Simple Questions About Carbon, CO2 And Climate Change. Not So Simple Answers.
76Like most everyone else in the Western world, I frequently hear Climate Change mentioned in the news, along with the ever more pressing need to combat it, “before it’s too late”.
In this context the terms, ETS or ‘Emissions Trading Schemes’ (which target Carbon), ‘The War on Carbon’, and somewhat less often, ‘Carbon Tax’, are also mentioned.
Carbon has clearly become the byword for Climate Change Culprit No 1. But, as a layperson, I’m sure I was taught at school that Carbon is a solid, present in the earth in various forms, such as coal, coke, graphite and diamonds. So, how can it change the climate?
Because Climate Change is an important thing to understand, I decided to check it out.
On researching the relationship between Carbon and Climate Change, I was surprised to find there isn’t one.
Apparently, the causal relationship is between Climate Change and Carbon Dioxide, or CO2, which is what Carbon becomes, when it's 'processed'. As I understand ETS's, they're about trading off Carbon credits against Carbon emissions (technically CO2 emissions, since I'm sure Carbon doesn't emit anything in its solid state) but it still defeats me as to how they can actually work to reduce emissions, since they're surely just a form of licence fee, enabling Big Polluters to go on polluting, by paying someone else not to cut down trees; or agree not to drill for oil (?) refine it (?) mine coal (?) burn it (?) extract minerals from the earth (?) dig for diamonds (?) who knows... But I can't see vital export industry closing down, and ditching hundreds of workers just to help in reducing emissions, if it can instead simply pay for a Licence to Drill, as it were, and which of course is a pass-on cost to consumers.
Still, be that as it may, knowing that CO2, not Carbon, is the actual enemy, makes sense to me in the context of atmospheric pollution, since, as we all know, Carbon Dioxide is a gas.
But hang on, isn’t it also the gas we humans exhale, every time we breathe out? The gas that plants and trees ‘breathe in’? Aren't we therefore surrounded by it? And haven't we always been?
Given this, I’m struggling to see how it can be such a Bad Thing for the environment, or in the possible absence of an ETS (still contentious, and not yet in place in many countries ) how slapping a direct Carbon Tax on it instead could help the climate either. But in any case, if CO2 is the culprit, why not use that description, instead of Carbon?
Now, maybe I’m just an old cynic, but it appears to me that proponents of the campaign to reduce Climate Change have figured out there’s not much scare factor in targeting a gas that we all know from our continued existence, does us no harm.
Smarter to cloud the issue I guess, (Climate Change Reductionists would probably prefer to say ‘simplify’) with the more manipulative, media-friendly, but deceptive short-form ‘Carbon’. “People have such short attention spans these days....”
Nevertheless, I’ve become sufficiently intrigued to take a deeper look at this evil gas that’s destroying our planet while most of us sit idly by. I’ve been surprised at what I’ve found, perhaps you will be too.
It turns out that diametrically opposed views are held on the subject of CO2, and a quick Google will reveal many to you. Amongst the documents I researched was a report analysing Government and Media perpetuation of CO2 misconceptions, recently published by Australian,Gregg D Thompson*, who describes himself as “Climate Researcher, Astronomer and Environmentalist”. His report contends that CO2 emissions are not a primary cause of Climate Change, and thus by extension, costly Emissions Trading Schemes and Carbon Taxes are irrelevant and unnecessary. Thompson’s Report is detailed, comprehensive, and several pages in length. What follows are questions and answers contained within it, condensed by me*.
Common misconceptions about CO2.
In researching his report, Thompson interviewed over 100 people, who he describes as “educated fairly well to very well. They comprise business managers in a diversity of large and small companies, those in medical professions, accounting, law, sales, engineering as well as scientists and tradespeople.”
Among the questions he asked, were:
What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2?
What percentage of CO2 do humans produce?
Is CO2 a pollutant?
Have you seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?
Virtually no-one knew the answers. Neither did I. Do you? Do your friends, family and acquaintances?
Here’s what people perceived, accompanied by the facts (*condensed by me.)
What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2?
Respondent’s Answers: Nearly all said 20% - 40%. The highest was 75%; the lowest 2% - 10%.
The Correct Answer: CO2 is less than four 100ths of 1%, at 0.038%. (!)
