Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Rhetoric Again - Cycles

Posted by: Dr. Ricky Rood, 06:39 AM GMT on April 25, 2012

+14

Rhetoric Again - Cycles:

A few entries ago I wrote about the form of argument and the rhetoric used by those who advocate that the science of climate change is flawed in some fundamental and philosophical way (also here). In that piece I made reference to long-reaching metaphors and isolated facts that are used to create doubt about climate science. These metaphors and facts, for example that there was a lot of carbon dioxide when there were dinosaurs, create a stop or a pause in the conversation and pose as seeming contradictions and serve as distractions to make logically flawed points. For those who want to hone up on your arguments, I find the Marshall Institute’s Cocktail Party Guide to Global Warming some of the better coaching of anti-climate-science rhetoric.

I have been thinking about one of the common statements that is made, and that is the one about their being a lot of carbon dioxide when there were dinosaurs and, more generally, that there is a long record of cycles between times of high and low carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere. This has been presented to me many times, and I often wonder, what exactly is the point that is being made?

At first, when I heard statements that there was very high carbon dioxide in the past, it seemed to be with the implication that this was one, a natural occurrence and two, a fact that was being hidden by climate scientists. True, it is a natural occurrence. Any comprehensive text book on climate change will discuss the past variations in carbon dioxide and that there have been times when carbon dioxide was much higher, and the Earth was much warmer. It is not hidden, rather it is used to inform our future.

Following from the introduction into the argument that the high values of carbon dioxide in the past were a natural occurrence, there seemed to be two points. First, was that very high values of carbon dioxide were possible in the absence of human-responsible emissions and second, that changes in carbon dioxide amounts were beyond our control and hence there was little sensibility in reducing our emissions. There is the further implication that since this is natural then it is OK.

Our real concern about climate change is that climate change impacts humans. If it were not for the impact on humans, climate change would be a curious problem of natural science. When there was a lot of carbon dioxide and dinosaurs, there were no humans. That does not mean that with high carbon dioxide that humans can’t survive and that dinosaurs will return. However, getting from the stable temperate climate in which our civilizations evolved to a climate where the temperatures are several degrees warmer will be a disruptive path. There will be less land as sea level rises, and since there is a huge concentration along the coasts of the world, there will be huge relocation of people, disruption to nations, and loss of infrastructure. There will be enormous changes in ecosystems and domestic plants and animals.

So yes, there are cycles and there has been a lot more carbon dioxide in the air, but that has been in the absence of billions of humans, our built environment, and our fragile balances of nations and economies. It is the disruption of the fragile balances of human enterprise where the risk lies – so how does the fact that carbon dioxide was high when there were dinosaurs bear on the current concerns about increasing carbon dioxide and global warming?

Carbon dioxide was high in the distant path – does this suggest that carbon dioxide amounts in the atmosphere are beyond our control? Why was carbon dioxide high? Is that simply an unknowable mystery?

The composition of our atmosphere is determined by many factors. In the long term, my geologist friends always remind me that the composition of the atmosphere is determined by geology and the cycling of gases between the atmosphere and ocean and the solid Earth. This long time frame, millions or billions of years, is not exactly relevant to our human experience. On a shorter amount of time, like the ice age cycles, or the large amounts of carbon dioxide when the dinosaurs were present, biological processes are important for determining the composition of the atmosphere. We have benefitted from many millions of years when carbon dioxide and oxygen existed in a balance that support plants and animals. Those cycles, those extended periods of high carbon dioxide, are characterized by changes in balance of plant and animal life. They are characterized by the ocean taking up and giving back large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere through both chemical and biological processes.

So are we destined to simply be at the fate of these major shifts? Are these shifts beyond our control? Aren’t they natural?

Let’s get back to humans. There is little doubt that humans are the dominant life form on the planet today. We shape every ecosystem. We consume all forms of energy. Like the balances between plants and animals in the past we change the atmosphere and the ocean. Not only are we a dominant life form, we have this amazing ability to extract rocks and liquids and gas from the Earth and burn it. We have the ability to push around land, to make concrete, to remove mountains, and build islands. We are, therefore, not only biological, we are geological.

