Global Warming and CO2
There's a new batch of news articles, adding to our historical CO2 level data from 440,000 years to 650,000 years. The conclusion of the article is that atmospheric CO2 levels are at least 27% higher than the highest pre-industrial level over this period.
Example:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2005-11-24-bubbles_x.htm?csp=N007
For me it wasn't news. There's estimates that our current CO2 levels are higher than they've been for the last 20 million years, using measurements from fossilized shells under the sea.
The article also says the rates of change are 100x higher than prehistorical levels. That's a big claim, considering that CO2 levels rose rapidly when transitioning from glacial to interglacial periods. I'd tend to be careful on claiming rates, given I assume limited prehistorical data points.
Here's some data comparisons: (Law dome data, picking a relatively high variation interval)
Years: -127411 to -127004 (307 years)
CO2: 264.1 to 282.7 ppm
Rate: +0.061ppm/year
Years: 1950-2000
CO2: 312-368.1 ppm
Rate: +1.14ppm/year
So comparing these numbers, we have 18.7x faster change now compared to that 300 year period 127,000 years ago during the previous interglacial warm period.
Quoting the article says: Moreover, that rise is occurring at a speed that "is over a factor of a hundred faster than anything we are seeing in the natural cycles," Stocker added. "It puts the present changes in context."
Given limited data, I think this statement is overstepping the evidence. Of course the data itself is subject to uncertainty, as well as probably averaging CO2 levels over a range of years, so the fineness of the variations is lost, and rate calculations over short periods can't be done. That doesn't mean it's useless to consider our rate of change, only that there's no simple comparison.
I gave a speech a couple years ago, showing CO2 changes, but I was reluctant to offer a direct correlation of CO2 and atmospheric average temperature. Even if there was a PRE-HUMAN correlation, it doesn't prove the correlation with burning fossil fuels, since we have no prehistorical data on the burning of massive amounts of fossil fuels.
I get very frustrated by the "global warming" vs "skeptics" debate. I hate both sides for misrepresenting the evidence, at least in regards to CO2. The pro-GW are reaching the dark at least as much as the skeptics.
For me I'm more comfortable with the two-pronged position (1) Humans are changing our environment in unpredictable ways and rising CO2 demonstrates our global effects. (2) Humans are using nonrenewable energy which must end and with it possibly the collapse of our entire "modern age".
Rising CO2 can have many changes we are unable to see. Scientists will say that higher CO2 is beneficial for plants to grow. If it's just CO2, I imagine once we finish burning off our fossil fuel resources, nature will respond, even if in a few thousand years to consume the "excess". However there's lots of side effects. The "short term" warming (or even the added soot perhaps) is causing polar ice to warm and melt and the methane rich permafrost is melting, which may accelerate global warming since Methane (CH4) is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2!
And given the earth has been in a 4 million year "ice age", when talking thousands of years, a vast majority of this period has been much colder. So we might be extending our warm interglacial period OR we might create a reverse feedback mechanism that will pull us back into a new glacial period. Over hundreds and thousands of years we can't guess what will happen. I do sort of like the idea of Gaia hypothesis, of the living earth, able to adjust to stresses and pulling things back to equilibrium. I certainly have no hope in judging value in warm or colder periods or the cycles between. There's many species that create our environment, and humans may or may not continue our dominance over the next 1000 years.
I do hold appreciation for other statistics of rates, even if equally limiting, like extinction. They say extinction rates of species are also now equal or greater than the most large catastrophic periods of the past, largely due to humans destroying ecosystems. It seems foolish for people to claim we're not destroying just because they can't see it with their eyes.
It is scary to imagine a future when the earth's diversity is further reduced than now. I have ZERO confidence that awareness of long term self-interest is enough to overpower short term greed and blindness to destroy.
I hold appreciate for efforts at predicting what the future might look like if we continue on our current course, even if I must be skeptical of their accuracy. Overall it seems easier for me to believe the worst predictions. James Lovelock of the Gaia hypothesis liked to focus on the ability of natural systems to recover against destruction, most specifically he dismissed the Ozone hole as a real problem. Faith in the robustness of living systems to adapt is reassuring, but it seems wrong to use it as a defense against continuing senseless destruction and pollution. Senseless meaning against our long term interests - like slash and burn farming in the rainforests.
I really tend to be a pessimist, imagine in 100 years permanent open waters in the actic, and glacial retreat, methane spikes from permafrost melting, rising sea levels, desertification of the remaining tropical forests, massive droughts and heat waves destroying delicate ecosystems. I see fossil fuel availability lost and forests burned for fuel. I see wars over resources and massive migrations of populations away from areas that can no longer support them. I can't imagine technical solutions for our problems. In short I feel humanity is on a mountaintop looking down at the chaos of violence we've caused, and our supports are giving way and nowhere else to go but down. I can believe in the ingenuity of humanity to "make do", and I can't imagine species extinction for humanity, but I do imagine our numbers will plummet whatever we want.
Ah well, so much for objective data. I'm pretty much surrendered to the "waiting game", trying to keep things simple and clean while appreciating the wonder of opportunities in the present, but knowing it can't last. A new winter is coming, and we're not prepared. We don't know how to prepare. So will shall die, many of us.
Happy thanksgiving?
