Too hot to handle?
Roger J. Burke
January 03, 2011
What is it about the global warming debate (aka ´climate change debate´) that gets many people hot under the collar?
For fifty years or more, ever since Dr Charles David Keeling alerted the world to the problem of increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, there has probably been way too much said, and too little done, about tackling the issue seriously.
Like others, I´ve followed the debate about climate change for many years, beginning in 2003. I´ve read reports that clearly demonstrate that our planet undergoes cyclical changes in weather patterns: at some times, the earth has been hotter; at others, there have been cooling periods. Even today´s school kids know something about Ice Ages and severe droughts. Australia, for example, only recently emerged from a ten year drought; though today, as I write, half of Queensland (a size comparable to the areas of France and Germany combined) is under water, with some rivers exceeding all historical flood levels. It´s the wettest December here since 1859 – in the driest continent on the planet.
Are increases in atmospheric CO2 emissions a factor in such climate changes?
Well, CO2 and many other gases have been part of the earth´s atmosphere for millions of years. Hence the mere presence of CO2 has an effect upon weather for the very simple reason that the gas traps heat, sometimes with disastrous results: the climate of the planet Venus is an obvious example. Equally, should the earth´s atmospheric CO2 levels increase, a rise in temperature will follow, however slight it might be. Most know that temperature increases (and decreases) affect weather patterns. So, it´s entirely possible that the gradual increases in atmospheric CO2 have played a part – however small – in the recent severe storms and flooding in Australia, Pakistan and elsewhere.
Only the ignorant or foolish would deny that possibility, leaving others to dicker about the degree of probability. Those in that latter camp miss the crucial point, however: the level of atmospheric CO2 continues to rise, inexorably, regardless of so-called probabilities.
Now, levels of atmospheric CO2 have fluctuated over millions of years and for various reasons e.g. the incidence of volcanic eruptions and absorption of CO2 by the sea, to name two. It still varies for the same reasons. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, however, there is no doubt that humanity, collectively, has helped to push the level of atmospheric CO2 to higher levels. One source puts the figure at a 35% increase. Of course, nobody has an exact figure to which all agree. That is not only obvious but is also a major impediment to acting decisively to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Why is that so? Because, while debate about the degree to which humans are partially or solely responsible continues, vested business and government interests can obfuscate, deny, delay, and deride all efforts to spend money for an issue thought to be purely cyclical or of questionable science or a government conspiracy to raise taxes; or all three concurrently.
That´s a curiously illogical stance when considered objectively. I, along with others, accept the cyclical aspect of atmospheric CO2; it´s been that way for hundreds of millions of years – long before humanity (and other animals) evolved. We are simply adding stupendous amounts of CO2 to an existing condition. Granted also, there will be scientific aspects that require review and further study: that´s always part of the scientific process, anyway. And, as for government taxes? Well, even if the conspiracy angle is true (which I doubt), it won´t necessarily make any difference: a tax on something here can always be offset by a reduction of tax there. It´s up to citizens to elect responsible governments – not Big Business lackeys – that have sensible carbon dioxide reduction policies.
Over twenty years ago, the government and business worlds combined to eliminate chloroflurocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere that were destroying the ozone layer in the earth´s atmosphere. The Montreal protocol, fortunately, effectively put a stop to the wholesale production of CFCs. The business and consumer worlds adjusted relatively easily. As is now well known, that swift action came about because the presence of the ozone layer is fundamental for the existence of all life on the planet: without the ozone screen, we all die through overexposure to ultra-violet rays from the sun.
The issue of atmospheric carbon dioxide is every bit as deadly to all life, but for different reasons. Crucially, though, the problem of increased atmospheric CO2 is a long-term issue: it´s taken two centuries to reach 390 parts-per-million (ppm). It could take another fifty years or more to reach catastrophic levels (although, many argue now that we´re already there). Who wants to wait that long to find out just how catastrophic a level we might reach? Who wants to see 400 ppm, or worse?
