“I find that to be quite true Chet. But Wreck, what about skeptics and the effects of greenhouse gases?”
“While there are some people who don’t acknowledge to reality of global warming,
there are even more who don’t acknowledge our human contributions to it. I haven’t
found any of these skeptics who have looked at the science of the problem.
“It doesn’t take a genius to realize that greenhouse gases are produced by us humans and that since we have more humans using more energy from fossil fuels we are increasing warming. Add to that the fact that forests are being destroyed so that carbon dioxide cannot be absorbed by the diminishing plant world. The skeptics who are
intelligent should look at the evidence. We don’t expect the energy producing businesses
or their paid propagandists, like their ‘think tanks’ to be swayed by the overwhelming
evidence because their interests are not in understanding the truth but in amassing profits.
“While in the 20th century warming alone accounted for a degree or so of the global temperature increase, the estimates for the 21st century are that warming will rise 1 to 6 1/2° Celsius. If the skeptics will only believe the measurements made by important government agencies, like NASA, the National Climate Data Center, and by the universities, in terms of the warming of the land and the oceans, of the increased volumes of the oceans because warmer water expands, and of the numerous signs of northern hemisphere warming such as the earlier thawing and the later freezing of the ice flows near the North Pole, the skeptics might become believers. As in so many other areas of our lives, the comfort of inertia is preferable to any movement into the unknown—
especially if that unknown is potentially very harmful. And what will happen to our earth
and our descendants is certainly a major factor to consider. But undoubtedly the energy companies have a lot to lose if they are blamed for producing fuels that are causing the global warming. They spend a lot of money trying to convince the public and attempting to influence legislators to see it their way. I guess here we see the political techniques of not only producing propaganda but also of using the greed of legislators to change their behaviors.
“But let’s go beyond the propaganda and look at the science. NASA scientists have assumed that 350 parts per million of CO2 is the maximum allowable level. We passed that level a long time ago, in 2010. And now in 2025 we are well over 400 parts per million of CO2. Every year the amount of carbon dioxide increases by 1 to 2 parts per million in the atmosphere. This may not seem like much but it represents millions of tons of carbon dioxide—70 million tons a day. To begin to reduce the level of atmospheric
carbon dioxide we need to cut about 80% of our emissions. But governments are generally asking for only 20% to 50% cuts. This is obviously not enough to stop warming. So every year the temperature sets new high records.
“Then there is the matter of deforestation. Obviously the reduction of forests
increases the amount of CO2. Brazilian forests and Indonesian forests are being reduced
by more than 1% per year. Some will say that there is so much air and so much water to absorb any CO2 that we produce that reducing forests is not a factor in any climate change.”
”Let me ask a couple of questions that I have heard mentioned relative to any
human input into this global warming. First the carbon dioxide only stays in the
atmosphere for about 10 years, so why worry?”
”That’s true, but every generation puts more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
every year. And as our population increases we continue to get more atmospheric carbon
dioxide remaining.”
”What about the ocean being able to absorb huge amounts of this carbon dioxide?”
”We have talked about the limited amount of carbon dioxide that can be absorbed.
Some of that becomes an acid in the water making the water more acidic. It also warms
the water. And as the water warms its acidic content becomes more active and affects sea
life. Carbonic acid (H2CO3) is formed when carbon dioxide and water interact.
I remember reading that the ocean hasn’t been monitored long enough to be able to say that the acidification is any worse today than any time before.”
“Well, my information from the oceanographic Department at the University of Southampton is that they are coring into polar ice and are able to go back millions of years to determine the acid level of the oceans and the amount of sea life that may have been destroyed when the acid levels were higher. So Ray I think you were reading a skeptical article that did not give you all the facts.”
”What about this? It’s been much hotter in previous times, such as medieval times in Europe. That was long before humans started using fossil fuels.
”The warming that happened in Europe around 1000 years ago was pretty much
limited to Europe. It was not a global phenomenon.”
” I know you talked about coring into the ice in the Arctic areas, I’ve heard that’s not really good science because the carbon dioxide in the little air bubbles in the ice can escape and give imperfect measurements.”
