CO2 and the Drastic Solution

 

CO2 and the Drastic Solution

The sham debate over our poor understanding of inadequate climate studies has shifted to a new footing: the opponents of the assumption of threatening global warming now say the presumed cause is good for us.

In a world without human activity, natural sources of CO2, such as volcanoes, decomposing plant material, and wildfires, would be balanced by natural “sinks” that absorb it, such as the ocean and plants that take in CO2 during photosynthesis, according to Daniele Visioni, professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Cornell University.

While natural emissions are about 10 times greater than human-caused emissions annually, human activities are the primary cause of the current rise in atmospheric CO2, say climate scientists. They must feel that destroying the world economy and the lives of most living humans is easier than stopping natural CO2 production, so they must think Nature is pretty powerful.

“These human emissions come on top of this perfect balance,” Visioni said.

More than two decades of research from climate scientists and federal agencies have linked rising atmospheric temperatures to rising CO2.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere—the ratio of CO2 to air molecules—has jumped by more than 50% since preindustrial times, from approximately 280 parts per million to 425 ppm today, according to the EPA. Meanwhile, the average global atmospheric temperature has risen 1.27 degrees Celsius (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit) since the mid-19th century, and the past 10 years have been the warmest since record-keeping began in the 1850s, according to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

But, while "link" does not mean "cause," the grounds for argument have shifted.

As the scientific consensus on CO2’s role in climate change has solidified, so too has the alternative view that more CO2 is good for the planet, and that it was a mistake to classify it a pollutant. This view has been promoted for the past two decades by authors, bloggers, and researchers who don’t accept the established scientific findings.

They argue that CO2 isn’t directly harmful to humans and has numerous natural sources. Additionally, since Congress didn’t label CO2 a pollutant when it passed the original 1970 Clean Air Act or its amendments in 1990, changing the gas’s legal definition would require new legislation rather than EPA regulations.

The Energy Department completed a 141-page review of the science of climate change last month, which serves as the scientific foundation for the EPA’s effort to roll back existing emissions rules. It is written by five authors who acknowledge that the atmosphere is warming but cast doubt on the severity of the effects of a changing climate and question the accuracy of climate models that predict future warming.

The report argues that increasing CO2 levels will boost agricultural production, like a massive jolt of plant food. Some experimental studies have found that increasing CO2 boosts plant growth, but other studies have also found that many food crops lose vitamins, minerals and proteins under high CO2 conditions.

The DOE report notes that this loss of nutrients will have to be compensated by using more fertilizers or breeding new strains of food crops to handle the extra growth.

Critics say the DOE report is inaccurate, and the obvious solution to a scientific disagreement is to sue. A lawsuit filed last week by the Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists in a federal district court in Massachusetts contends that agency officials violated federal rules that require them to hold open meetings and disclose the report’s authors beforehand.

A DOE spokeswoman had no immediate comment on the lawsuit.

Determining how much and how fast CO2 emissions will warm the planet in the future is still uncertain. That is because large-scale changes in the Earth’s ecosystem that are occurring as the atmosphere warms are still being studied, according to Michael Diamond, professor of atmospheric sciences at Florida State University. 

So, despite the drastic solution, a lot of the evidence is unsettled. More importantly, their predictions have not come true. Their carefully wrought graphs started off fine, but have since not correlated well with reality. It's hard enough trying to decide whether or not to carry an umbrella, but when a guy you have never heard of tells you to turn off the economy, go hungry, and freeze in the dark because of a graph that doesn't quite work--well, that may be a lot to expect.

And, of course, there are the new, improved, but unknown factors.

The warming atmosphere is altering cloud patterns in certain parts of the globe, but it remains unclear whether these changes will warm or cool the planet. Much depends on their altitude and density. The warming atmosphere is also pulling more moisture from plants, he said, offsetting the beneficial growth effects of CO2 and melting permafrost in the Arctic, releasing methane, another greenhouse gas.

Another big question is whether the oceans might be reaching their limit on absorbing excess heat and CO2.

A lot of questions despite the drastic solution. But we must be brave.

“There are a lot of things that we still need to understand better about climate change, but we know more than enough to know that it is a threat to human health and wellness and ecosystems,” Diamond said.

That's reassuring. As an aside, is there any guarantee that, as the world starts the drastic solution and shuts down its economies and production to accommodate these graphs, those hostile, rapacious, predatory philosophies and cultures out there might decide to balance out their sacrifice by turning their war machines--just that part of their economy--back on?