We are part of the cycle. We don’t simply exist at the mercy of the cycle.

So what is the point of a far reaching reference to the time of the dinosaurs and high amounts of carbon dioxide? Perhaps the point is to take us out of the equation, to absolve us of our responsibility to the planet, to allow us to do that which we want to do.

In the end this takes us to some very basic questions about humans and knowledge. I recently saw an idea attributed to Tim Flannery (also here), that humans are a species prone to destroying their future by destroying ecosystems. As I understand the argument, because of our intellect, we can continue to extract from the Earth resources beyond which a less creative species would be limited by brutal, natural barriers. We can rapidly cause extinctions. So far we can find and perhaps nurture new resources as we destroy the old.

We have this unique capacity of knowledge. We can place ourselves into our environment and see ourselves as shaping our environment, and have responsibility for maintaining our environment. We are not, entirely, at the fate of nature, or cycles, but we are part of nature, of cycles. And as such we might not be able to determine our future, but we are able to influence our future. We don’t have to be destined to destroy our future.

Scientifically, the statement of facts about cycles and high carbon dioxide millions of years ago has little bearing on whether or not we are burning fossil fuels, increasing carbon dioxide and warming the planet. Such presented facts are a diversionary part of a belief-based and politically based argument. Some advocates of the politically based arguments are trying to stop a societal response to carbon dioxide emissions. Other advocates are making a basic belief based argument that humans are somehow outside of biology and geology of the planet as a whole; that we are not just another age of some dominant life form. To me, what makes humans different is we have this ability to accumulate science-based knowledge, which is actionable, which imbues responsibility, which allows us to be different, and to sustain our future.

r

Categories: Climate Change Politics Climate Impacts and Risks Climate Change

Permalink | A A A

Top of Page

Reader Comments

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200

Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 401 - 420

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 — Blog Index

402. Birthmark 01:06 PM GMT on Maj 07, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan: CRU lost another FOIA request; this time regarding the Yamal tree-ring data. UEA had to turn over the data, which showed, unsurprisingly, that they were deceptive at best and, more likely, dishonest. Par for the course, I'd say, with these Climategate hucksters: Link Now why would you link to a story on a blog run by someone who lies publicly on a regular basis? Did you corroborate Watts' claims through an independent source? That's what a skeptic would do. Member Since: Oktober 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1805

403. Birthmark 01:10 PM GMT on Maj 07, 2012
Quoting TemplesOfSyrinxC4: Agenda 21 is a pale horse runnin' wild, boy! If you're worried about one-world government, then you need to be worried about things like GATT, WTO, NAFTA, IMF, etc. One-world government will be comprised of bankers, not the UN. Member Since: Oktober 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1805

405. Neapolitan 02:53 PM GMT on Maj 07, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan: CRU lost another FOIA request; this time regarding the Yamal tree-ring data. UEA had to turn over the data, which showed, unsurprisingly, that they were deceptive at best and, more likely, dishonest. Par for the course, I'd say, with these Climategate hucksters: Link TRANSLATION: Denialists, more desperate than ever, continue their obsessive witch hunt. But faced with yet another agonizing defeat, they are now resorting to libelous ad hominems. Watts has clearly had his own "jump the shark" moment here, just days after his beloved Heartland Institute badly misjudged with its now-infamous "all climate scientists are sociopathic mass murderers" billboard campaign. In his latest grade-school diatribe, Watts is in full spittle-flecked mode, likening paleoclimatologists to heroin addicts, and calling all scientists deceitful, manipulative liars. What a sad little fellow he is. But his anger is certainly understandable if not forgivable; if I'd painstakingly built a career out of a house of cards that's been kicked to smithereens by scientific fact, I might too throw a tantrum now and then. Anyway, stay classy, little Tony! The Great Global Ice Age of ~~2000~~ ~~2002~~ ~~2005~~ ~~2007~~ ~~2008~~ ~~2010~~ 2012 will surely start any day now, and you'll be forgiven for your years of missed forecasts! Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11305

