Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Enviro God Is Saving the Planet
Posted by Charles Mudede on Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 8:42 AM
Good news for the Republicans comes from the usually hostile world of science:
ScienceDaily (Nov. 11, 2009) — New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.There you have it! Enjoy, enjoy!This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.
The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket.
Share via
2
Let's understand what is really being said here:
-CO2 emissions are fractionated at a constant rate into both the oceans and the atmosphere.
What this article should have pointed out:
-Absolute CO2 levels have risen dramatically in post-industrial times, approaching dangerously acidic levels in the oceans, and approaching 400ppm in the atmosphere (a level unprecedented in the hundreds of thousands of years of greenland/antarctic ice-cores)
So, just because the ratios stay the same, doesn't mean we are not to worry. Neither are we to assume that the oceanic carbon-sink will never be filled.
--Note the reliance of this report on accurate estimates of deforestation carbon-release (a number also important to most other climate studies I should add).
-CO2 emissions are fractionated at a constant rate into both the oceans and the atmosphere.
What this article should have pointed out:
-Absolute CO2 levels have risen dramatically in post-industrial times, approaching dangerously acidic levels in the oceans, and approaching 400ppm in the atmosphere (a level unprecedented in the hundreds of thousands of years of greenland/antarctic ice-cores)
So, just because the ratios stay the same, doesn't mean we are not to worry. Neither are we to assume that the oceanic carbon-sink will never be filled.
--Note the reliance of this report on accurate estimates of deforestation carbon-release (a number also important to most other climate studies I should add).
4
No offense or nothin', Charles, but could you ask Dr Golob to weigh in on this one? I'm not necessarily adverse to revising my thinking, but I'd really like to hear it from someone better versed in scientific thinking than I am...
5
Obviously, if climate change weren't a problem, that'd be good for all of us, not just Republicans. Hell, never mind wealthy American Republicans; the biggest winners in a hypothetical climate-change-isn't-a-big-deal world would be, say, the Bangladeshis and Maldivians who are losing their land.
Also, using the ocean as a giant carbon sink is already having major negative effects on sea life, as I understand it.
Also, using the ocean as a giant carbon sink is already having major negative effects on sea life, as I understand it.
6
Good Morning Charles,
What connection does this fact have with the Republican Party? It makes no sense. I'm a Republican, I believe there is global warming and don't possess a car as well. I want a better and cleaner earth just like you.
The seemingly absolute reliability of science backing up global warming is fine but never forget that conceit can backfire. Science gave us chemical warfare, the atom bomb and the Tuskegee Experiment. Following science's pronoucements can be dangerous. Some Republicans (and others) actually discern information (after all public policy is at stake) and do our part to combat global warming. It isn't a universal conviction that the party and many others don't believe in global warming. But, also remember it is hotly contested in some scientific quarters (I've read some of Bjorn Lomborg's work in the NYT).
My point is one must be discerning of science as well. Science, too has political ends.
What connection does this fact have with the Republican Party? It makes no sense. I'm a Republican, I believe there is global warming and don't possess a car as well. I want a better and cleaner earth just like you.
The seemingly absolute reliability of science backing up global warming is fine but never forget that conceit can backfire. Science gave us chemical warfare, the atom bomb and the Tuskegee Experiment. Following science's pronoucements can be dangerous. Some Republicans (and others) actually discern information (after all public policy is at stake) and do our part to combat global warming. It isn't a universal conviction that the party and many others don't believe in global warming. But, also remember it is hotly contested in some scientific quarters (I've read some of Bjorn Lomborg's work in the NYT).
My point is one must be discerning of science as well. Science, too has political ends.
7
Translation:
We have to come up with some new bullshit to explain why the Earth is cooling the past few years, while still holding on to the notion that CO2 has squat to do with it.
Translation:
We have to come up with some new bullshit to explain why the Earth is cooling the past few years, while still holding on to the notion that CO2 has squat to do with it.
9
So in all this guffawing about Global Warning, a lot of people lose sight about the more immediate danger: sustainability.