Let me ask that question in another way. In many cities on the planet, how many citizens are prepared, right now, to give up garbage collections from their house and eliminate regular street-cleaning in their neighborhood – all to save money by allowing everybody unfettered freedom to let it pile up? Read about the situation in Naples, Italy, before answering the question. Garbage, as you know, is a major form of environmental pollution caused only by humans.
We can all see garbage; we can all smell it; we all need to do something about it; and we all pay for that need, one way or another, and have been doing so for hundreds of years. If we´d all done nothing for that time, our civilizations would have come to a grinding and messy stop long ago, without doubt, with multi-millions (or billions) of tons of garbage piled up. That situation doesn´t bear thinking about, does it?
Civilizations – always – must adjust, must modify, must adapt living conditions to assist survival, particularly when the measurable evidence of danger is clearly unequivocal.
Atmospheric CO2, of course, is one half of the symbiotic relationship between plant and animal life, with oxygen being the other. We need both, but in appropriate quantities for optimum balance in nature. Too much of anything pollutes the environment, whatever and wherever it is: for example, too much oxygen for too long can have a disastrous effect upon your lungs. We can´t do much about naturally occurring atmospheric CO2 – except worsen it, indirectly, by devastating the forests. But we should do what we can about CO2 emissions directly produced by human industry – and pay the price. (And in concert with that, invest more in renewable energy, as many governments are doing.)
Frankly, I think anybody who disputes such needs should consider the state of the planet Venus – an extreme example for sure, but nevertheless a lesson about what happens when CO2 inevitably increases without check: a planet too hot to handle. Venus on Earth is unlikely, any time soon, however; but, it´s possible. Most importantly, it´s a climate no sane person would want...
Hence, in my view, to do nothing about the increasing danger of excessive atmospheric CO2 is being socially insensitive, at best; at worst, such an attitude borders on gross, egocentric indifference or insanity – or both.
Copyright © Roger J. Burke, 2011. All rights reserved.
For fifty years or more, ever since Dr Charles David Keeling alerted the world to the problem of increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, there has probably been way too much said, and too little done, about tackling the issue seriously.
Like others, I´ve followed the debate about climate change for many years, beginning in 2003. I´ve read reports that clearly demonstrate that our planet undergoes cyclical changes in weather patterns: at some times, the earth has been hotter; at others, there have been cooling periods. Even today´s school kids know something about Ice Ages and severe droughts. Australia, for example, only recently emerged from a ten year drought; though today, as I write, half of Queensland (a size comparable to the areas of France and Germany combined) is under water, with some rivers exceeding all historical flood levels. It´s the wettest December here since 1859 – in the driest continent on the planet.
Are increases in atmospheric CO2 emissions a factor in such climate changes?
Well, CO2 and many other gases have been part of the earth´s atmosphere for millions of years. Hence the mere presence of CO2 has an effect upon weather for the very simple reason that the gas traps heat, sometimes with disastrous results: the climate of the planet Venus is an obvious example. Equally, should the earth´s atmospheric CO2 levels increase, a rise in temperature will follow, however slight it might be. Most know that temperature increases (and decreases) affect weather patterns. So, it´s entirely possible that the gradual increases in atmospheric CO2 have played a part – however small – in the recent severe storms and flooding in Australia, Pakistan and elsewhere.
Only the ignorant or foolish would deny that possibility, leaving others to dicker about the degree of probability. Those in that latter camp miss the crucial point, however: the level of atmospheric CO2 continues to rise, inexorably, regardless of so-called probabilities.
