Setting global warming record straight
By Dr. John Lemons
In last week’s Homer Tribune, the writer of “The Galaxy, the government and climate change,” misstated the science about global climate change and, therefore, minimizes the serious and irreversible environmental and human health consequences of global climate change if fossil fuel use is not urgently curtailed. Because of the importance of climate change – not only to Alaska, but also the rest of the world – his misstatements need correction, lest people form erroneous views.
First, the writer ignores work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, over 20 other nations’ national academies of science and every single professional society in the United States involved with global climate change. All of them concluded that global climate change is real, and primarily caused by burning of fossil fuels and secondarily deforestation. There is not one scientific society that has not made this conclusion.
Second, the writer implies scientists use the rise of carbon dioxide and temperature to prove that carbon dioxide raises temperatures, and not the other way around. This is not what scientists do and no claim of this will be found in scientific literature. Instead, scientists know from basic noncontroversial principles of physics that carbon dioxide (along with other so–called “greenhouse” gases) in regions of the earth’s atmosphere traps some of the energy from the sun. After striking the earth’s surface, the heat otherwise would be re–radiated (as so–called heat energy) back into space. This trapping accounts for observed global warming.
Third, according to the reader, “studies have indicated that temperature rises preceded increased carbon dioxide concentration.” (Thereby calling into doubt the role of carbon dioxide in global climate change, according to the writer). He apparently is referring to data from ice cores that allow scientists to measure both atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and temperature over the past 700,000 years. During glacial and interglacial cycles within this time span, the writer fails to mention that warm interglacial periods are triggered by cyclical orbital changes of the earth and other factors, followed by increases of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, after a lag–period, carbon dioxide increases precede warming and become the main driver in a warming atmosphere during the cycles. Currently, the earth’s atmosphere has a higher concentration of carbon dioxide than it has had for at least the past 700,000 years, and the rate of increase is around 60–100 times greater than experienced during this time period. It exceeds adaptation capabilities of human societies and nonhuman species.
Fourth, the writer states that global temperatures decreased around 1940–1970. This is true, but it was due to pollution from particulate matter from industrial sources that have an atmospheric cooling effect. And when this contribution is taken into account by scientific methods, there still exists a warming trend attributable to human activities that in Alaska – and globally – is unprecedented over the past several decades.
Fifth, the writer mentions the work of Henrik Svensmark from the Danish National Space Center who provided a theory that the earth’s climate is heavily influenced by cosmic radiation. Svensmark’s theories have not been supported by empirical studies and, in fact, have been discounted by almost all scientific studies examining them.
Sixth, the writer ignores the fact that there are multiple lines of independent scientific studies confirming that human–induced global climate change is occurring. Examples include the following: (A) The carbon in carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels has a different “fingerprint” or ratio of carbon isotopes than other sources of carbon dioxide. (Isotopes are different “entities” of the same chemical element). By looking at the ratios of different carbon isotopes in atmospheric carbon dioxide, as well as in plants, scientists can discern whether and how much of it is from the burning of fossil fuels and, indeed, the amount is significant. (B) Measurements of land, sea and atmospheric temperatures show both regional (e.g., Alaska and many other regions) and global mean temperatures are increasing. (C) Understanding and application of physics and heat transfer demonstrate and support human–induced warming of global climate change. (D) Climate models are able to reproduce the warming of the past 150 years, only if the contribution of human–generated greenhouse gases is taken into account. Further, global climate change models underestimate the extent of warming and impacts from it that have been empirically observed. (E) Actual measurements of changes in the sun’s energy output have been demonstrated to be negligible in causing observed warming over the past 150 years or more.
Finally, the writer mentions the illegal hacking of e-mails at the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University in the UK. Contrary to his statements, the e-mails reflect informal language used by scientists in more than a thousand e-mails extending over a 10–year period. I don’t know how many of the e-mails the writer read, but I have read most of them. There is no discussion or implication or evidence of “fraud” as the writer alleges. Further, although data and information from CRU has been published widely in the peer–reviewed scientific literature, it represents one of about 15 independent sources of major climate data and analyses. Within the scientific community, there is no impact of the hacking of the e-mails in changing thinking about the human attribution of global climate change.