What percentage of CO2 do humans produce?
Respondent’s answersranged as high as 100%, with most estimating it to be between 25% - 75%. Four said they thought it was between 2% - 10%.
The Correct Answer:Nature produces nearly all CO2. Humans produce only 3%.
A miniscule 0.001% of the air. All of mankind produces only one molecule of CO2 in around every 90,000 air molecules. Yes, that’s all.
Is CO2 a pollutant?
Respondent’s Answers:All thought it was a pollutant, at least to some degree.
The Correct Answer:CO2 is a harmless, trace gas. It is as necessary for life as oxygen and nitrogen are. It is a natural gas that is clear, tasteless and odourless.
(When it bubbles) out of soft drink, beer or sparkling wine, no-one considers it a pollutant - because it’s not.
CO2 in its frozen state is known as dry ice, used in (stage shows), medical treatments and science experiments. No one considers that a pollutant.
Huge quantities of CO2 are dissolved naturally in the ocean, then released into the air from the warm surface. This is not considered a pollutant either.
Have you seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?
Respondent’s Answers:Most did not know of any definite proof. Some said they thought melting of the Arctic and glaciers was possibly proof.
The Correct Answer: There is no proof at all.The IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel for Climate Change) has never produced any. There is, however the following proof that it can’t cause a greenhouse effect.
While CO2 can absorb heat a little faster than nitrogen and oxygen, it becomes no hotter because it cannot absorb any more heat than the other gases. That’s against the laws of thermodynamics. All (atmospheric) gases share their heat with each other. That’s why the air is all one temperature in any contained volume.
-------------------------------------------------
Thompson concludes, “The answers to these questions are fundamental to evaluating the global warming scare, yet almost no one knows the facts. However, without this knowledge we can’t make an informed decision about whether Climate Change is natural or not.”
*Author’s note: To form your own opinion of Greg D Thompson’s credibility, and for a detailed look at his report, Google his name to quickly find many sites on which the report appears. Not all are in agreement, which is really the point of this article. Given the need for factual information, and the potential for individuals and economies to be severely affected by the imposition of ETS's and/or Carbon Taxes, I have real concerns about the way Climate Change is explained; or rather, not explained in the media, and I’ve written an article about that, which you can read by clicking the link under the rating panel below.
.
©Copyright writeronline. All rights reserved.
CommentsLoading...
Hi junkseller, thanks for such a comprehensive comment. The way you've explained it supports what I'm talking about really, because it highlights the lack of equally simply stated, easy to understand, supportable / provable information, available in the everyday media, for everyday people (like me).
Yiu asked for a simple answer. It is about balance. Carbon is a part of all things in some format. It is difficult to refute the science that shows CO2 levels rising in the atmosphere over the last 2 hundred years or so. This in my view is the result of carbon escaping from the natural carbon sinks and being released back into the atmosphere where it becomes among other things CO2. Oil is a stored carbon and in the past has been safely trapped well beneath the surface of the earth. It along with coal are being hauled to the surface every day in huge quantity and processed in such a way that they return carbon to the atmosphere. Trees have always been one of the great converters of carbon but this time round we, man, is cutting down what we have and preventing regrowth by covering all the available land with concrete buildings. Almost everything man does in this world today releases more "carbon" into the atmosphere. It is not that the gas warms up but that it reflects escaping heat back to the surface of the sea. That is the cause of warming. Not the gases accumulating warmth. The sea absorbs the heat from the reflected rays. The sea is also one of the great stablising influences in the world. if you visit a small island the temperature remains pretty similar all over the land because it is influenced by the sea. If you visit a desert in the middle of a land mass you will get great day/night fluctuations becausethe sea's influence does not affect so far inland.
It might be interesting to see what influences were present when Thomson wrote his articles. Remember the most difficult thing for a man to believe in is something that takes MONEY from his pocket. You will find the greatest skeptics of global warming among the rich
Thanks Red Dragonfly, for your helpful contribution to this article. You and Junkseller have helped explain the science better, but I must say I still can't see how Carbon-Taxing a minority of countries is going to have any effect on carbon emissions at all. (Topic of my other article, linked above). Cheers
You are right in asking that question writeronline. I guess the answer is that someone has to start somewhere.The problem here as I see it is that when ever you see a debate on this issue the "economy" card is always pulled as the strong suite. If you think about it the logic of this is wrong. If we don't have an earth we won't have an economy. What I believe is required is a whole new look at the economy and a complete redesign with matters pertaining to the health of the Earth holding a greater importance than the economy. I believe there must be a way to bring this about but it will take what is probably a major insurection by the man on the street.
