Log in

No account? Create an account
Climate Change III : Why the Enemy Is Us - MoonScape [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ website | My Website ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Climate Change III : Why the Enemy Is Us [Oct. 28th, 2009|09:06 am]
[Tags|, ]
[Current Mood |awake]

The arguments against a human cause of a) the increased carbon dioxide and b) global climate change rest on several false assumptions.   First, that because there are other sources of CO2, the human contribution must be so paltry as to be insignificant.   Second, that  CO2 isn't a major component of greenhousing--it's all sun cycles or something. 

But there again the evidence is on the side of the original thesis...that this round of global climate change is being accelerated by human activity.  In the paleoclimate record, high levels of carbon dioxide and methane are associated with warmer climates.  These are not the only "greenhouse gases" or the only contributors to the atmospheric change, but they are easy to measure.  Carbon dioxide was recognized as a greenhouse gas long before the climate-change hypothesis was raised--in fact, it was because it is a known greenhouse gas that rising carbon dioxide created an interest.

With increasing precision, it's possible to know how much geologic and other processes contribute to the levels of CO2 in the air.  It's possible to track entire air masses, with their associated chemical components (satellites are a big help.)  Samples of air at various altitudes allow comparison of the carbon isotope ratios in the carbon dioxide both vertically and across time.  So the human contribution to the atmosphere--across many atmospheric components, not just carbon dioxide--can be traced.   That contribution has increased rapidly in the past two centuries, both because of the increased population but also because of activities that decrease carbon uptake (reduction) via photosynthesis and increase carbon oxidation.

It does not matter that there are non-human-derived sources of CO2 and methane, such as volcanoes.   What matters, in terms of the anthropogenic component, is whether it's enough to tip the scales.   After all, if you're in a rowboat with a lot of water in it, just barely floating, and you reach over the side and dip another bucketful into the boat--you can indeed sink your own boat.  The last bucketful--the one that sinks the boat--may be a small fraction of what's in the boat, but it's a critical fraction.   If you're smart, you'll be dipping water from the boat and pouring it into the ocean. 

Humans have impacted this planet in many ways for tens of thousands of years, but that impact has accelerated as a) the population increased (it has about tripled in my lifetime) and b) developed more effective technology for changing the topography, vegetation, watercourses, etc. and using more resources per capita.  Population growth by itself would create changes in the surrounding ecosystems--could not help doing so. But combined with the technology that developed during and since the Industrial Revolution, humans have made visible, unmistakable changes to  the landforms, water supplies, and distribution of species.  Human activity has nearly always (and always in "civilizations") been aimed at short-term human benefit: this year's food supply, this year's water supply, this year's ease of transportation, etc.

That's natural--but the ways we go about it are not natural, and have demonstrable long-term  negative consequences, even not considering global climate.  A few thousand years ago, forest clearing in both Greece and China prompted a few to recognize that clear-cutting on slopes led to erosion, silty rivers (with more erosion downstream from the increased cutting power of  soil particles in the water), flooding, and so on.  Farming practices that were easy, but depleted soil fertility, have been common worldwide until farmers were forced to recognize the long-term futility of short-term exploitation.  Many such practices still exist, and have recurred in areas where the need to make a money profit (rather than feed one's own family or village) pushes farmers to try for maximum gain every year.

Urbanization and uncontrolled urban sprawl damaged ecosystems before anyone thought of global warming: industrial pollution of waterways was a subject of legal interest as early as 1250 in England, when butchers were constrained from throwing offal in the Thames (if they could be caught.)  Polluted water supplies--polluted by humans--still cause illness and disability, and degraded food supplies (fish too toxic to eat safely) around the world today.  The loss of productive farmland to development raised food prices (food had to be transported from farther away) in the 19th and 20th centuries, and still continues.  Damming of rivers interrupts migration of fish (and thus limits the fish species found above the dams and sometimes below) and in hot climates results in net loss of water through evaporation, while the stored water leaches salts (some even toxic) from the ground it sits on.