Dr. John Lemons is a university professor emeritus with more than 25 years professional experience in the field of global climate change. He is a full–time Homer resident. If readers would like more in–depth explanation of issues in this viewpoint, he can be reached at jlemons@une.edu
Posted by Newsroom on Dec 30th, 2009 and filed under Point of View. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
51 Responses for “Setting global warming record straight”
Comments are closed
Advertisement
The fact there is any debate on the science to me misses the larger and most basic point: since the dawn of the industrial age, we have liberated carbon into our atmosphere at increasing rates – carbon that took hundreds of millions of years to form in the various fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. we live in a closed system. the earth – and thin layer of life that surrounds it – are our petri dish. natural variations and natural C02 sources (volcanoes, fires, etc) have and will continue forever. but we cannot deny we are changing the very systems that support life on earth by pumping 90 million tons of CO2 every day into that thin veneer we call the atmosphere (and into our oceans). the science will never be certain. it can’t be, because “proving” – through cause and effect, and scientific theory – is impossible in such complex systems. but similar to the “debate” over whether cigarettes cause cancer and nicotine is addictive, what we’re seeing now is simply attempts to sow doubt and confusion. as we approach 7 billion people on the planet (up from around 1 billion at the start of the industrial revolution), we better recognize we have one planet, and we better start listening to people like john lemons.
mr. cook inlet keeper – you miss the whole point of why folks like Lemmons are not taken more seriously. It’s not really because of disagreements on science – it’s because he presents himself as a dour and sour old man who can can’t understand why the world isn’t jumping up and down to revolutionize things over night. The industrial age (which yes – pumps out carbon) is responsible for the biggest improvements in quality of life mankind saw since the harnessing of fire. Nobody in their right mind is going to revolutionize the energy consumption practices of mankind until the problems it presents us with surpass the quality of life it helps give us.
Of course the industrial revolution has resulted in enormous gains in certain things deemed “quality of life,” including improved health care, more material goods, better and more diverse food supplies, etc. But if we’ve embarked on an unsustainable path of pollution-based prosperity, then we’re deficit spending, and it’s only a matter of time before we exceed the planet’s capacity to sustain life. And the principle we’re tapping is the very stuff that makes life on this planet possible – i.e. a stable atmosphere, healthy oceans, clean drinking water, etc. But we have enormous opportunities to learn from past mistakes and to embark on a clean energy revolution that will create jobs and continue to provide the quality of life we’ve come to expect.
#1 When industries dump enough pollutants in a river to render it unusable – thats overwhelming and no one would disagree. This has not happened to the oceans(some river mouths are polluting but not overwhelming; these are being corrected where possible).
#2 Fish are edible – very few species, if any, have been rendered unusable. Even those highly mercury contaminated fish in the Japanese bay are recovering. I do not disagree that these types of pollutants should be strictly monitored and corrected, but they have not overwhelmed us yet. Respiratory issues are localized as well and in some parts of the world have improved (some large Asian cities) but in some areas have worsened due to local conditions ( usually crop debris burning). As an aside, smokers should never, ever complain about air pollution.
#3 Acidification of the ocean (base 8.1) has not been shown to be occuring except on levels that are almost undectable. 8.1 is base not acid and any predicted lowering (that I’ve read) does not reach 8. Theories predicting what will happen to the biology are only theory and species tend to adapt to changes as slow as this.
#4 CO 2 See Mr James letter and I’ve read the same from different sources.
Easiest thing in the world to do is plant more trees. I happen to feel this should be some kind of requirement, either in school or part of voting and its the kind of “act now” action I fully agree with.
Motor vehicles have become less polluting and hopefully that process will continue in a reasonable manner. This does not change the fact that ANY energy system will have negative effects. If all the engines, industries, etc had run on hydrogen for the past 120 years, excess water vapor would be the “problem”, And water vapor would likely have a more “profound” effect than CO 2.