If you want a good description of the way that global warming works have a look at the documentary called "An Inconvienient truth." There has been a lot of comment against this documentary but I do believe that there is a fundamental accuracy in the information given in it. If only half of what is said in it is true it is still very frightening for the earth over the next years.
Like I said before Global Warming is not in the best interests of those with money and history will show you that they will do and pay what they have to to get the right spin on the situation that suites their position.
Incidentally there is little, if any scientific comment that actually denies the fact that we have global warming happening. There is a lot of spin out there that causes people to doubt that information but that is all it is , spin with no scientific backing.
Hi writeronline. I'm a self employed bricklayer, not an academic. I have read your hub and all the comments. I'll be honest and admit that some of the info is beyond my intellectual capacity, but i do believe that there is enough evidence from scientists to confirm the dangers. A reasonable question to pose is why would Julia Gillard (Australia's prime minister, for overseas readers) commit her party to such an unpopular policy if she and her fellow ministers didn't agree with the need for it? Of course you could argue that it is a last ditch card to play in an already poor hand, but i believe that the measures that they have put in place will bear fruit in time for the next election. We'll have to wait and see of course, if the bill is passed. It may not be enough to plaster over the cracks of some of Labour's other policy disasters, but at least it will have got the ball rolling on climate change action. The question of, 'why Australia', with such a small contribution? Seems to be a fair question. My answer would be that we are one of the richest countries in the world and therefore one of the best equipped to cope with these changes. Australia is a country well known for its "she'll be right mate' attitude and great at harnessing change. The skeptics might be right, but what if they are wrong? I watched a doco from the 'Insight' program involving an American climate change scientist, who has now unfortunately passed away. His advice was compelling in my opinion. He used a poor analogy initially to explain harmful emissions into the atmosphere. Then used a much better one on reflection. He said that mankind is producing 3% extra harmful polutants per year. Big deal some would say. But it is 3% per year, so the following year it is 3% of 103% and so on. Are his figures correct? A matter of opinion as usual. I choose to be believe them. We have solar panels on our roof and do our utmost to reduce our carbon imprint, a trendy word, but at least our kids and grandkids can say that we either wasted our money and time, or made a miniscule positive effort on their behalf. The figures i have stated may not be accurate, but the principle is. No world, no economy, makes sense to me. I'm fifty nine, so hopefully i'll be able to test these opinions out one way or the other by 2041.
PS tell Junkseller to change his name to, climate change is real seller. Cheers.
Hi, attemptedhumour, thanks for taking the time to read this, and to comment so fully. I don't disagree with much of what you're saying, (far from it, the whole point of this hub was to generate dialogue, which of course, requires differing points of view) especially your end game perspective: No world, no economy. But I find myself still concerned at the victory of rhetoric over reality, as currently espoused by Julia and her team. It's fine to claim the Carbon Tax will have a neutral effect on the cost of living (that's just a political untruth, but so many political claims are, so no point in complaining), but the selective impost of those costs (btw; if they're neutral, why do we need to soften the blow for the less financially able..?)is all eye-off-the-ball stuff. Why wouldn't a'visionary Australian Government' instead be ring-fencing the Carbon Tax revenue and investing it directly into, properly, fast-tracking new, energy efficient technologies and resouces? Every subsidised scheme they introduce is flawed, through poor planning and inept application; solar panels, heat pumps, roof insulation etc..as you know.
Why not stop chest-beating and start pollution-beating? Instead, the Carbon Tax is about to spawn its own new bureaucracy (approx 200 public servants) to manage the process, with particular focus on 'managing the rorts'. What?
I've got a bit of a thing about the way the whole topic of Climate Change is presented via the media, and wrote a hub about it. If you feel like spending a few minutes, click the link at the base of this one, I'd be interested in your views. Cheers.
I am in agreement with attempted humour. Sadly there are still those in positions of power who feel that short term economy is more important than the longevity of the world.
