bucket. Sure, a minute quantity may find it's way into the upper atmosphere but it's doubtful. The conditions required are not often found at ground level. Yet we believed it and now we use HFC's because they're meant to be safe, or so we were told at the time...
But that's another story which I shall address in another post and may go a long way to explaining my scepticism concerning the whole CO2 debate.
Only if there's an alternative and sequestration doesn't cut it. And how do we manage the 1000's of gig tons that next summer's bush fires are going to produce? It really isn't as manageable as we'd like to think.
Well, maybe. But Flannery's (and others') points about CO2 emissions is simply this: In your post, you quoted a figure that humans produced an estimated 26.4 Gt of CO2 per year. Flannery quotes a figure of about 2.5 Gt which is how much the atmospheric content of CO2 increased in each of 2002 and 2003 (I think. I don't have his book in front of me). Therefore, we only have to cut CO2 production by a little over 10% in order for us to keep CO2 under control.
Likewise, we can control a substantial amount of CO2 emissions by limiting the global rate of deforestation. Yes, we know that we have about as much chance of getting farmers on Borneo and Sumatra to stop slashing and burning their forests as what Mark Webber has of winning an F1 championship in a Red Bull, but at least we can have a go.
I didn't deny global warming.
Quite right, and I apologise for the way my wording came out. It was poor.
Yes, we do know how much CO2 levels have increased since the industrial revolution began, but ice cores also tell us that CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today, that the earth has been much warmer than it is today and that the earth's climate oscillates between hot and cold.
Yes, but has any of this happened in the space of less than 150 years without a global cataclysm? I think not.
Yet we believed it and now we use HFC's because they're meant to be safe, or so we were told at the time...
Lesser of two evils, Plonka. We "need" (actually, we could use air pumps but that's a different story) propellant for aerosols. CFCs, FCs and HFCs destroy ozone, HCs don't (which is what I think you meant to type). But yes, they're all greenhouse gases.
The figure I used was the biggest estimate I could find and it came from New Scientist.
But let's assume that Flannery is 100% correct instead. Plants produce 220gt per year, just breathing and about 110gt rotting, along with their animal counterparts. Let's say we added 2.5gt (or even 26.4gt) a year to that. Plants also reabsorb about 440gt per year. Oops, it's all accounted for...
as what Mark Webber has of winning an F1 championship
Lol! So true...:)
but has any of this happened in the space of less than 150 years without a global cataclysm? I think not.
Then you probably need to think again, but I guess it depends what you mean by "cataclysm".
About 14,500 (+/- 200 years) yrs ago, rapid deglaciation occurred and the Younger Dryas period ended. Sea levels rose about 150 metres as the ice melted and it happened in less than 50 years, yet there's no evidence of a major cataclysm at that time.
By about 8,000 yrs ago and up to about 4,500 yrs ago, the earth was much warmer and wetter than it is today and CO2 levels were much higher. At about 4,500 yrs ago, the earth cooled rapidly (again), CO2 was reabsorbed (rapidly, again) and we entered the period we currently enjoy. Ever since, CO2 levels have been slowly, yet steadily increasing. Yes, the increase has been sharper since the industrial revolution. But then, the increase ws very sharp just before the earth froze in less than 50 years about 25,000 yrs ago (when was the steam engine invented?), without evidence of major cataclysmic upheaval, and so began the last major Younger Dryas period.
And no, I did not mean to write "HC's". We were told by various authorities during the 80's and 90's, that HFC's are godly and do NO damage to the atmosphere while CFC's are evil and must be banished.
Oh, and CFC's do NOT destroy ozone. ClO's do that when they get exited in all that UV and bind with other stuff up there. But how much difference did our "management" of the situation really make. None, is the answer I believe.
Humans are insignificant. To think our pissy 26.4gt (or is it 2.5gt?) per year makes a that much difference when a volcano or a bush fire can produce a lot more than that in a day, really is pretentious I think...
G'day Plonka.
That was a link from the New Scientist link you provided, Plonka.
I find it is very difficult for the layman to make an informed decision on scientific matters such as these. I was a climate change sceptic for a long time which I freely admit was due to my inbuilt prejudice because of my association with the electricity supply industry.
Living with water reservoirs which have dropped to 11% does make you reassess your attitudes. I don't know if the lack of rainfall is due to man made global warming, or not, but if the majority of scientists say that we must reduce our carbon emissions, I'm happy to take them at their word.
Snowy
OK- I "get" global warming, I recycle, AND I'm an animal lover, so I also think we should be respective of preserving habitats
for endangered species, etc. Beyond that, my mind is too tiny!!
But, to answer your question, Ted,
when a (U.S.) politician "talks",
more gas is expended orally than would be the OTHER way. However, both forms are somewhat "hot air", so to me there isn't much difference. I'm just sick of it all. Now the big thing is, apparently, whom can do/say the dumbest thing they think they won't
get "called out" on and how fast afterwards can they "resign"??