P. S. This also represents Kenneth S. Deffeyes' predicted date of statistical maximum world oil production. I think he's probably a bit early, but whether by a day, a year, or decade, not by much in my best hope.
Example:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2005-11-24-bubbles_x.htm?csp=N007
For me it wasn't news. There's estimates that our current CO2 levels are higher than they've been for the last 20 million years, using measurements from fossilized shells under the sea.
The article also says the rates of change are 100x higher than prehistorical levels. That's a big claim, considering that CO2 levels rose rapidly when transitioning from glacial to interglacial periods. I'd tend to be careful on claiming rates, given I assume limited prehistorical data points.
Here's some data comparisons: (Law dome data, picking a relatively high variation interval)
Years: -127411 to -127004 (307 years)
CO2: 264.1 to 282.7 ppm
Rate: +0.061ppm/year
Years: 1950-2000
CO2: 312-368.1 ppm
Rate: +1.14ppm/year
So comparing these numbers, we have 18.7x faster change now compared to that 300 year period 127,000 years ago during the previous interglacial warm period.
Quoting the article says: Moreover, that rise is occurring at a speed that "is over a factor of a hundred faster than anything we are seeing in the natural cycles," Stocker added. "It puts the present changes in context."
Given limited data, I think this statement is overstepping the evidence. Of course the data itself is subject to uncertainty, as well as probably averaging CO2 levels over a range of years, so the fineness of the variations is lost, and rate calculations over short periods can't be done. That doesn't mean it's useless to consider our rate of change, only that there's no simple comparison.
I gave a speech a couple years ago, showing CO2 changes, but I was reluctant to offer a direct correlation of CO2 and atmospheric average temperature. Even if there was a PRE-HUMAN correlation, it doesn't prove the correlation with burning fossil fuels, since we have no prehistorical data on the burning of massive amounts of fossil fuels.
I get very frustrated by the "global warming" vs "skeptics" debate. I hate both sides for misrepresenting the evidence, at least in regards to CO2. The pro-GW are reaching the dark at least as much as the skeptics.
For me I'm more comfortable with the two-pronged position (1) Humans are changing our environment in unpredictable ways and rising CO2 demonstrates our global effects. (2) Humans are using nonrenewable energy which must end and with it possibly the collapse of our entire "modern age".
Rising CO2 can have many changes we are unable to see. Scientists will say that higher CO2 is beneficial for plants to grow. If it's just CO2, I imagine once we finish burning off our fossil fuel resources, nature will respond, even if in a few thousand years to consume the "excess". However there's lots of side effects. The "short term" warming (or even the added soot perhaps) is causing polar ice to warm and melt and the methane rich permafrost is melting, which may accelerate global warming since Methane (CH4) is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2!
And given the earth has been in a 4 million year "ice age", when talking thousands of years, a vast majority of this period has been much colder. So we might be extending our warm interglacial period OR we might create a reverse feedback mechanism that will pull us back into a new glacial period. Over hundreds and thousands of years we can't guess what will happen. I do sort of like the idea of Gaia hypothesis, of the living earth, able to adjust to stresses and pulling things back to equilibrium. I certainly have no hope in judging value in warm or colder periods or the cycles between. There's many species that create our environment, and humans may or may not continue our dominance over the next 1000 years.
I do hold appreciation for other statistics of rates, even if equally limiting, like extinction. They say extinction rates of species are also now equal or greater than the most large catastrophic periods of the past, largely due to humans destroying ecosystems. It seems foolish for people to claim we're not destroying just because they can't see it with their eyes.
It is scary to imagine a future when the earth's diversity is further reduced than now. I have ZERO confidence that awareness of long term self-interest is enough to overpower short term greed and blindness to destroy.
I hold appreciate for efforts at predicting what the future might look like if we continue on our current course, even if I must be skeptical of their accuracy. Overall it seems easier for me to believe the worst predictions. James Lovelock of the Gaia hypothesis liked to focus on the ability of natural systems to recover against destruction, most specifically he dismissed the Ozone hole as a real problem. Faith in the robustness of living systems to adapt is reassuring, but it seems wrong to use it as a defense against continuing senseless destruction and pollution. Senseless meaning against our long term interests - like slash and burn farming in the rainforests.
I really tend to be a pessimist, imagine in 100 years permanent open waters in the actic, and glacial retreat, methane spikes from permafrost melting, rising sea levels, desertification of the remaining tropical forests, massive droughts and heat waves destroying delicate ecosystems. I see fossil fuel availability lost and forests burned for fuel. I see wars over resources and massive migrations of populations away from areas that can no longer support them. I can't imagine technical solutions for our problems. In short I feel humanity is on a mountaintop looking down at the chaos of violence we've caused, and our supports are giving way and nowhere else to go but down. I can believe in the ingenuity of humanity to "make do", and I can't imagine species extinction for humanity, but I do imagine our numbers will plummet whatever we want.
Ah well, so much for objective data. I'm pretty much surrendered to the "waiting game", trying to keep things simple and clean while appreciating the wonder of opportunities in the present, but knowing it can't last. A new winter is coming, and we're not prepared. We don't know how to prepare. So will shall die, many of us.
Happy thanksgiving?
P. S. This also represents Kenneth S. Deffeyes' predicted date of statistical maximum world oil production. I think he's probably a bit early, but whether by a day, a year, or decade, not by much in my best hope.
posted by Ares Olympus at 10:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home