406. greentortuloni 03:00 PM GMT on Maj 07, 2012
Quoting TemplesOfSyrinxC4: U.N. and the globalist institutions you listed are peas in the same corporatocracy pod, remember Ross Perot warning Al Gore on Larry King Live back in the day that NAFATA and GATT would lead to the "giant sucking sound" we now hear, and remember the Occidental oil heir to avowed communist Armand Hammer and professional huckster Al Gore thought NAFTA would be a great idea! Now you're just making stuff up. "Professional huckster", seriously? Al Gore isn't a perfect human being but he isn't a huckster. And, he is head, sholders and torso above a person who just makes claims about conspiracies on an internet forum and then runs away without ever providing backup. I've done my share of acid as well and from my point of view your enlightenment is incomplete. My guess is that you started with a huge emotional bias, ran into a mamoth epiphany and took the emotional profundity hit as reality. But most people who took probably a lot more than you from Kesey to Huxley to Hoffman to everyone else took the drug in order to open doors that once opened were best passed through again without drugs. Re-living your epiphany is not a basis for solid opinion nor is it a way to go through life. Mostly, considering this forum, it isn't a basis for comments that are as false as the conspiracies that are imagined. Member Since: Juni 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1198

408. greentortuloni 03:19 PM GMT on Maj 07, 2012
Quoting TemplesOfSyrinxC4: Aldous Huxley's Final Revolution he talked about in his lecture at Berkeley where he admitted that Brave New World is really a work of non-fiction, a plan where man is made to enjoy his servitude is nigh upon us, the dropping acid comment was a joke - this ain't no hippy dippy Jim Morrisson lizard king the doors of perception type stuff- this is real, shun! I thought taking acid gave you an excuse. I also took you seriously since you've mentioned it several times. This latest post just paints a deeper picture of something wrong with you. Member Since: Juni 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1198

409. Xandra 03:31 PM GMT on Maj 07, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan: 'Little Ice Age (Maunder-Dalton) circulation patterns are emerging and more rapid world cooling is taking over,' says astrophysicist Piers Corbyn. Cuckoo...cuckoo...cuckoo... LOL. More Corbyn: "CO2 has never driven, does not drive and never will drive weather or Climate. Global warming is over and it never was anything to do with CO2. CO2 is still rising but the world is now cooling and will continue to do so." - Piers Corbyn, 2008 The reality: Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 796

410. PurpleDrank 03:52 PM GMT on Maj 07, 2012
Wrong. Again. Think magnets. You will find the answers there. Member Since: Augusti 17, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 730

411. Some1Has2BtheRookie 04:06 PM GMT on Maj 07, 2012
Quoting PurpleDrank: Wrong. Again. Think magnets. You will find the answers there. Opposites attract? ... Well, that would explain Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez. ;-) Member Since: Augusti 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4138

413. Birthmark 04:51 PM GMT on Maj 07, 2012
Quoting TemplesOfSyrinxC4: U.N. and the globalist institutions you listed are peas in the same corporatocracy pod, remember Ross Perot warning Al Gore on Larry King Live back in the day that NAFATA and GATT would lead to the "giant sucking sound" we now hear, and remember the Occidental oil heir to avowed communist Armand Hammer and professional huckster Al Gore thought NAFTA would be a great idea! Yet you concentrate on the UN, the most ineffectual of the entire group. You big bully. lol Member Since: Oktober 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1805

414. Birthmark 04:52 PM GMT on Maj 07, 2012
Quoting PurpleDrank: Wrong. Again. Think magnets. You will find the answers there. Magnets. How do they work, anyway? Member Since: Oktober 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1805

415. Some1Has2BtheRookie 05:29 PM GMT on Maj 07, 2012
Quoting Birthmark: Magnets. How do they work, anyway? When you ingest magnets, does it cause you to become bipolar? ;-) Added- No you, but in general. ... I thought that could use a little clarification. Member Since: Augusti 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4138

416. Neapolitan 06:15 PM GMT on Maj 07, 2012
Quoting Birthmark: Magnets. How do they work, anyway? ...Thus asketh ICP. Poking around over at WUWT, I found a link to yet another genius convinced that the ice age has already begun: For those of you who think that earth is still warming: you are wrong. From a sample of 44 weather stations taken randomly from all over the world, I find that earth has started cooling down from about 1994. Much profound science follows. Then this: Like I asked myself, you are going to ask why no one but me has figured that global cooling has already started. Indeed. (Look for this guy to be a featured speaker at the upcoming Heartland Institute conference.) Meanwhile, back in RealityLand, the "cooling" is obvious: Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11305