Snowy:
I find it is very difficult for the layman to make an informed decision on scientific matters such as these.
Yes, it is. If you don't dig, you don't get even half the info required to make an informed decision. But I'm not a climate change sceptic, nor even a global warming sceptic for that matter. I am sceptical of the instance that the amount of CO2 we produce is actually making a difference and that by curbing our miniscule contribution, somehow global warming will stop.
but if the majority of scientists say that we must reduce our carbon emissions
The vast majority of scientists during the 80's also agreed that banning CFCs in spray cans would stop the depletion of ozone during the winter and spring months in Antarctica. Billions were spent and whole industries made the change, yet we still have an ozone issue that's just as bad, if not worse. Why? Because it's natural processes that pump the Cl into the upper atmosphere, not spray cans.
Maybe about the CFC thing. It appears that this is being reassessed.
I could have worded Flannery's argument a little better:
Flannery notes that in 2002 and 2003 the CO2 content of the atmosphere increased by about 2.5 Gt from all sources - human produced and otherwise. Flannery suggests that this was a spike and that the annual figures are normally closer to about 1.3-1.4 ish Gt.
Now if we're producing CO2 at roughly 26.4 Gt per year (your figures, and you think that this is a worst case scenario, but we'll go with that) and Flannery suggests a reduction in our CO2 production by 10% - well 10% of 26.4 Gt is 2.6 Gt.
2.6 Gt reduction > 2.5 Gt annual increase (or even 1.4 Gt normal annual increase), and therefore, ceteris paribus, we can get "carbon neutral" without too much effort.
(Let's ignore that "without too much effort bit" - just getting Kyoto out there is taking too much time and effort, but I digress)
Hence the reason that it is suggested that CO2 is more manageable than most other greenhouse gases. It still doesn't deal with CH4, SO2, H2O, and all the others. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater - it's a start.
Dikkii:
Maybe about the CFC thing. It appears that this is being reassessed.
It was assessed and found wanting at the time too, but no-one listened to the scientists that couldn't get grants to prove it. Grants were only available if you wanted to research that CFCs were bad and as I said to Snowy, try and get a grant to research whether man's production of CO2 does NOT have a significant effect now and it won't happen. It's the same scenrio.
the CO2 content of the atmosphere increased by about 2.5 Gt from all sources
Ok, I see, sorry. That makes a lot more sense but it was probably my reading rather than your writing. Either way, a 10% reduction will cost billions and it will most likely have absolutely no effect on global warming.
your figures, and you think that this is a worst case scenario
Well, New Scientist figures anyway. It's an estimate of man's current contribution per year, not a worse case. It was the biggest estimate I could find and point at. It also had the added advantage of being readable...:)
It still doesn't deal with CH4, SO2, H2O, and all the others.
No, it doesn't...
Donna:
Well it is a selection campaign. But don't worry Donna, they're just as bad over here...
Uh, notice I can't really "weigh in" on anything of "global importance". That's kinda hard to do when you operate from a "tiny mind"!! Obviously, I have to be VERY selective in my blog crawling!!
Ha-ha!!
What? A tiny mind?!? Telling fibs will get you nowhere around here Donna...:)
"...'Ware the doomsayers..."
Careful Ted, you're getting awful close to describing yourself here.
I'm sorry I can't give you more than that. At the moment I have a hard time getting my head around personal, let alone global problems.
Even I have to push aside the big picture and employ self-preservation methods at times.
Phoenix
I'm very middle of the road on this one Phoenix. Just because I'm of the opinion that we don't make a significant enough CO2 contribution doesn't mean it's true. By the same token, when a bunch of scientists who's livelihood depends on their research grant say we do, they need to be able to point to conclusive proof if they want me to believe them.
Oprah said that Maya Angelou once told her "When someone shows you what they REALLY are, the first time, BELIEVE THEM!" I'd alter that a bit & say When someone tells
you what they are, believe them the 1st time. Believe me, "it's"
a tiny mind!! However, on the other side of the coin, once someone has gained my trust, (and that isn't easy!1), I'm VERY loyal.
I can come up with seemingly endless minute random facts, but forget every bit of chemistry I ever knew and was NOT any good @ algebra- ask my 15 yr old. I don't
"get it".
Oh, well, it seems to be a somewhat
known common denominator, in the medical field, that most "genuises"
had some form of mental illness- Einstein & John Nash are the 2 that
come to mind. Am I equating myself
with them? NO. Remember, I can't do algebra!!
Besides- remember, YOU are here to
think. I am here to make you laugh!!
Well, I don;t know how you'll go with the next one, it'll be nearly all chemistry, but I'll try to make it easy...
Um, I don't think "they" can make
it THAT easy. I'll try to muddle
thru...
I cannot believe I USED to have a somewhat "photographic" memory, and now there're days when I do well to remember my name!! And geez, I'm not "elderly", either.
Post a Comment