Air pollution of human origin has caused--and continues to cause--human disease and disability.  Asthma is the most obvious--but not the only--metric for the human cost of air pollution.  Agricultural, industrial, and home sources of air pollution markedly increase the risk of asthma and other conditions of the lung.  But air pollution does not limit itself to the lower levels of the atmosphere.  I remember flying to Chicago to a friend's wedding in 1970.  At that time, the air back home was still clear, seen from an aircraft.  But flying along the industrial northeast, we saw brown smog everywhere and came down through layers of yellow, orange, and brown--the mess extended to 20,000 feet. The chemicals that gave the colors created acidic conditions leading to acid rain (acid rain that fell hundreds or thousands of miles away, damaging the lakes and rivers and their fish...)  It was already known that cities created their own weather...that the air in the most rural areas, though purer than in cities, was not as pure as it had been.

Given that human activity was already having regional effects on the atmosphere, there's no reason to balk at the idea that human activity, if increased, could have global effects on the atmosphere, or that atmospheric and ground-level changes affect climate.  Beyond theory, those effects can now be demonstrated--as discussed in Climate Change I and II.   

Of course, no one has to accept the evidence.    You can play King Canute battling the tide if you want to.  Unfortunately, we don't have a way to offer each position in this a separate planet on which to play out their particular viewpoint and see who does best.   We have one planet, and one human race; all of us are in the boat together.    When there were only a few millions of us--even a couple of billion--we could play with putting more water in the boat and tossing water out--the boat was riding higher in the water.  Now--mistakes will be very costly indeed, costly not just in money, but in human lives.   You may think yours is safe...you may even dream of building a spaceship and going somewhere else...but right now, this is the boat we have.   Bailing it out seems better to me than sinking it.


[User Picture]From: bunny_m
2009-10-28 03:46 pm (UTC)
Well said.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: harfafnor
2009-10-28 04:51 pm (UTC)
It pains me to see clear cut lands. But, here in my part of Louisiana, because I've now moved home, despite all the evidence it is still being done here. It is one of, if not the, biggest industry around. Timber companies own huge tracts of land, a lot of it on Wildlife Management Areas. Just today I drove through what must have been 100+ acres of clear cut land. The only positive is that they do replant it and they leave the branches and creeks alone. They used to cut those too. Our National Forestry Service here also has this idea and I've seen lands that had 100 year old growth decimated. It is Kisatchie National Forest. When my greatgrandfather was alive there were trees that one or two logs would fill up a train car, original old growth. There is not a single one of those trees here in Vernon Parish now. Every now and then you can find a stump, but those are rare too now. Sorry for my rant within your rant. I wish someone would listen.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: e_moon60
2009-10-29 05:11 pm (UTC)
My husband's family owned some land in Alabama that still had hardwood forest on it as recently as forty years ago. His relatives agreed to a timber company's offer to cut down the hardwoods and replace with quick-growing pines. Yes, there was money from it--but the habitats that supported wildlife living in mature hardwood forest do not exist in same-age pulp-pine managed woodlands.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: dsgood
2009-10-29 06:16 am (UTC)
Note: King Canute was demonstrating that he didn't have the power to command the tides.

That aside: I grew up in an area which probably should never have been farmed. The kind of place where farmers put up stone fences because they had to do something with the stones which turned up in every Spring plowing.

Which is why, listening tonight to a speech about the importance of preserving family farms, I was not entirely sympathetic.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kk1raven
2009-11-01 11:14 pm (UTC)
I read a week or two ago about a survey showing that only 57% of the people surveyed in the US believed that global warming is happening. Far fewer (something like 36%) believed that it is being caused by human actions. How do you convince people that there is a need to act now to deal with a problem when they don't even believe it exists?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: e_moon60
2009-11-02 04:14 am (UTC)
It's difficult. One approach is to learn more about why people don't believe it's happening and why they don't think there's any reason to act now (aside from the fact they've been systematically lied to for the past thirty years...)

Take a look at what Peter Sandman has written about this specific problem:
http://www.psandman.com/col/climate.htm -- he's an expert on communication of risk.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)