For 1 and 2 I think your comment about the “problem between the 2 sides comes down to perception of events” is valid. That said, I’d say that you’re correct with respect to the pollution in the US, but on average across the globe pollution is getting worst.
Acidification is the process of reducing the PH, so both ways of stating the process are correct. I’m not an expert in this area, but the data as well as basic science show this to be occuring. The levels of PH reduction do not have to be very large to affect the Eco system. I’d keep a close eye on this issue as this may affect us quicker than atmosphere temperature increase (I.e. Affect our food chain).
I’ve responded to Mr James letter. See above.
I fully agree with the planting of more trees. This will help with controlling CO2.
Excess water vapor would not be a problem in a hydrogen economy. You can pump all the water vapor you want into the atmosphere and it will condense into liquid water. For the atmosphere to hold more water vapor the atmosphere’s temperature would need to increase.
Thanks again for explaining your viewpoint in a rational manner. Sometimes its very difficult to have real conversations as you can see from many posts. I’m interested if, in a hydrogen economy, just how much water would be held in ice. I think (but don’t know) that more water vapor would cause a temperature rise. There is no reason to assume the ecosystem would be better off. What are your ideas on this?
I have read some studies that indicate a more acidic ocean in the past – but not really acid on the ph scale. The oceans will have to get much worse than 8 to have any effects that do not have to measured by scientists. Where I live and I have seen this with my own eyes, there is much less air poluttion due to auto emissions, mostly because of strict government controls on converting to natural gas. At one time I could hardly breathe in a large downtown area because of thousands of buses and taxis but now the air is much better(still not like Alaska though)
I’m not sure I understand the comment about how much water would be held in ice in a hydrogen economy. Please restate in another post.
Water vapor cannot continue to build up in the atmosphere in the same manner as CO2 because at a given temperature the air can only hold a set amount of water. The excess water condenses into liquid water and gets absorbed into the environment. If you take an extreme case and pump enough water vapor into the atmosphere to increase clouds this would have a cooling affect due to the reflection of the suns energy. The cooler atmosphere holds less water, reducing the clouds, and allowing the temperature to increase. Thus, the environment regulates its temperature. To increase the temperature you need energy levels on the order of what the sun provides and you need something like CO2 or methane to trap the energy the sun provides from leaving the atmosphere. Since water vapor does not trap energy, water vapor from hydrogen (combustion or fuel cell related) exhaust would not increase the atmosphere’s temperature.
Acidification is the process of reducing the PH. Our oceans will not become an acid from CO2 pollution. However, a small reduction in PH can have a large effect on the organisms that live in that environment. The data is still coming out on this so we need to watch it carefully.
Some of these replies were held up over the weekend due to how our software filters for possible spam. I’ve updated the settings to allow replies with multiple links to be automatically approved, so that should keep things moving.
Just from what I understand in your post, excess water vapor would then accelerate climate change towards the next ice age? If it did not then, then the next logical thought would be too much liquid water in our closed system. I do not believe that the amount of water held in ice at the present time would present a problem unless it melted very, very rapidly. Thats not likely, and changing coastlines and disappearing islands can be adapted to. I’ve read studies that indicate 1000 years for melting to occur at present(continued) temperature rise. As I stated. its well known that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past.
From what I’ve seen and read about scientific manipulation of everything in our world, its going to be both bad and good results. As an example, in the past, people either resisted a disease or died and the genome was stronger for it. Now we have new, drug resistant diseases that require more change. It won’t be any different where the environment is concerned, I suspect.
No, an ice age would not occur becauce as the temperature falls the air cannot hold as much water. Thus, less clouds and more of the suns energy can reach the earth’s surface (and increase temperature). In this manner our environment can regulate it’s temperature.
The amount of liquid water from exhaust is not enought to make a noticable increase in the amount of water on the planet. If there was an endless supply of fossil fuel the liquid water would eventually be noticed. But, there is an end to this supply. Hydrogen can also be created from water, but this is a closed cycle.