On occasion I write about various aspects of the Anthropogenic Global Warming controversy. I try to take a scientific approach to the discussion and am quite convinced that the proponents of an impending AGW catastrophe do not currently have the weight of the evidence on their side; nor is there a scientific consensus that "man-made global warming" is a crisis. The effect of human derived CO2 on climate is uncertain, the computer models are so incomplete as to be nearly worthless, and the effects of solar output, interstellar dust and a host of other variables have not yet been well understood in their impact on climate. Using the AGW theory and current short term climate changes to justify and dictate policy prescriptions is thus quite problematic. At the moment, the greatest danger from climate change is not the potential of a few degrees of warming but rather the risk of well intentioned politicians and bureaucrats to curtail our freedoms in the name of saving the planet.
As promised, Jimmy J offers some nuanced perspective that is conspicuously absent from our MSM coverage of the problem:
It is always interesting to me that the "true believers" in AGW claim it is a cataclysmic crisis that must be attacked.......right now! Then when you ask them what to do it is always government regulation of transportation and government mandated alternative energy for electricity. And, oh yes, government enforced home energy conservation. They tell everyone that such measures will solve the problem.
I read an engineering report a few days back (can't find the link, so I'll be quoting from memory.) Anyway, the gist of the report was that if we are to slow or stop the CO2 build up without forcing the global population to go backward energy-wise, the world will have to:
1. Build 14 new nuclear power plants,
2. Build 44 new high efficiency coal fired plants,
3. Build the equivalent of Three Gorges hydroelectic capacity,
4. Convert 1,000,000 homes to all solar power,
5. Build 21 major wind or tidal farms,
EVERY YEAR for the next 40-50 years.That gives some perspective on the scale of what will be necessary to satisfy the goals of the AGW proponents and keep satisfying global energy demand while fazing out old power sources. Is it even possible? It may be possible, but would require a massive, united effort by all nations. It would also require that the Greens allow nuclear plants, hydro-electric plants, and wind farms (Yes, Teddy, off the coast of Cape Cod) to be built.
Now let's look at what we know about CO2. We know that it has been shown in the lab that CO2 can increase the amount of heat air can hold. Thus the term - green house gas. But there are other green house gases much more prevalent in the atmosphere. At present CO2 makes up about 357 parts per million of the atmosphere. That is .0357% or .OOO357 as a decimal fraction of the atmosphere. Pretty small increment of the atmosphere.
Water vapor is much more prevalent than CO2, but varies greatly from time to time and place to place. Here's what the American Geophysical Union says about it: "There are many atmospheric greenhouse gases, some naturally occurring and some resulting from industrial activities, but probably the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor. Water vapor is involved in an important climate feedback loop. As the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere increases, the atmosphere is able to hold more water vapor. The additional water vapor, acting as a greenhouse gas, absorbs energy that would otherwise escape to space and so causes further warming. This basic picture is complicated by important interactions between water vapor, clouds, atmospheric motion, and radiation from both the Sun and the Earth. There are some aspects of the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas that are not well understood, again mainly because we lack the necessary observations to test theoretical models." Also, water vapor is not emitted by man-made industrial plants or vehicles to the extent that CO2 is. Water vapor is hard to feed into computer models and it is hard to blame on man's activities. Coincidence? Maybe.
The claim is made by AGW proponents that they can build computer simulated climate models using the known amounts of atmospheric CO2 and feed other "forcings" into the models that show - with no doubt - that CO2 is the predominate reason for the last 100 years of temperature increase. I have a friend who was a climate researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder. He told me that climate is so complex and chaotic that it was very difficult to run climate simulations that had any validity. Computers have improved since those days (20 years ago) but there are still many climate and computer experts who believe as my friend did. At this point, IMO, this is a theory waiting for more data. And that is exactly the point the skeptics have been trying to make, but the UN's IPCC, Al Gore, and the media have all told them to sit down and shut up.
To conclude: I am convinced that, if CO2 is the sole cause of the warming, there will be plenty of time (100 years) to develop new energy sources and adapt to the changes (higher sea levels, better growing conditions, hotter summers, warmer winters, etc.) wrought by 1 degree of warming.
For those who claim that the AGW "emergency" dictates drastic responses, there is an additional reason to exercise extreme caution before using the UN or legislature to "treat the disease." That is, that once we cede power and responsibility for saving the planet to regulators and legislators, we have adopted the AGW proponent's framing of the problem, framing which defines economic progress as a zero-sum game. This is an approach that will lead to disaster. Judith Apter Klinghoffer quotes from and comments on an article by Martin Wolf that is a must-read:
LIMITING GROWTH MEANS GREAT ASIAN WAR
While Islamist terror presents the most immediate danger, the threat emanating from a Great Asian war between that continent's emerging powers is at least as dangerous. For as I, among others, have noted, the similarity between current conditions in Asia and those in Europe during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Russia, China, and India are already involved in a competition for resources and bases as well as a build up of their military and naval forces. It should also be remembered that some are democracies but others not.
Martin Wolf ignores emerging, aggressive Russia as well as the obvious differences in governance between India and China. He focuses instead on their commitment to economic development and points out the dangers of living in a zero-sum world economy: (posted below)
Nuclear weapons and the rise of the developmental state have made war among great powers obsolete. It is no accident then that most of the conflicts on the planet have been civil wars in poor countries that had failed to build the domestic foundations of the positive-sum economy.
But China and India have now achieved just that. Perhaps the most important single fact about the world we live in is that the leaderships of these two countries have staked their political legitimacy on domestic economic development and peaceful international commerce.
Having lived in both India and China, the last declarative sentence seems to be a tad too optimistic. Still, given the enormous rise in expectations and their current low living standards highligted in the recent World Bank report , there is little doubt but that any serious attempt to limit their growth will force the ruling elites in China and Russia, if not in India, to redirect the wrath of their citizens outwards with disastrous results. Unfortunately, that is precisely the aim of anti-Capitalists who seek to deal with climate change by limiting growth.
Radical environmentalists have always opposed capitalism and economic growth; a return to an idyllic state of nature is the goal for too many influential and powerful environmental organizations. The natural alliance between the Left and the radical environmentalists rests on this opposition to capitalism and wealth creation. It is almost certainly true that most environmentalists truly believe that "the Earth is in the balance" yet true believers in causes which require the control of other people have traditionally been amongst the most dangerous of ideologues. AGW proponents either consciously or unconsciously seek power to control all of us, all with the best of intentions. Yet the argument Judith makes, that limiting economic growth will inevitably lead to war, is historically true and extremely difficult to refute. It is one more compelling reason to treat AGW claims with a great deal of care.
Recent Comments