Almost daily Corner bashing: Planet Gore edition

Planet Gore writer Jim Manzi writes in with an objection:

I think that you should unpack the "science is settled" assertion. The science that more CO2 will, all else equal, drive higher temperatures and therefore it is very likely (the UN IPCC estimate of 90% confidence is reasonable) that humans have driven temperature increases is settled. You'll actually find that most PG contributors (including Iain) agree with this.

What's a lot less settled is the actual sensitivity to CO2, the trade-offs between mitigation and adaption, etc.

Curious as it is that a big, well-financed blog dedicated to calling into doubt just about every piece of bad global-warming news is staffed by people who think global warming is real and man-made, I'll say this: While there's a bit more doubt about way-down-the-road hypotheticals than there is about the warming phenomenon per se, arguing that we should focus resources on adaptation instead of mitigation and that carbon dioxide isn't really all that big a deal is almost as twisted as pretending the whole thing is a hoax. After all, we know for certain that CO2 already exists in the atmosphere in concentrations hundreds of times greater than does methane*--the next most prevalent greenhouse gas, which gives the lie to the idea that CO2 isn't the main driver here. And, moreover, in the face of a torrent of recent stories indicating that adaptation is only worth a damn if it's accompanied by meaningful mitigating policies, it seems pretty clear to me that both of Manzi's positions are both unsupportable and dangerous.

*To pre-empt any off-topic objection: Yes, a unit of methane has a stronger greenhouse effect than a unit of carbon dioxide. But not so much stronger that it anywhere close to rivals the vastly more significant amount of carbon in the atmosphere. And yes, methane emissions have to drop, too.

Comments

[JimPortlandOR]

The CO2 levels and methane are closely linked. Rising global avg temps due to CO2 will unlock huge amounts of methane currently sequestered in frozen tundra in Canada, Russia etc, as the tundra unfreezes from higher temps. Similarly, huge amounts of methane hydrates frozen on the sea floor will warm and turn gaseous if ocean temps increase only moderately.

There is also lots of CO2 locked up in bodies of water (in African volcanic lakes, for example) because the lakes are cooler at great depths. As the lake temps rise, the water circulates the deeper CO2-laden water up where the gases are released. In this case, the CO2 (which is heavier than air) flows like water out of the volcanic cones and can wipe out millions of people living on surrounding more level land.

In all of this, the linkages are key. Looking at only one factor in a limited set of circumstances may lead to simple but incorrect solutions.

CO2 is more deadly than carbon monoxide because it has no odor or color. When an animal dies in a pool of CO2 air (that usually is released from underground sources), the animal doesn't even begin to deteriorate until the gas is gone: it can't oxidize, and the bugs can't live within the cloud.

To end on a curious note: CSI had an episode where a college couple making love on the floor were killed by evaporating dry ice (pure CO2) in the next room - linked by a hole in the wall that allowed the CO2 to disperse into the adjoining room. At least the bodies were in good shape when found. But since the dry ice had evaporated, it took some sleuthing to find a cause of death.

[Jim Manzi]

You said that:

"..it seems pretty clear to me that both of Manzi's positions are both unsupportable and dangerous."

What I had said is:

"What's a lot less settled is the actual sensitivity to CO2, the trade-offs between mitigation and adaption, etc."

So I hadn't said (1) "that carbon dioxide really isn't that big a deal", just that the science about temperature sensitivity to CO2 is a lot less settled than the fact that it is >0.

I wrote a fairly long article about why I believe this if you are really interested:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmViY2Y3YzY1YmVkYTg4NjczODhkYWU1Mjg1YzhjMTI=

I also hadn't said (2) that adaptation should be pursued independent of mitigation, just thatt eh trade-offs are non-obvious.

More broadly, I think that the whole idea of "denying" AGW is counter-productive (because it's obviously wacky on the science), and conservatives should just move on to the question of addressing the problem.