CO2 in atmosphere on the rise

Global warming moving from theory to fact

Published on August 25, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

The CO2 level in the atmosphere is now 372 parts per million. Before the industrial revolution, which began the widespread use of fossil fuels (coal and oil mainly), that number was only 227 parts per million. That's a 30% increase.

CO2 is a green house gas. It is not a pollutant. When you burn something, anything, your best case scenario for non-pollution end result is water and carbon dioxide. There's no magic bullet to solving that as long as are relying on energy sources in which burning them is how we release the stored energy. But pollutant or not, CO2 is a green house gas.

The problem with green house gases is that they trap eat. The suns rays hit the earth and that energy is converted to heat. Much of that heat is returned out into space. But CO2 and other green house gasses keep that heat in place.

The result is that this has probably contributed to the Earth having grown warmer in the past century and it is likely to continue to get warmer. The problem environmentalists face is that they have a very poor track record when it comes to being correct in their predictions of doom. During the 80s there was talk of global cooling. In the 70s there was talk of running out of metals ranging from copper to tin by the year 2000. In the 60s we were told how DDT was going to wipe out all the birds (subsequent research has made the DDT claims look pretty iffy). In short, the environmental movement looks a bit like the boy who cried wolf.

What also hurts is that no one is willing to step up and propose realistic alternative energy sources. If global warming is a serious problem, then serious solutions need to be proposed. Wind and solar power are not serious solutions. At best, they could make up a couple percent of our energy needs today let alone what we'll need in 20 years and that's only if we went crazy with it.

Fuel cells aren't the full answer either because fuel cells only store energy. They're not energy sources. That energy has to come from somewhere. You can't just scoop up some hydrogen and put it into a box. It takes a lot of energy to power hydrogen fuel cells.

As a practical matter, if we want to solve global warming, we have to go with nuclear power. There's simply no other way, any time soon, to provide an energy source that is even remotely adequate. The problem with nuclear power are the waste products. If you think some CO2 is bad, what do you think of nuclear waste?

Unfortunately, there's no political solution to this. The Kyoto accords were a joke. By mid century, China will likely be putting more CO2 in the atmosphere than the rest of the world combined and it would have been excused by the Kyoto accords. India was also excluded along with many other "developing" nations. The Kyoto accords weren't a serious attempt to stop global warming, it was the result of politicians looking for ways to score points with their constituents.

If you accept that we need to bring our CO2 levels under control, then conservation isn't going to do it. Not by a long shot. Once the developing world starts using the same per capita energy as say France, no amount of conservation is going to do the trick. We have to make a fundamental shift from fossil fuels and we have to do that at the same time as we put an end to deforestation. Or we will have to find a technological solution to start removing massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. But I don't see any solutions even remotely on the table at this time that are serious.

They say a frog put into water will let itself be boiled to death if you turn up the heat on it gradually. Hopefully humans are a bit smarter than that. I'm not convinced that global warming is a "bad" thing. And I'm not convinced that CO2 is even a significant cause of it. But I think that there are plenty of other reasons to try to migrate away from fossil fuels.

Comments (Page 3)

Inigo-Montoya

on Aug 31, 2004

Paul,

I'm confused about the effects of CO2 you have listed. Can you provide links that CO2 levels are poisonous? Maybe you mean CO (carbon monoxide) which is indeed lethal. Perhaps you mean that we can't breathe 100% CO2, but really what you are saying is we need O2 to survive.

I also don't understand how CO2 causes ozone damage. Can you provide a link for that point? I certainly could be ignorant, but I've never heard about such a thing.

Jay Walker

on Aug 31, 2004

CO2 is known to increase heat retention and therefore cause global warming, but so what? Many other greenhouse gases are far better at this. CO2 is not the major player.

This is not true. While there are sustances much better at trapping heat than CO2 (such as methane, and CFCs for instance), the shear volume of CO2 outweighs this factor. In fact, if you refer to the link referenced here, you'll see an EPA report (see table 5) that shows by GWP (an equivalency unit, GWP = Global Warming Potential), CO2 emmissions accounts for better than 2/3rds of the heating effect. Even with other substances, such as methane, some 24% of that comes from burning fossil fuels. Others in that category also include nitrous oxides, and carbon monoxide.

