May 01 2008
More Carbon Dioxide, Please?
The National Review Online has an article by Dr. Roy Spencer called More Carbon Dioxide, Please: Raising a scientific question. A few of the “skeptics” have already jumped on the article without showing any sort of skepticism.
Almost all (-almost?) of the arguments used in the piece are those that have already been used elsewhere and refuted at Skeptical Science. Yet, for the sake of refuting them again using different language. Hopefully a few “skeptics” will read this and realize that to be a skeptic means to be skeptical of everything, even that which you already think is true.
The Red Herring Train
Spencer starts the piece with a red herring. He argues that the notion that any human influence upon nature is not necessarily bad. I’ve not heard anyone argue that every human action results in harm to nature. Yet, there are cases where human influence has a large negative effect on nature. We use fertilizers to grow more and better food. Some of this washes away into the rivers and ends up creating low-oxygen areas in the oceans called dead zones. These are dangerous to the animals that previously lived in these areas, and to humans because we used to fish there, but can no longer do so because the animals have died or moved elsewhere.
One red herring follows another, because Spencer devotes his entire second paragraph to speculating what the earth would be like if there were no human influence upon nature. “Would the carnivores stop eating those poor, defenseless herbivores, as well as each other?” Of course they would! Before humans, didn’t all the species get along in the garden of eden? No, herbivores would continue eating plants, carnivores would continue eating other animals, and omnivores would continue eating both.
Paragraph 3 continues the red herring train. Spencer states that CO2 is “necessary for life on Earth”. Maybe, I won’t argue that. But then he argues that because it’s natural that it must be good, which is just wrong. Water is a necessity for humans to survive. However, if we drink too much water we can die of water intoxication. Speaking of intoxication, beer also contains CO2. So by using Spencer’s logic, drinking as much beer as possible would be a good thing.
It’s Natural… and Global Cooling!
I’ve decided to quote the next paragraph in full.
As a climate researcher, I am increasingly convinced that most of our recent global warming has been natural, not manmade. If true, this would mean that global temperatures can be expected to peak in the coming years (if they haven’t already), and global cooling will eventually ensue.
Dr. Spencer, please provide a citation for your belief that we will soon experience global cooling, and that global warming is natural. I bet that you will be unable to do so since the evidence in the peer-reviewed literature is vastly in support of the opposite conclusions.
Even if it’s true, it’s Good
He then argues that increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere will not increase the acidity of the oceans. The oceans are slightly basic, meaning that they have a pH greater than 7. pH is a measure of the amount-of-substance concentration of hydrogen ion H+. pOH is a measure of the amount-of-substance concentration of hydroxide ion OH-. The relationship between the amount of OH- ions and H+ ions is such that pH + pOH = 14. When CO2 is disolved in water, it is in equilibrium with carbonic acid (H2CO3). This means that for every CO2 molecule disolved in the ocean, there are 2 more H+ ions. Because there are more H+ ions, the pH will be lower. This means that the solution is more acidic (which is equivalent to saying the solution is less basic).
Dr. Spencer talks about how extra CO2 in the atmosphere is good for plant growth, both on land and in the ocean. Specifically, he uses a recently published article in Science Express that shows that one form of planton grows faster with higher levels of CO2. He states that “[i] t is quite possible that the biosphere… has been starved for atmospheric CO2.” Yet it does not seem likely that this is the case. If plants were starving for CO2, then any extra CO2 in the atmosphere would likely be used immediately as it was produced. Yet, we have evidence that the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing. This suggests that the growth of plants is not CO2 limited, but limited by other things such as water, temperature, or sunlight.
The article continues with the argument that the extra CO2 may be good for more species than the number of species it will hurt. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this is the case, and Dr. Spencer doesn’t provide any evidence that it is, just that we suppose it might be true. Okay, let’s suppose it is true. It still doesn’t matter. What really matters is how it will affect humans. We have adapted to the climate as it is today, and in particular to where the sea levels are today. A change as small as 1-2 meters would have a dramatic effect on humans living in coastal areas.