What I have difficulty in understanding is that politicians can fudge the facts and the media never challengers what they have to say.
Case in point would be Mr Abbot statments about how the carbon tax will do no good and that it is a waste of time taking the tax on the one hand and giving it back with the other. He clearly stated that it will not make a difference.
He gave no explanation as to how it does and doesn't work.
In fact I can see that it will cause the major polluters to improve there act as buyers will opt for the "now" cheaper and greener options. The major polluters will be paying for the energy for the users.
Although to me this is quite simple and logical the explanation is not being made clearly by the government and the opposition is simply making the water muddy. Opposition for the sake of it is just plain irresponsible. But the media allow it to happen!!!
The other area that has been misrepresented it the amount that the temperature will be reduced. True it is probable that the levels will not be reduced but even so if the measures manage to hold the temperature at today's level then it will have been a success. If we do nothing then the temperature will rise.
Like you I agree with No World No Economy. Maybe we need to grow that as a slogan
Hi, Red Dragonfly, more thoughtful input from you, thanks for revisiting.
I actually think "No World. No Economy" is the kind of easy-to-get set of words that would cut to the chase for many people.
But, as you say, in a world where fudging and obfuscation in the name of short term power are more important than honest open clearly stated policy, what are the chances of anyone in Government using the term? Worth wondering whether Senator Brown and his merry band of Greens have got any publicity $$ available, though.
Hang on, silly me, they're 'in Government' now too.
Hi Wol, In the title of your hub above you use the words 'Quasi-Relegous Vitriol and Bigotry. These terms set the tone of your arguement and in my opinion weaken it, as sterotyping rarely portrays an accurate picture. You claim that you are a lay person without the intellect to understand what climate scienticts and government figures around the world are expressing, but decide to believe the theories of Greg D Thompson.
I'm a lay person too who has decided to use the laws of probability in my assessment. The vast majority of scientists agree that the polutants that we are producing are harming the environment, with higher temperatures the likely outcome.
The emmishions trading scheme might not be the best way of tackling this problem but it is one way of tackling it and one that can be enforced politically, if voters pass it through the parliament. In my opinion this problem should be tackled on a bi-partisan basis, now, and should not be used as a short term political football. An Australian scientist may know all the facts, but only has one vote. You can try and argue that this scheme is unhelpful, but it has been operating in Europe and hopefully will change the way that energy is produced. Acid rain was a major problem in Europe forty years ago, until the production methods were changed, proving that problems can be addressed in this manner. Are you unable to pay a small amount of your income to tackle this problem, or just unwilling? Do you have any children or grandchildren and if so are you not concerned for their future? You claimed at the beginning of this hub that you had rather cleverly decided to do some research on this issue, something that i would have thought you would have undertaken a little earlier. Greg D Thompson uses the child-like assessment of interviewing sales people, small business people and tradesmen and is surprised to learn that they are unqualified as climate scientists. It is clear to me that nothing logical, or bases on facts will sway you from your present thinking. You are quite prepared to sit on your hands ignoring the real issue of global warming, preferring instead to use trite dismissive language. I really hope that you and Greg D Thompson are right, but i'll be supporting the ETC in the meantime, in case you are wrong Cheers
Hi attemptedhumour. Thanks for reading my other article. But I’m very disappointed in your comment.
Sadly though, not surprised, because it actually demonstrates the very point of that piece. The heading has upset you, because you’ve misunderstood it, and in that self-righteous frame of mind, you’ve gone on to misunderstand the actual content, choosing instead to overlay your own unshakeable belief and certainty onto my article; the sole purpose of which is to ask people NOT to do that, because certainty is the one thing absent in this entire debate.
It’s silly to patronise me about “thinking I would have done some research myself a little earlier”, when the article is not about climate change per se – it’s about how so many believers are so dismissive of the dissenting point of view. (As you prove...).That’s why I kept it separate from this article exploring Carbon and CO2; which you may note if you read this headline again, is also about asking questions. Not proclaiming the truth of any ‘answers’ within it.