Link

JW

stevendedalus

on Aug 31, 2004

It appears that everybody knows the threat is real; but as in pre-9/11, no one wants to roll up his sleeves and get with it.

Solitair

on Sep 01, 2004

Inigo,
you can get carbon dioxide poisoning as well as carbon monoxide poisoning. Humans along with most animals cannot live in low level CO2 environments irrespective of the levels of oxygen present. Any material safety data sheet for CO2 will list exposure limits. A 2% volume will cause a 50% increase in breathing rate. A 3% volume causes a 100% increase. A 4% volume is dangerous. Only 4%!!! This is what happened on Apollo 13 by the way.
CO2 does not itself cause ozone damage. I should have been clearer here. The generation of CO2 through fossil fuel burning (the primary source) however generates ozone damaging gases (such as CH4). What I was trying to imply here was that if fossil fuel burning and CO2 is a problem then it also has ozone damaging effects associated with it.

Jay,
I'm well aware that CO2 is a major player in global warming, but the point I'm trying to make is that for someone who doesn't accept global warming as real then CO2 is not an issue. Especially if they consider CO2 to be a natural gas and atmospheric levels to cycle naturally over time. The major players are then the man made gases, which cannot be blamed on nature.

paul.

Inigo-Montoya

on Sep 01, 2004

Thanks for educating me, Paul!

Draginol

on Sep 01, 2004

Yet most times I've seen people suggest wind and/or solar here in the U.S. midwest, and the most common reaction is to dismiss it as wishful thinking and a wasteful dream that will never work...

Probably because (in the US) it is a wasteful dream that will never work.

Have you ever sat down and looked at how much energy it takes to produce a solar cell or windmill? Then, have you looked at how much they generate in Kilojoules? Then have you looked at how much in Terrajoules of energy per hour our country uses? Then calculate how many windmills and solar cells it would take to make up even 1% of that use? Obviously not or else we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Windmills and such work great -- in Simcity. But in the real world, they simply don't generate enough power. Does that mean we shouldn't bother? No. If I were emperor, I would require every house to have a solar cell put on its roof. And I would use vast spaces of the empty desert to put windmills and solar panels. And try to encourage more farms and other rural areas in the plains states to put up windmills.

But will they put a dent in our energy use? No. They merely slow down the rate of increase.

If you want to actually reduce our dependence on fossil fuels today:

1) Begin building a massive infrastructure of new nuclear power plants (the new ones supposedly produce much less waste)

2) Raise the fuel economy on all consumer vehicles to 30MPG. I think it could be done (I live in the Detroit area) with Hybrid technology today.

3) Begin migrating industry to nuclear powered electricity.

4) Push for fuel cell adoption as quickly as possible with nuclear powered energy as the means to generate the power (again for non-techies, fuel cells are not a power source, they are a power container - the energy in a fuel cell doesn't just pop into existence out of nowhere).

Now, bear in mind, I am very skeptical that the earth's temperature is being significantly affected by CO2 emissions. I would argue that deforestation is at least as much of a reason for CO2 to increase than emissions and I don't think CO2 is the reason the temperature is growing. But at the same time, I really don't like being reliant on foreign oil and believe nuclear power, which exists today, could solve most of these problems.

But the problem is, the same people who want Kyoto and other such nonsense enacted are the same people who tend to protest nuclear power.

Inigo-Montoya

on Sep 01, 2004

I absolutely agree with your four recommendations, Draginol. A fifth would be to have the government heavily subsidize research into nuclear fusion power plants. That is the long term holy grail for energy.

And I too am frustrated that the majority of environmentalists do not see that we have to make hard choices. An energy crisis is looming. Dependence on oil is dangerous to our national security and economic vitality. The risk of nuclear fission is outweighed by these more serious threats.

Jay Walker

on Sep 01, 2004

Now, bear in mind, I am very skeptical that the earth's temperature is being significantly affected by CO2 emissions.

I'm confused. Your sub-title says global warming is moving from theory to fact, yet here you seem to argue the opposite. What's up?

Jay Walker

on Sep 01, 2004

Does that mean we shouldn't bother? No. If I were emperor, I would require every house to have a solar cell put on its roof.

I think that's a great idea and have often wondered why cities and counties haven't demanded that in their building codes. They're often the ones to lead this kind of change, then state and federal governments follow.