”That’s true sometimes, but samples like this are taken all over the world and when compared to other measurements like tree rings we have a very accurate picture of the history of global temperatures and of the CO2 presence in the atmosphere. Ray, you might be referring to measurements taken in the Arctic at Siple where it showed that before 1900 there was a CO2 level of almost 330 parts per million, most of the scientists say it was only about 290 parts per million at that time. It’s possible that at Siple there was an unusually high level of CO2 for a month or a year. You have to understand Ray that these scientific findings are not based on a single instance. There are thousands of measurements and projections that indicate clearly that global warming exists. It is the skeptics and the single instances, such as you have just brought up, that attempt to counter the large amount of evidence that exists.”
” Okay, here’s the last one. We’ve had a lot of warming cycles in the past, tell me they were caused by carbon dioxide.”
”In the past temperature fluctuations were not the result of carbon dioxide being produced by humans. Many things can affect temperature-- closeness to the sun, imbalances in the Earth’s rotation and so forth. When these happened carbon dioxide was released from carbon sinks, like frozen flora and fauna near the poles that thawed because of the heat, it entered the atmosphere and you did get the greenhouse effect. But today it is carbon dioxide emitted by us that is causing the warming. So in the past the increased carbon dioxide was the result of warming from other factors, then the resulting greenhouse effect increased it. Today our problem is that carbon dioxide comes first, it is not a secondary reaction to other causes of warming. So the greenhouse effect comes without any other cause of warming.
GREENHOUSE GASES
”If we want to tie in global warming with overpopulation we can try looking at a country's total carbon emissions but it doesn't tell the full story of the country's
contribution to global warming. China, for example, is the world’s ‘leader’ in total
emissions at 6018 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. It overtook the US, with its 5900 million metric tons, in 2007. But all that really tells you is that China is a fast-developing country with a lot of people. A more useful measurement is carbon emissions per person.
Under that measurement, the average American is responsible for 17.6 tons, while the average Chinese citizen is responsible for 6.2 tons.
“When we look around the world we see quite different amounts of carbon dioxide per person. For example, the average Australian emits 20.5 tons and the average person in the UK is at almost 10 tons. But in Kenya the average person’s output is only a third of a ton. In India average person puts out just over a ton per year. South Africa is
about the same
as the UK, while Mexico is only about half that much. The oil-producing countries tend to be pretty high, with Saudi Arabia at 15 tons, Kuwait at 30 tons and Qatar at 60 tons. And just about every country is increasing its contribution per person
annually.
“More people, even if the per capita emissions don’t change, create a
compounding effect of warming on our planet. That is why the outstanding faculty at the State University of New York’s College of Environmental Science and Forestry, a premier environmental university department, has determined that overpopulation is our major environmental problem. Global warming was second. (19a)
“As we have said, the continuing emission of a number of gases into the atmosphere from human activities, including chlorofluorocarbons, or as we abbreviate them CFCs, methane, and, most important, carbon dioxide, is now a near certainty, if not a certainty, that it is creating a greenhouse effect and is putting the planet in jeopardy. Of course a major greenhouse gas is water vapor. The more the other gases create warming, the more water vapor can be held in the air. So it’s not just carbon dioxide or the methane alone. Each one has a multiplying effect on warming beyond what it actually contributes.
METHANE
Methane has been increasing in the atmosphere rapidly in recent years. Whether this is because of more cattle and sheep being raised to feed the increasing number of people or whether it is the result of permafrost melting because of the warming, we don’t know for certain. The permafrost across Russia and Canada is releasing great amounts of methane as the warming heads north and frozen animals and vegetables release their
carbon and methane content. Add this to the methane produced from our waste in landfills and in the burning of waste, along with petroleum, coal and natural gas production. So we have an increase in a major greenhouse gas. As population increases more energy is needed, more food is needed, and more waste is produced-- all of which add to our warming.
"And Gulliver Returns" Book 1 Reversing Overpopulation--The Planet's Doomsday Threat Page 21