h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Over here there's been a recent letter in the papers with a 'professor' (that's the title he referred to himself by) making some very ignorant statements about carbon dioxide. I've seen similar ignorance in some other places ... I'm speaking now, of the people who are 'climate change skeptics', which is a diverse bunch; some of them are saying there's a global conspiracy to make people believe in human-induced climate change ... it's all, supposedly, a plot, a conspiracy, with folks like Al Gore working to convince people of a nonexistent threat, so they can implement a world government under the UN!

Very nice stuff for a person with paranoid tendencies like myself!

But then ... what if *climate change denial* is the *actual* conspiracy? Then, the conspirators would be people like ExxonMobil and other 'Big Energy' companies, and *they* would be the ones, paying scientists and politicians to *deny* global warming and/or the idea that it is caused by human use of fossil fuels.

Listening to some of this 'debate' ... remember, I studied chemistry at University, so I know *something* about the subject ... it really seems, the ignorance and misconceptions come *more* (to say the least) from the side of the climate-change-deniers.

Let's get to some of those misconceptions - certainly not all! I'll have to devote several entries if I wanted to do *that*!

So first misconception:

"CO2 can't be the culprit! It's a totally natural gas, it is the gas plants use for photosynthesis, out of which they make sugars and other food stuff! This is good isn't it? So CO2 emissions can't be bad! In fact, because of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution, plants can now grow more luxuriantly than before! Its GOOD for the environment!"

Yes. CO2 is natural, and yes, it is the gas plants absorb for making sugars and other organic compounds. And yes, that is good. In fact without CO2 there would be no life on this planet. BUT ... CO2 is not *inherently* good - like any kind of element or compound, its 'goodness' or badness depends on the context.

CO2 is also used in fire extinguishers, for making fizzy drinks, for 'dry ice' to cool ice cream, or for making fake smoke for stage effects, and for many other things besides. All of those things say nothing about whether it causes global warming or not.

What is important is *how much* of it there is - it's about balance. Certainly, there can be too much of a 'good' thing.

To go to one extreme: If there was *way too much* CO2 in the atmosphere - even *without* considering a warming effect - it would be bad for us - we would die, we wouldn't be able to breathe! Carbon dioxide poisoning happens when concentrations of the gas exceed 7% to 10% ... some people feel effects when it's over 1%. But this is way, way more carbon dioxide than is ever likely to be in our atmosphere: at present, CO2 stands at about 0.038% of our atmosphere.

This is a very low percentage and should give you an indication that human-released CO2 *might* cause a significant change in the ratio of atmospheric gases.

That's the thing: the ratio, the balance. It's very sensitive ... a small change, may 'trigger' a much larger change. THIS is what climate scientists are trying to figure out ... how much 'climate change' may result from the change in CO2 levels we are causing.

We KNOW absolutely that CO2 is a greenhouse gas - that it causes the atmosphere to heat up. Technically speaking, it is a gas that absorbs light energy from the sun, and emits it again as 'thermal infared' light - which causes heating. We know absolutely that this effect is significant on the Earth - in fact, *without it the planet would be about 33 degrees colder than it is right now*! If the greenhouse effect didn't exist, Earth would be unliveable! And - as far as scientists can tell - after water vapour, CO2 is the most important gas that causes the greenhouse effect.

Think about it: the greenhouse gases are what makes our planet liveable. Without them Earth would be an icy desert.

So ... would even more greenhouse gases not be even better, then?

Well ... would a hotter planet be better? I mean, if greenhouse gases can make the Earth 33 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be ... certainly, *more* greenhouse gases could make it *even* warmer? Isn't that sort of logical?

That is what the climate scientists are saying! If the levels that we HAVE are responsible for the global temperature being what it IS ... then, if we mess with the levels of those gases, then the global temperature might also change. It's not that far-fetched a proposition.

And thinking about a hotter planet ... why, the first thing that comes to mind, is that a lot of ice at the poles might melt. And that will cause flooding ... most major coastal cities, would be gone. Lots of low-lying land areas, will be gone.

Then there's the thing that local climates will change. The Sahara Desert will shift its position ... going northwards, or southwards, I'm not personally sure, but either way, suddenly, areas that used to be fertile, will now be desert. And what used to be desert, will now be inundated with rain ... not necessarily turning 'fertile' suddenly, because it will not suddenly have plants that are capable of benefiting from the rain. It will take time, for that to happen. In the meantime, some areas will perhaps experience floods as a result of suddenly getting a lot more rain.

