Adrian Vance

I’m with johnx. Humans border on the presumptuous to suggest we have had a statistically significant impact on global climate and more so to suggest we can reverse our impact in a statistically significant manner. Here’s a picture of the carbon cycle: visionlearning.com. Counting all the “up” arrows (sources releasing CO2), we get a total carbon “input” of 217.1 gigatons of carbon per year. The humans on the right of that figure account for 5.5 gigatons of carbon per year, 2.5% of global carbon production.

Even if humans had the ability to cut our ‘carbon emissions’ in half, we’d then be contributing 1.3 % of the globe’s carbon emissions. 2.5% –> 1.3 %. And at what cost? How many industries will be severely crippled with this significant cutback? What will happen to those nation’s economies with an industrial contraction of that magnitude?

As to burying carbon at sea (on the sig fig page), the figure I link to shows the ocean as the largest carbon sink we have on the planet, with some 50 times more carbon than the atmosphere. So burying our 2.5% in the sea would not significantly change the amount of carbon in the oceans. But I do wonder what effect that would have on the local pH of that region of the ocean (CO2 + H2O –> H2CO3 (carbonic acid)). And what effect will that local rise in pH have on the local life forms and oceanic ecosytem?

I am familiar with this blog. While I think the the “refusniks” there are on target, it usually has a paucity of scientific references. This causes people to espouse opinions based upon no facts for substantiation.

I think that we all must rely only on data that has been scrutinized at least by objective peer review (and not friendly peer review, which is no review at all). Otherwise we are back to the Gore movie and we should do two things: Invest in “carbon traders” (which is a joke); and turn our energy costs over to the U.N. I reject doing anything without the data and the review.

One of the reasons I read your material is that you always provide substantiation. I see no smoke and mirrors.

Waste not, want not is a good motto to live by regardless of the current media scaremongering. The whole carbon offsetting is nothing more than sweeping the dust under someone else’s carpet, to mix yet another metaphor you really cannot rob Petra to pay Pauline.

I was going to link to this blog post on the global warming debate in the original item but changed my mind for fear of diluting the main points, but I’d be interested in Sciencebase readers’ take on this too.

db

I still think it is a good thing to reduce the various gases we put into the atmosphere, and getting away from an oil based economy can only help us, considering the instability of the Middle East, but to blindly accept the present explanations for global warming borders on the absurd.

No matter what the causes of current climate change are, it is still smart to get away from oil, so I do support attempts to reduce emissions, just not for the reasons most people cite.

It will be difficult to respond to that article here. The article and the equally controversial or “hotly disputed” detractors are lengthy, and each appear to be supported by “irrefutable data”.

In answer to your caveat: To be forthright, I am a “refusnik”. I have no ownership in “energy companies”, energy traders” or “carbon traders”. I have clients, none of which are any of the above. That said, all are free to or not to take my thoughts seriously. Notwithstanding, I steadfastly maintain a small “carbon footprint” — not because of carbon dispersal of carbon itself, but because, except for coal, our carbon resources are dwindling. Lastly, while I am trained or educated in science and mathematics, I no longer work in any of these fields.

First, Gore is no scientist. Second, Gore is co-founder and chairman of Generation Investment Management, a London based carbon trading company, from which he receives hefty compensation. Mr. Gore defends his style of life (consuming huge amounts of energy) by stating that he “trades carbon”. In essence, he refuses to address the dwindling energy supply question that plagues the planet. Enough of the Gore tirade.

Second, what nation or country would even consider being taxed by the U.N. to the tune of possibly trillions of Dollars. It’s a given that the U.N. is and has been incompetent in all of its endeavors. Who dares to trust it to use the trillions of dollars of “carbon tax” in any way other than to support its ever growing beuracracy. Forget the U.S., even a poor third-world country who is disfavored by the U.N. should refuse such controls imposed by a dysfunctional “governmental system”. Well, again, enough of the U.N. issue.

As to the science, it does appear that CO2 has a logrithmic decrease in its effect on the environment. And, it seems that human contribution is sub-nominal or nominal. Water vapor and methane seem to be more effective in altering the environment. (Let us give the U.N. control over these matters also?).

As to IPCC’s contention of its 10% uncertainty. How IPCC arrived at this number remains a mystery to scientists. IPCC could have said 2% or 40% and still nobody could utilize a real scientific method to discern how the number arose. (Although it’s a good enough of a number to attempt exerting control by taxation rather than nations’ donations. IPCC and the U.N. are not without scary agenda).

Lastly, I suggest that everyone read everything that can be found on the subject. I suggest a primer to start (not without bias itself), it is:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html