Re: [asa] CO2 content

On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 8:23 AM, j burg <hossradbourne@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks, Rich. I continue to have exchanges with my friend offline. This
> morning I emailed him and included this text:
>
> "There are five GW claims, as I see it:
>
> 1. CO2 levels are rising rapidly.
> 2. CO2 levels much above where we are now are leading to a warming of
> the planet, primarily at the poles.
> 3. This is a "bad thing."
> 4. Humanity is largely responsible.
> 5. Actions to change this would be a "good thing.".
>
> Your claim is that #3 is incorrect -- that CO2 level rising is not a
> "bad thing." On #4 you have said nothing; on #5 you have claimed that
> such actions would be a "bad thing," primarily on political/economic
> grounds."
>
> I continue to urge him to join tthe ASA list.
>
> Have a good weekend.
>
> Burgy
>

Political and economic considerations are important. One of the reasons the
IPCC was formed in the first place there are real and tangible costs both in
under and over estimating the problem. We have gone over the problems of
underestimating the problem. If you overestimate the problem then you waste
economic resources that could be used to help out the poor, etc. This is why
David Opderbeck has reminded us from time to time that using the so-called
precautionary principle is insufficient a basis for dealing with this issue.

The problem is there is much more ambiguity than most people especially
policy makers would care for. Since you and I have lived in the scientific
realm we probably have been somewhat inoculated to the amount of ambiguity
that needs to be absorbed. I have been talking to evangelical lay people a
lot and I have seen that they want clear, black-and-white answers. The
denialist machine have played into that desire along with overstating the
ambiguity of the science.

For example, the Cenozoic climate is not very well understood. The so-called
Azolla event as far as I can tell does not have any CO2 data from the same
time frame. The climate models also don't match up to this time period very
well. A scary part is the climate sensitivity in this period is much higher
than our models predict. As we transition to a hothouse climate we might
have even faster temperature rises because of this.

We need to improve this. Randy sent me a review copy of a Bush
Administration review of the paleoclimate of the Arctic. Over 650 pages can
be summed up with "We understand this very poorly and we need a lot of money
to study this in more depth." The skeptics could help and step up and study
this or improve the models, etc. so a proper policy with minimum cost could
be crafted, but they seem more content blowing smoke. The Cenozoic climate
is important because as our CO2 levels get higher and higher our current
climate becomes less and less relavent. Keith's presentation at the last
annual ASA meeting is helpful in understanding what we know here.

As for the very real negative effects, the following draft document, again
prepared by the Bush Administration is helpful and written in an accessible
fashion:

http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/usp/usp-prd-all.pdf

Since OCS drilling is being debated during the presidential campaign some
might find the following analysis -- which in my opinion is wildly
optimistic -- by the EIA. There's a graph (Fig. 20) of current production in
the lower 48 that shows a drop off and then the EIA projects for no apparent
reason a major increase! Even with this rose-colored assumption, the EIA
concludes:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific,
Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on
domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Aug 29 12:20:03 2008