417. biff4ugo 08:28 PM GMT on Maj 07, 2012
When sea level begins to stop and then reverse due to the sessation of thermal expansion, THEN I will believe you. The majority of sea level rise is due to warming of the oceans. Have you seen the gages start to fall? If not, it is NOT getting colder. Member Since: December 28, 2006 Posts: 107 Comments: 1212

418. iceagecoming 08:31 PM GMT on Maj 07, 2012
Sun may soon have four poles, say researchers April 20, 2012 By SEIJI TANAKA/ Staff Writer The sun may be entering a period of reduced activity that could result in lower temperatures on Earth, according to Japanese researchers. Officials of the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan and the Riken research foundation said on April 19 that the activity of sunspots appeared to resemble a 70-year period in the 17th century in which London’s Thames froze over and cherry blossoms bloomed later than usual in Kyoto. In that era, known as the Maunder Minimum, temperatures are estimated to have been about 2.5 degrees lower than in the second half of the 20th century. The Japanese study found that the trend of current sunspot activity is similar to records from that period. The researchers also found signs of unusual magnetic changes in the sun. Normally, the sun’s magnetic field flips about once every 11 years. In 2001, the sun’s magnetic north pole, which was in the northern hemisphere, flipped to the south. While scientists had predicted that the next flip would begin from May 2013, the solar observation satellite Hinode found that the north pole of the sun had started flipping about a year earlier than expected. There was no noticeable change in the south pole. If that trend continues, the north pole could complete its flip in May 2012 but create a four-pole magnetic structure in the sun, with two new poles created in the vicinity of the equator of our closest star. Member Since: Januari 27, 2009 Posts: 21 Comments: 853

419. boburns 02:09 PM GMT on Maj 20, 2012
Quoting Xandra: Wow, 260 names. I am so impressed... NOT. If you compare it with the number of members of AAAS, it will be just 0.002%. Or with the number of members of AGU it will be just 0.004% LOL Scientists? Most of them have no qualifications that fit them to write even an email on the subject climate change... Or maybe you can tell us what qualifications Roger W. Cohen has on the subject climate change?? Completely unnecessary spamming Dr Rood's blog with these names. You could have added a direct link instead. For example this Link Hmm... Exxon Mobil Corporation... One Dollar In, Fifty-Nine Out! Good catch. I checked myself. Very few climatologists in that mess of names. It's hard to believe how people could deny no human influence on climate when we've been returning CO2 to the environment using fossil fuels for a couple of hundred years now. Casey would dance with a strawberry blonde While the band played on..... Member Since: September 27, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1

420. ArborPics 05:03 PM GMT on Juli 09, 2012
Quoting Birthmark: If you're worried about one-world government, then you need to be worried about things like GATT, WTO, NAFTA, IMF, etc. One-world government will be comprised of bankers, not the UN. Absolutely correct!! But the bankers already have the "public diaologue" neatly divided into (1) those who have the intellectual ability to understand the broader issues in light of what's best for mankind and (2) those wannabe intellectuals who imagine that promoting the agenda of their banker bosses is going to bring them respect and other rewards (like a job above that of burger-flipping). So we get constant lame debates w/o improving the quality of government one iota. The election year "Rhetoric Cycle" has already begun, emails making inappropriate jokes about "the other guys" are already being circulated by these backyard geniuses and they're OFF to war in the name of their favorite ideology. It's like the Internet has been turned over to 8 year-old boys who just found out they've flunked third grade. Make bad jokes about the teachers!! (But never themselves.) Anyone who scores less than 110 on a standard IQ test should be prohibited from voting. Anyone who sends out political trash emails should be automatically banned from voting. That's the only way we're going to save this country. Letting idiots and dupes vote (and run for office)- doesn't seem to be working out well. ;-) Member Since: Augusti 14, 2001 Posts: 12 Comments: 9

Viewing: 401 - 420

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 — Blog Index

Top of Page

New Comment

Community Standards Policy Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

About RickyRood