Like I said elsewhere, us humans are a very settled bunch. When the global climate suddenly changes, we can't just uproot all our cities, all our farms, and plonk them down elsewhere. We are no longer nomadic, able to move around to where the climate is most favourable. If climate patterns change a lot, there will be lots of human movement ... things making the current problems with immigration into the USA and Europe seem trivial.

Think about that! What we need most of all, is that things should NOT change! That way, 'business as usual' can go on ... when the global climate changes radically, we will have to go into 'emergency mode' and will need to rescue a heck of a lot of people. We may not be prepared for that. SO UNTIL we are prepared for that ... we better not upset the global climate. It is best for us, for now, to keep the global temperature right where it is. Surely, then ... we should keep the ratio of greenhouse gases, at the level it has to be, for the climate to stay the way it is?

I think I'll talk about the issue of plants benefiting from more CO2, in a future posting ...

Geagte Willem,

Thank you for the explication. Now I understand a bit more about it.

Hope Pa is feeling better. Am very restless today.!!

With affection to you all

CME
AR80

17/XII/09 16.40 GMT

Hello again Christiane! How have you been?

Thanks for reading this piece! I am very happy to report, a letter I wrote trying to clear up global warming misconceptions, was published in this morning's newspaper over here! I mean the newspaper "Die Beeld", probably the biggest Afrikaans newspaper in the country. I'll try linking to it ...

I'm sorry to hear you're feeling restless! That must be not very pleasant ... especially if you can't get out and do something, like a bit of swimming maybe!

Pa is not feeling very well ... still very weak and tired, and the problem is, he has no appetite, and frequently gets nauseous as well! We're doing the best we can ...

Beste Wense,

Willem

Here is the link to my letter in the Paper ... I don't know if this link will be allowed since its to a non-English site, BUT this is a reputable Afrikaans newspaper, nothing is in it that goes against BBC ethical standards, it's just a different language, and some people like Christiane and a few others might even understand much of it:

http://www.beeld.com/Content/MyBeeld/Briewe/1976/7da0c23971194aae87c91934798d76d2/17-12-2009-10-32/Die_waarheid_oor_CO2_en_aardverhitting

Willem, just to let you know I got a fairly accurate translation of your letter via Google Might interest other people too.

Websailor

Hee hee Websailor, did you read all the comments as well? Sad to say, some of them don't make much more sense in the original language! At any rate this translation is a bit better than previous ones I've seen ... the technology must be improving! Anything you'd like me to clear up?

Willem; if you want the experts view on this; email me. P introduced the concept of global warming to Ireland & was laughed at initially; now he is pretty much the chief expert on the subject & employed by the Government.

I'm sure he'd be willing to start email discussions on the subject; but he's a bit busy right now, the irish Government just started a pilot project to include other forms of sustainable energy, wind turbines, hydro-power etc & he has to inspect them & write reports as to if they've been installed correctly; this needs to be completed by Christmas; or SEI (Sustainable Energy Ireland) hasn't used up it's budget, so next year they might get less...ridiculous isn't it?

The global skepits will probably freeze to death or boil, or drown, depends where they live. Don't worry, folk like us will survive; we do live a lifestyle that is nature-friendly.

We realise it's one small rock in the Universe & needs looking after.

zdt

Very dear Willem,

Well, my dear friend, it seems a marvellous article. What a response you have received.!! I cannot read all that accurately, but I know how brilliant your writing is in English. I am certain that it is as good if not better in your home language. I was surprised that Websailor said she could get the gist of it - she is cleverer than I am !!!!. What is more I have only just received your article today. My wretched email is really behaving very strangely.

Could you let me know what the gist of the replies were because you certainly got a lot of them.!! Do they understand the danger of global warming or not? . There weemed to be a couple of crackpot ones abongst them. !!

I am interested to see that after the conference which was held in copenhagen, that there were meetings between the USA, China, India, South africa and another countrysadly I cannot remember which one!!), They apparently drew up the document. That is really fascinating because it shows that South Africa is being given the recognition it deserves on the continent.