To be honest, to date, I’d been pleasantly surprised at how willing others were to engage in dialogue, but I guess someone had to lower the tone to a personal level, (all of your snide accusations about me, the tonality of this piece, my beliefs and attitudes are baseless, inappropriate and certainly not present in anything I’ve written). In some ways it would be easier to not approve your comment, it’s so unnecessarily offensive. But, maybe it was late at night, I don’t know....
To quote from your comment;
“You claim that you are a lay person without the intellect to understand what climate scienticts (sic) and government figures around the world are expressing, but decide to believe the theories of Greg D Thompson (who) uses the child-like assessment of interviewing sales people, small business people and tradesmen and is surprised to learn that they are unqualified as climate scientists. It is clear to me that nothing logical, or bases (sic) on facts will sway you from your present thinking. You are quite prepared to sit on your hands ignoring the real issue of global warming, preferring instead to use trite dismissive language”.
Contrary to these sweeping, unfounded, and patronising claims, I have neither been trite nor dismissive in anything I’ve written. You also misquote the actual content. I specifically stated that not all coverage of the Gregg D Thompson research was in agreement, was by no means certain myself, and suggested that readers Googled the full article and made their own judgment as to its credibility.
Some of these readers may well be the “sales people, small business people and tradesmen” to whom you dismissively refer. Why does being an ordinary citizen disqualify anyone from answering Thompson’s questions? We are all going to be affected by new taxes, and climate change abatement measures.
You do also realise that not every spokesperson for climate change is scientifically qualified in the field, don’t you? Google Australia’s own Climate Change evangelist Tim Flannery and see for yourself...but before you do that , click this link and read a one-on-one interview in which he resiles from much of what he’s previously said, (with the same level of certainty that you’re displaying yourself in the ‘rightness of the cause’). And admits to commercial self-interest not generally shared with the public at large:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/inde
I’m not referencing that link to do a beat-up on anyone. But you really shouldn’t assume that those with the highest profiles and loudest voices on the subject are necessarily biased purely in favour of the greater good. That’d be a bit quasi-religious of you, don’t you think? :)
Cheers
Ok, seconds out round two. I'll apologise for my condecending language if you apologise and acknowledge your contribution to the condecending language running through this hub, ie.
'Carbon, climate change culprit number one.'
'I'm sure I was taught at school.'
'not much scare factor'.
'smarter to cloud the issue i guess'
'climate reductionists'
'with the more manipulative', media friendly, but deciptive'
'people have such short attention spans these days'
'this evil gas'
This language is condecending.
You claim that you wrote this hub inviting people to comment in an attempt to throw more light on this puzzling problem.
I think you will find that the 'not so simple answer' has been solved in the first six lines of junkseller's response.
You say that you have decided to do some scientific research in order for you to be able to better understand climate change. If you studied climate for the rest of your life you would still only end up with your own opinion. Climate change has been calculated by thousands of scientists, collating all their combined knowledge and studies into a likely scenario. Their findings are that there is a ninety percent probability that warming of the earth's atmosphere will occur unless emissions are scaled back in the production stage. Gregg D Thompson's views are also just one opinion stacked up against thousands.
You have stated that you are not quallified to understand climate change, me neither, and i would suggest that both of us would also be unquallified to understand the complexities of the ETS.
I spend a lot of time talking about, listening to, reading about, or watching things about climate change. I'm sick to death of politicians, commentators, and ordinary Joe blows like you and i discussing an issue that scientists have proved is a real problem. I want action, on climate change. I don't know if this ETS will work, but it is at least something that can be judged given time. If it gets passed we will have an election soon enough, where this will be one of the issues. The title of your second hub, in my opinion, is offensive and ill considered. My opinion is mainly based not on science or politics, but mathematics. If the figures are correct then 97% of climate based scientists believe that there is a 90% probability that the world is warming. You can argue about those statistics if you like, but you wouldn't get many gamblers to bet on it. My decision about global warming is based on those figures and finings.
From a writing point of view, your hub wasn't about asking questions, but rather about you proposing easily disproved theories. It was clearly anti-action regarding a serious issue.
Some of the questions that Gregg D Thompson posed and you endorsed were child-like.
Asking everyday people if they have seen any evidence of CO2 causing a greenhouse effect is a rediculous question to pose. Are they to be expected to peer up into the sky and see the effects? Or to dive into the sea and try and work out if the ocean is a bit warmer? If you asked a hundred scientists who Paris Hilton was dating, you'd probably get the same results.