Global warming has become the cash cow and political boon to many a profiteer and/or politician, but it is all very convenient for them to talk about some in-immediate consequence that doesn't require drastic and expensive change.
Whereas the growing population, shrinking resources, not to mention increasing disparity in resource distribution threatens to cause a major crisis before global warming even becomes an issue...the problem is the fix is much more expensive and much less convenient, and a threat to the established order.
I'm trying to remember the name of the writer, but i do remember him referring to global warming as the "convenient truth" rather than the other way around.
Global warming has become the cash cow and political boon to many a profiteer and/or politician, but it is all very convenient for them to talk about some in-immediate consequence that doesn't require drastic and expensive change.
Whereas the growing population, shrinking resources, not to mention increasing disparity in resource distribution threatens to cause a major crisis before global warming even becomes an issue...the problem is the fix is much more expensive and much less convenient, and a threat to the established order.
I'm trying to remember the name of the writer, but i do remember him referring to global warming as the "convenient truth" rather than the other way around.
11
I know nobody listens to an anonymous blog commenter, but carbon dioxide has always been a red herring. We need to worry about methane, which has about 170 times the global warming effect as carbon dioxide, is not regulated by plants or algae, and is the #1 human cause of global warming. Methane is also what caused mass climate change and mass extinctions in the past due to volcanic activity.
By far the #1 cause of human methane expulsion is livestock (cows and pigs). Rice paddies are also a cause, but not nearly as much as livestock.
Luckily, there is a very straightforward solution to solving the methane problem and global warming altogether. People just need to stop eating pigs and cows. Methane only has an atmospheric half-life of 8.4 years, so we can completely solve global warming by 2018 if governments cap/tax/ban beef and pork. If we wait, methane emissions keep increasing as livestock corporations expand in developing countries -- Mexico went from very little beef and pork consumption to becoming the #2 per capita consumer (behind us) in just the past 15-20 years.
If we wait, glaciers and permafrost will continue to melt and release more methane, and it will take hundreds/thousands of years to recover...
By far the #1 cause of human methane expulsion is livestock (cows and pigs). Rice paddies are also a cause, but not nearly as much as livestock.
Luckily, there is a very straightforward solution to solving the methane problem and global warming altogether. People just need to stop eating pigs and cows. Methane only has an atmospheric half-life of 8.4 years, so we can completely solve global warming by 2018 if governments cap/tax/ban beef and pork. If we wait, methane emissions keep increasing as livestock corporations expand in developing countries -- Mexico went from very little beef and pork consumption to becoming the #2 per capita consumer (behind us) in just the past 15-20 years.
If we wait, glaciers and permafrost will continue to melt and release more methane, and it will take hundreds/thousands of years to recover...
12
Whatever; you can't just keep making a mess and making more mess without having to clean up your mess eventually. Once the whole planet looks like an episode of "Hoarders" there will be nowhere to throw the stuff away to. And we'll all be screwed except for the rats and cockroaches.
14
Um, temperatures have been rising since the mid 19th century. There have been a lot of small ups and downs (we've been in a down since 1998) but the overall trend has been resolutely upward.
Most Commented on Slog
-
High School in Mississippi Cancels Prom to Prevent Lesbian Student from Bringing Female Date—and Potentially Incites Violence Against Lesbian Student by Dan Savage
-
But Won't It Confuse The Children? by Dan Savage
-
Today In Un-American Activities by Dan Savage
-
The Only Exercise I Got... by Dan Savage
-
Meanwhile On Teresa McNeece's Facebook Page... by Dan Savage
-
Itawamba School Superintendent Teresa McNeece's Facebook Page by Dan Savage
-
There's Just No End to the Hate by Dan Savage
-
Whitey and the Moon by Charles Mudede
-
Mission Accomplished: Lesbian Student Blamed, Ostracized By Other Students for School Board's Decision to Cancel Prom by Dan Savage
-
Constance McMillen Update by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (14) RSS