Now, levels of atmospheric CO2 have fluctuated over millions of years and for various reasons e.g. the incidence of volcanic eruptions and absorption of CO2 by the sea, to name two. It still varies for the same reasons. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, however, there is no doubt that humanity, collectively, has helped to push the level of atmospheric CO2 to higher levels. One source puts the figure at a 35% increase. Of course, nobody has an exact figure to which all agree. That is not only obvious but is also a major impediment to acting decisively to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Why is that so? Because, while debate about the degree to which humans are partially or solely responsible continues, vested business and government interests can obfuscate, deny, delay, and deride all efforts to spend money for an issue thought to be purely cyclical or of questionable science or a government conspiracy to raise taxes; or all three concurrently.
That´s a curiously illogical stance when considered objectively. I, along with others, accept the cyclical aspect of atmospheric CO2; it´s been that way for hundreds of millions of years – long before humanity (and other animals) evolved. We are simply adding stupendous amounts of CO2 to an existing condition. Granted also, there will be scientific aspects that require review and further study: that´s always part of the scientific process, anyway. And, as for government taxes? Well, even if the conspiracy angle is true (which I doubt), it won´t necessarily make any difference: a tax on something here can always be offset by a reduction of tax there. It´s up to citizens to elect responsible governments – not Big Business lackeys – that have sensible carbon dioxide reduction policies.
Over twenty years ago, the government and business worlds combined to eliminate chloroflurocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere that were destroying the ozone layer in the earth´s atmosphere. The Montreal protocol, fortunately, effectively put a stop to the wholesale production of CFCs. The business and consumer worlds adjusted relatively easily. As is now well known, that swift action came about because the presence of the ozone layer is fundamental for the existence of all life on the planet: without the ozone screen, we all die through overexposure to ultra-violet rays from the sun.
The issue of atmospheric carbon dioxide is every bit as deadly to all life, but for different reasons. Crucially, though, the problem of increased atmospheric CO2 is a long-term issue: it´s taken two centuries to reach 390 parts-per-million (ppm). It could take another fifty years or more to reach catastrophic levels (although, many argue now that we´re already there). Who wants to wait that long to find out just how catastrophic a level we might reach? Who wants to see 400 ppm, or worse?
Let me ask that question in another way. In many cities on the planet, how many citizens are prepared, right now, to give up garbage collections from their house and eliminate regular street-cleaning in their neighborhood – all to save money by allowing everybody unfettered freedom to let it pile up? Read about the situation in Naples, Italy, before answering the question. Garbage, as you know, is a major form of environmental pollution caused only by humans.
We can all see garbage; we can all smell it; we all need to do something about it; and we all pay for that need, one way or another, and have been doing so for hundreds of years. If we´d all done nothing for that time, our civilizations would have come to a grinding and messy stop long ago, without doubt, with multi-millions (or billions) of tons of garbage piled up. That situation doesn´t bear thinking about, does it?
Civilizations – always – must adjust, must modify, must adapt living conditions to assist survival, particularly when the measurable evidence of danger is clearly unequivocal.
Atmospheric CO2, of course, is one half of the symbiotic relationship between plant and animal life, with oxygen being the other. We need both, but in appropriate quantities for optimum balance in nature. Too much of anything pollutes the environment, whatever and wherever it is: for example, too much oxygen for too long can have a disastrous effect upon your lungs. We can´t do much about naturally occurring atmospheric CO2 – except worsen it, indirectly, by devastating the forests. But we should do what we can about CO2 emissions directly produced by human industry – and pay the price. (And in concert with that, invest more in renewable energy, as many governments are doing.)
Frankly, I think anybody who disputes such needs should consider the state of the planet Venus – an extreme example for sure, but nevertheless a lesson about what happens when CO2 inevitably increases without check: a planet too hot to handle. Venus on Earth is unlikely, any time soon, however; but, it´s possible. Most importantly, it´s a climate no sane person would want...
Hence, in my view, to do nothing about the increasing danger of excessive atmospheric CO2 is being socially insensitive, at best; at worst, such an attitude borders on gross, egocentric indifference or insanity – or both.
Copyright © Roger J. Burke, 2011. All rights reserved.
Print
Email