I don't care whether you publish these comments or not. If you do and you respond, then my reply will be as short as the support you have garnered in these two hubs.
Cheers.
Attemptedhumour, of course I'll publish these comments.
Even though they're getting a bit silly. And way over-reaching.
But, in ways you seem unable to comprehend, (or, to play you at your own game, don't want to acknowledge), the more you write, the more you validate the proposition of the article: One-eyed certainty, verging on religious zeal:
You have a point of view; you KNOW it to be true.
You are unwilling to consider any other point of view.
You dismiss 'deniers' of your view with acidic verbiage.
That is precisely the way 'true believers' in God behave.
That's what you're doing. That's what the article questions. Thanks for proving its validity.
Cheers.
Right, let's break this down a bit then. I, being a sciense-based climate change believer, am a 'quasi-religious, vitriolic, bigot.
You, as a sceptic, are a flat-earther, ludite.
Then there are swingers in between.
Or you might consider yourself to one of the inbetweeners?
It is getting a bit like a Monty Python sketch, especially our comments.
My stance is exactly the same, but going three rounds in this debate has added one enlightening factor to the process. The problem is much more political than science based. The trend is rapidly turning against the ETS (because it involves money) to the point where labour may have to dump it. Tony, (flat-earther) Abbott might even have the luxury of dumping his 'as yet to be put forward' alternative. The 'action' that i strongly endorse seems to be turning into 'inaction'. Whether this is a good outcome, for Australians, or the world in general, will be found out in the future.
The hub you wrote about turning sixteen was excellent and i stand by the comments i posted.
These two hubs are crap and i stand by these comments.
I'm happy to be called a QRVB because that title is accurate, according to both of us.
I'm not sure if you are happy to describe yourself as a flat-earther, ludite. That's up to you to decide.
Cheers.
Ok I gotta ask why not simple link Thompson's name to the article, then I looked and saw no links what so ever in the content of your article, what gives?
You do know of course this is how information is shared on the internet? I doubt seriously if he would object to more people reading his article.
I consider the whole carbon farce disinformation and conditioning and according to your article seems to be working.
My personal opinion for what it is worth is that global warming is due to seismic activity. There are over 300 known active volcanoes on the ocean floors, gee do you think lava flowing into the Oceans could effect the temperature?
Look at all the coastal flooding and Ring O' Fire (over 200 earthquakes daily), the industrial revolution has been going on for what 170 years. One Volcano on the surface spews more harmful pollution into the atmosphere in one day that all industrial pollution since the dawn of time.
Now most folks think my hubs are a little gloomy, but hey they ask the obvious questions everyone else would rather not!
Great Hub!
somethgblue, the reason I didn't link to Gregg Thompson at the first mention was that I wanted people to read my article, not dive off to the source, and maybe not come back. By the time you get to the end, it's as easy to Google the guy, plus get access as well to articles expressing the various other points of view, on the first page of search results. Playing fair, that's all.
BTW, the volcano thing, which I agree with you on, was the first one to be debunked, in the very first comment, on my slightly more emotional hub linking climate change to religious bigotry and vitriol. (Linked above, beneath the comments panel, if you want to take a look)
Sorry dude, I'm not going to read some ones comment that is almost as long as the article. If he wants to express his opinion write an article and I'll read it but I generally don't read comments that long.
I consider comments that long just rude, yeah after going back I finally found it in tiny little letters, barely noticeable, are you embarrassed by it, why make it so difficult to find and why not mention it in the article?
I don't get it?
My mind thinks like yours on this issue. I don't know all the technical stuff, I've tried reading many things to explain it and am always amazed at the different, often conflicting "answers" out there.
But the one thing that's never made any sense to me at all is how the ETS's would solve the issue at all as the net amount of carbon emissions would remain the same. Sounds like a shell game to me. Just shifting things around so that your head starts spinning when you really try to follow what's going on.
Liked your article, though and voted it up and interesting.
HBN, hi, I'm sure you and I aren't the only people who shake our heads. I get quite het up about the constant double-shuffle. It's certainly more about politics than science, but also replete with derogatory terminology directed at (us) 'climate change deniers', 'cynics' and 'non-believers'.