It’s a “religion”
Spencer then says that “scientists tend to worship nature.” He then argues that since scientists are religious in nature that any environmental law violates the establishment clause. This is obviously silly, especially coming from a creationist.
Conclusion
From the above, it’s clear that many of the things that were said in the original article are either not related to the anthropogenic global warming issue, or not necessarily true. These are the same sort of arguments that the “skeptics” have been employing for a long time. And I was surprised that the “infrared iris” was not brought up in this piece since that’s the argument in the literature for a strong negative feedback. But that may be more technical than is needed for the National Review Online.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Related Posts:
14 Responses to “More Carbon Dioxide, Please?”
To reduce spam, comments are automatically closed 30 days after the last comment. If you would like to comment on any closed thread, please use the contact form at the top of this page.
There used to be some science on this blog. I really liked it for that. Numbers, graphs, explanations, especially stuff that didn’t seem to take a side. We’re off that track now it seems. Please bring back the science and not the consensus politics.
[Reply: The only way I can gauge interest in a subject is by the number of pageviews and through the comments. I'll try to do some more numbers and graphs posts, but they don't seem to be as popular, and it's hard to come up with new ideas for those types of posts. Suggestions are welcome.
]
I used to do this ‘CO2 good’ stuff at David’s old Quark Soup quite a bit. If I get the time, I’ll try to run them down to save a lot of time here.
Kriek, the science is clear. Your vague implications are false.
Best,
Ð
“I was surprised that the “infrared iris” was not brought up in this piece since that’s the argument in the literature for a strong negative feedback.”
He’s still trying to get it published. Check out the globalchange Google group.
Spencer then says that “scientists tend to worship nature.” He then argues that since scientists are religious in nature that any environmental law violates the establishment clause.
That is brilliant! It uses the first amendment to implement anarchy. Since any policy is based on a belief that such policy is advisable, and since the definition of religion can be expanded to include any belief, any law whatsoever establishes a religion. Therefore laws are illegal!
Why argue anything else if you have that? A pity it invalidates laws against robbery and murder. Oh well, small potatoes, the right to emit CO2 is more important I guess.
The old prototype of “chutzpah” is the man who, having murdered his parents, pleads for the mercy of the court on the grounds that he is an orphan. This is in the same league.
“especially stuff that didn’t seem to take a side. We’re off that track now it seems. Please bring back the science and not the consensus politics.”
Kriek, there is no guarantee that all evidence will lie midway between two positions that interest you. The consensus exists because of the balance of evidence as understood by the people doing the balancing.
Consequently, unless you go digging around for evidence specifically because of its influence on the balance, you will find (simplifying rather severely but I think in this case justifiably) some small evidence that supports the consensus being too alarmist and some small evidence that supports the consensus being too complacent, and lots of evidence that the consensus is about right.
I find Atmoz’s willingness to play around with US surface station data a bit eccentric and rather dull, myself, but I suppose that it’s a service to address this situation fairly rather than cherry picking stations that have a warming bias (or even just a warm bias, which really ought to be irrelevant). I haven’t followed it closely but I gather that there is roughly equal chance that an individual station record’s trend is biased cold as biased warm. Stop the presses.
If you identify “agreeing with the consensus” with “politics”, you are assuming that the consensus is illegitimate. I would think this ought to be the key question driving interest in the evidence, not a filter eliminating evidence.
Like Spencer, in the name of fairness you appear to be closing the debate rather than opening it.
[Reply: Personally, I find the surface station stuff boring too. But I was posting on it to show that while there may be problems with individual stations, that when they are combined into a global average the error are very small. That is, there will be both positive and negative biases.]
Another reason to post on Spencer’s post is that he has so much reach among US conservatives. His views, embarassingly flawed to climate scientists, are aired without edit or rejoinder in places like NRO and Rush Limbaugh’s radio show. For right-wing voters who will never dive into the scientific literature, Spencer is delivering the “truth” about climate science.