I mean we just do use too much of everything. I keep thinking about plastic. When I was a young mother, plastic was only introduced when my children were young. All the beautiful little matchbox toys were real metal - not plastic. I feel a dreadful responsability for what our generation has done to pollute our wonderful planet. And yet we did not know where plastic was made, how it was made etc. etc. That I fear is the one huge fault of our generation.

go well,

Christiane
AR80

21/XII/09

Hey, I was certain I posted an answer to this!

Oh well, try again.

Hello Everyone!

Terri, I don't want to bother P about this ... I am doing research on the 'net about the issue, but I might ask him a question or two, perhaps, if he's willing to answer.

Christiane, yes, I got about every flavour of crackpot feeling compelled to post something in response to that letter. Sad to say, it seems my fellow Afrikaners are, generally, woefully ignorant about global warming. Most of the replies displayed ignorance, denial, and excuses for not knowing and/or doing anything. I'll see about giving you the 'gist' of the arguments ... may not have time today, my dad is in hospital, *and* our only remaining car is at a mechanics ... the other car got smashed up in an accident a few weeks ago and hasn't been repaired yet, and now, the remaining car's water pump is leaking. We hope it'll be fixed today ... we want to visit my dad in hospital this afternoon and this evening, and now we're totally without transportation.


Anyways, us humans have to figure out how to be less destructive, that's the thing. It's very simple really: love and respect, compassion, awareness, thoughtfulness and responsibility - those values are not too hard, are they?

Hi dear willem,

Lots of loving thoughts to you and the family for Christmas. I know it is a sad time but it is good that Pa is with you and you can at least be together.

Thinking about the approach to global warming. I always used to wonder at the Karroo countryside. Those bare expanses of soil with the sturdy Kareebos growing. And when the rivers came down in flood i.e. the Fish River one of the boundaries of my Paoa's farm, the soil that was washed down was dreadful. Overgrazing. What so many have done. But I suppose it is every country's fauult.

So again we. Keith and I will be thinking of you all tomorrow when we have our lunch,

With affection

Christiane and Keith.

24.XII/09 20/15 GMT

Hey Willem.
I have only skimmed your climate change posts, I will read them properly later. I wanted to wish you and your family a really good Christmas together. And I hope the New Year is good to you all.

Take care,
Waz

Dear sweet "will 'o the wisp" Waz,

All good wishes to the two of you for a very happy blessed christmas. One day you will write to me a longer letter.!! I received christmas wishes from my friend in Shrewsbury. She is 92, but came out with me to south africa on my last visit and has never forgotten the visit to that wonderful country and meeting all my friends and family.

I drove all the way down from Johannesburg to cape town via all my haunts. It was great and actually su0er to have someone to share it with.

she is really remarkable, I hope I can be like her.

with ever so much affection

Christiane and Keith.

25/XII/09 12.10 GMT

Re: Researching on the net about the issue...

This is how most of the idiots you call 'sceptics' find their arguments. It is too complex for you or I or anyone but a specialist in the field to even begin to get to grips with - and I think we're both intelligent and educated people.

In all the talk of 'sceptical scientists', it is noteworthy that not one is actually a specialist in climatology.

If you want to research further, this is the best source by far: http://www.ipcc.ch/

And I wish you the very best of luck!

Hey Rich! I'll check out your link, thanks very much!

Personally I don't find the topic of global warming at all difficult to get to grips with. Certainly, the very highest levels of climate science are complex beyond what I can understand ... but the fundamental concepts are not so complex at all; I do feel that 'ordinary people' should try and understand as much of it as possible. I'll write some more about the 'basics' here ... I hope in a way most people can understand.

In my own case, I've studied physics, chemistry, and philosophy at University and this enables me, if not recognising truth, then at least, helping me spot a lot of boolsheet. The thing about this is, that I see the *skeptics* making lots of mistakes in often very elementary physics and chemistry, not even to mention logic and other philosophical aspects. In my research on the 'net, I can at least separate out 'mainstream' science, from fringe crackpot theories. I can still not say that 'mainstream science' is correct, BUT I have enough reason to believe that it is more likely to be correct, than the 'crackpot' science of climate skeptics who are making tons of (to me) obvious mistakes.

OK I'm now going to check that link of yours!

Thanks,

Willem