I wrote a somewhat more impassioned Hub about that, here; http://writeronline.hubpages.com/hub/Since-Climate
Thanks for your comment, and rating HBN. It's appreciated.
junkseller Level 1 Commenter 14 months ago
The problem isn't CO2 that we exhale (which by the way plants exhale as well). The problem is with Carbon in the fossil fuels that we burn, that upon burning enter the atmosphere and form CO2.
A Carbon tax is a tax on Carbon not on CO2. A carbon tax would tax the carbon content in fossil fuels (so before they are burned) so is an appropriate terminology. A cap and trade system is set up on emissions (after burning) and so it might be appropriate to call it an actual CO2 tax. That doesn't mean people (or the media) use these terms correctly but it seems to me that there is an actual reason for the difference, other than necessarily being about obfuscation.
A LOT of things are perfectly harmless given certain quantities or certain contexts. They only become pollutants when they exceed these quantities or change contexts. Look at ozone for instance - not only natural but important (when in the upper atmosphere). Yet, Ozone is also extremely toxic, so when at ground level is considered a pollutant. CO2 concentrations have reached levels that are now altering the natural climate and so are rightfully considered pollution.
Gregg D. Thompson as far as I could tell is an amateur astronomer. I found no evidence he is climate scientist, has any science education at all, or has any peer-reviewed publications. We really need to have a baseline of credibility when it comes to discussing the issues. You wouldn't go to a doctor who had no education, no degree on the wall, and isn't a member of a professional association. Similarly we shouldn't base our climate debate on amateur astronomers (no offense to amateur astronomers).
As to what he said, first off, whether or not people know the facts about global warming or not has little to do with the actual science and more to do with their knowledge and with the poor transmission of information by the media. I don't know the weight of a liver (I couldn't even guess) but I sure wouldn't use that as evidence that a doctor who is telling me the weight is wrong.
“Humans produce only 3%”
True or not, how much we relatively produce isn't really the issue. Natural CO2 is in balance. We are disturbing that balance. That is the point. The size of things doesn't always equate to their importance.
“Is CO2 a pollutant?”
CO2 is a pollutant as I have just explained. Context and concentrations matter.
“There is no proof at all”
Scientists don't produce "proof"; they produce likelihoods. The casual link between human action and global warming is said to be "very likely" (>90%) by the IPCC's 2007 report. For science that is a high level of certainty.
"While CO2 can absorb heat a little faster than nitrogen and oxygen, it becomes no hotter because it cannot absorb any more heat than the other gases".
IF a gas can absorb energy faster than other gases, than it by definition CAN absorb more heat. His two statements can't both be true. It doesn't mean it gets hotter though, because it is also always losing energy. A greenhouse gas is a greenhouse gas BECAUSE of its greater ability for absorbing longwave radiation not because of some thermodynamic law breaking ability to get hotter than other gasses.
Let's do a little thought experiment. Let's say you run an airport but have no security checking personnel. Everyone would get on board. It would be like having no atmosphere and all heat would escape very quickly. You decide to add some security personnel and they start to stop people who don't have tickets or are carrying weapons, etc. and they turn them back to where they came from. This is like what greenhouse gases do. Now, as you INCREASE security personnel you turn back more and more people. Just as more greenhouse gases turn back more of the heat. The energy in the system increases. The thermodynamic laws are for systems in equilibrium. For such systems Energy In = Energy Out, but our system, by changing greenhouse gas concentrations, is not in equilibrium so that Energy In = Energy Out PLUS Energy Being Stored. There is evidence collected on longwave radiation leaving the atmosphere and radiation being transmitted back to earth and both datasets confirm this theoretical relationship.
He goes on to make some ridiculous points:
“Glasshouses with high levels of CO2”
Greenhouses block convective heat losses not radiative heat transfer. They are entirely different.
“The planets Venus and Mars”
He makes a point that Venus and Mars have high CO2 levels (97% according to him) and yet have stable temperatures. That may be true, but the key point is that stable CO2 levels equal stable temperatures. We have unstable CO2 levels so the point is irrelevant. Also, Venus has a surface temperature of 860dF so I’m not really sure that helps his point.
There’s more. He makes a number of claims but as is usual provides no credible science to back them up so it is impossible to really evaluate them.