Jw

Draginol

on Sep 01, 2004

I think that the case for global warming is getting better. I think that CO2 in the atmosphere has risen. But I am not convinced that CO2 *emissions* are the principle cause.

LIke I said, in that same post, that deforestation could be having a signficant effect. And I am also not convinced that CO2 levels are the primary mover of the temperature.

vincible

on Sep 01, 2004

I would argue that deforestation is at least as much of a reason for CO2 to increase than emissions and I don't think CO2 is the reason the temperature is growing

No offense, but if you sat down, found out how much coal and oil we've burned over the past century, calculated the amount of CO2 produced by industrial emissions over the past century, figured out the fraction of the atmosphere that comprised, and compared it to deforestation effects, you wouldn't be saying that.

Some aspects of global warming science are up for debate... but this really isn't one of them.

On solar cells:

I think that's a great idea and have often wondered why cities and counties haven't demanded that in their building codes.

some cities and states give tax incentives for them.

Solar cells have the potential, eventually, to power our economy--but it would take a really big investment in covering a few square miles of desert in Arizona with the things. Just to give you a sense of the scales involved, here's a quick calculation: earth gets 1400 watts of sunlight per square meter on average, assume 10% efficiency in the cell so 140 W/m^2, say 100 for simplicity. The US uses ~4 trillion kilowatt*hr annually, or (again rounding up) an average power of about a billion (10^9) watts. So we need 10^9/100=10 million square meters of solar cell, or 10 square kilometers, or a couple square miles of solar cells, give or take, to provide all our electricity.

That's a HUGE investment--solar cells are expensive. But the costs are decreasing, and efficiency is increasing--so it's possible that in a decade this will be a worthwhile project.

A fifth would be to have the government heavily subsidize research into nuclear fusion power plants. That is the long term holy grail for energy

The government already does heavily subsidze fusion research, and most physicists see fusion power plants as several decades off.

psychx

on Sep 01, 2004

This brings up a lot of interesting points. I wrote an article that talked about global warming a few weeks back which you replied on. I also believe like many others we definitely need to move away from fossil fuels, if not for the pollution it is causing (which is evident) in cities like Houston and L.A. then for the other reason that we are largely dependent on fossil fuels which are imports from other countries. I also believe that we should have stronger gov't backing from this administration into actual research for these questions on whether CO2 is actually causing the earth to warm up.

Inigo-Montoya

on Sep 01, 2004

The government already does heavily subsidze fusion research, and most physicists see fusion power plants as several decades off.

Not heavily enough in my opinion.

shadesofgrey

on Sep 01, 2004

Renewable energy is not as much of a fairy tale as you are making it out to be. It will take a while to get the appropriate infrastructure in place, but renewable energy certainly has a place in the US's future. In fact, many states have Renewable Portfolio Standards which require that a certain percentage of all energy consumed come from renewable resources. I think that Maine uses up to 30% renewables. The Federal Government is looking to pass a similar standard.

In addition to looking at alternatives for electricity, we should be looking at alternatives for motor fuel--ethanol and bioethanol have a ways to go before they are completely viable. However, Congress has an affinity toward both, and ethanol might boom due to federal subsidies, high import tariffs and the banning of MtBE.

And there is always the interest in fuel cells and a hydrogen economy. Gov. Schwarzeneger (sp?) has tried to get his Humvee converted to a hydrogen vehicle. It comes at a price tag of upwards of $200,000 and currently hydrogen fuel stations are few and far between. But this coupled with President Bush's $5 billion in hydrogen R & D suggests that hydrogen may actually be the fuel of the future.

Shawn Gray

on Sep 01, 2004

An interesting book to read : Kicking the Sacred Cow by James P. Hogan

A look at how science is abandoning its principles as pure pursuit of knowledge for political concerns.

CO2 is less than 1% of all total greenhouse gases
less than 2% of global CO2 production is due to the activities of man

the primary "greenhouse gas" is water vapor.
You can't blame a corporation for water vapor production.
the earth's climate has warmed 1/2 of a degree since 1900, but most of that increase happened before 1930, most of our rise in co2 production happened after 1950.

In fact: why are we discussing a scientific issue on a political discussion board ( I am willing to bet that none of us are climatologists)?

Hmmmm...

don't let politics corrupt science like it did to religion.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!