I actually think there is weak, weak, weak support for a view that GW scientists are nature loving and don’t look at benefits of warming (for instance less cold deaths) as readily as they should. But he doesn’t support that view with detail/specifics. And then he goes off on the usual strawman killing. And then the hoi polloi come along and give each other reacharounds.
Why oh why are my skeptics so butt stupid and so butt biased. They are so intellectually lazy.
“This means that the solution is more acidic (which is equivalent to saying the solution is less basic).”
I am uncomfortable with that phrasing. We have a defined “bright line” between acidic and basic.
Saying that a less base solution is “more acidic” is like saying that hot tap water is “less frozen” than cool tap water.
Minor niggle.
“Spencer starts the piece with a red herring. He argues that the notion that any human influence upon nature is not necessarily bad. I’ve not heard anyone argue that every human action results in harm to nature. ”
Actually, this is a red herring. I think the point was that the many causes of environmentalists all begin with the notion that human’s are destroying the planet. When you look at the facts, many of the claims are flat out wrong. In many cases where humans have had a negative impact, the environment has been improving over the last few decades even while environmentalists still insist otherwise (such as air and water quality in developed countries).
The AGW concept began with the notion that humans have a negative impact on the earth, and specifically CO2 was the cause identified. After that was decided the research began into what negative effects were.
From what I hear and read, the science is far from decided and your use of innuendo doesn’t help to convince me.
Mike EE
“The AGW concept began with the notion that humans have a negative impact on the earth, and specifically CO2 was the cause identified. After that was decided the research began into what negative effects were.”
Sorry, no. As Atmoz advises, you should be skeptical of what you assume, MikeEE. See here for the facts.
Also, regarding your more general claim about environmentalists, it’s interesting that they were the ones pushing for the improvements in air and water quality. Saying now that those improvements prove that environmentalists were wrong about the need or wrong that further improvements are needed is strange. OTOH it is a standard talking point repeated by Limbaugh et al.
Steve,
I didn’t say these were examples of there environmentalist were wrong, but there are examples of that too. The problem I was referring to is that you still mostly hear that water and air quality are bad, or even getting worse. Based on what people get from the news I doubt that most people would realize these things have actually gotten better.
I guess the problem I have is that environmentalists always highlights the negative and never the positive. When was the last time you saw them give humans a pat on the back for any progress they’ve made?
I think you can accomplish much more with a carrot than with a stick, and I only see them wielding the stick.
As for AGW, there are so many serious questions regarding temperature, CO2 and the exact greenhouse effect, weather models; and so on many other issues that it just seems flagrantly wrong to hear Al Gore and others claim that the science is settled.
MikeEE
“CO2 and the exact greenhouse effect”
Before someone fires back at me, no I’m not questioning the greenhouse effect. I mean that the global climate model isn’t completely understood – maybe in a few hundred years we’ll get a good handle on it.
While I’m a BSEE/MSCS and don’t work in any domain related to climate science (hardly even an amateur) I do understand a little about complex systems. I believe that people understand many pieces of the puzzle, but definitely not the whole.
MikeEE
Mike EE, the “science is settled” means that the science is settled enough to provide a basis for strong action to modify the practices (primarily GHG emissions) that are heating the planet. Obviously there’s much more to learn. To get up to speed with the science, go to RealClimate and click on “Start Here” at the top of the page. Diving into these blogs without first learning the basics is a recipe for confusion.
Re air and water quality, one thing to bear in mind is that while they’ve broadly improved in the first world, globally it’s a rather different picture. Even in the U.S., progress on water quality is uneven and has gotten worse in some important ways (e.g. in coastal waters with expanding “dead zones” and further degradation of important estuaries such as Chesapeake and SF bays). Re air quality, bear in mind that we’ve exported a large part of our problem to China.
Atmoz, I guess I’m not the typical reader of your blog, if there is such a thing.
I appreciate the work that’s gone into the numbers and graphs posts and that good ideas, and time, aren’t in surplus.