GUEST BLOGGER Dr. X Speaks: Is there really a correlation between global warming and carbon dioxide?

New American Republican Mom is pleased to introduce a Guest Blogger, Dr. X. Dr. X has a PhD inEnvironmental Engineering.

I convinced him to share his thoughts on Global warming. It is my hope to have him blog in the future about this topic and other Environmental topics. Comments are encouraged.

___________________________________________________________

Recent years have seen the widespread promotion of the hypothesis that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion has lead to an increase in the global mean temperature. Additionally, a wide variety of actual or perceived phenomena, including the breakup of polar ice, changes in the behavior and ranges of various wildlife species, and increased frequency and intensity of severe weather events has been attributed to global warming. Proponents of this hypothesis point to numerous computer models and historical data which exhibit a correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and the increase in mean global temperature, both corresponding with the beginning of the industrial revolution. The hypothesis has been promoted to such a degree that many politicians, academics, and lay people across the world now accept it as fact. However, an hypothesis cannot be accepted as fact unless supporting data lead to acceptance of the hypothesis and rejection of all possible other alternative hypotheses. It is my opinion that, while data collected to date do not support rejection of the carbon dioxide hypothesis, neither do they support rejection of any number of alternative hypotheses.

For example, none of the global warming models I have seen predict that carbon dioxide alone is capable of creating the temperature increases that have been observed. In all of the models, water vapor is required as an additional insulating gas. An incremental increase in carbon dioxide causes an incremental increase in temperature, which causes an incremental increase in atmospheric water vapor, which causes a further incremental increase in temperature, which causes a further incremental increase in water vapor, and so forth. Thus, carbon dioxide just starts the flywheel in motion, but water vapor does the heavy lifting.

Additionally, the notion that any impact humans had on the environment may be correlated to the onset of the industrial revolution shouldn’t be surprising to anyone. However, we started doing lots of other things besides just burning fossil fuels during the industrial revolution. We started using more of all our natural resources during that time. Most notably, we began using larger quantities of water in different ways than we had before. In fact, shortly after the industrial revolution came the agricultural revolution, with increased crop production and much greater use of water resources for irrigation. Our increasing population required greater infrastructure in terms of paved roads, buildings, and parking lots, all of which limit the infiltration of water back into the ground. All of these activities would lead to an increase in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and, potentially, modification of the hydrologic cycle in some areas. As fossil fuel powered the industrial and agricultural revolutions, it shouldn’t be surprising that any environmental effects of these activities, whatever the direct cause, could also be correlated to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.

So, if our models suggest that water vapor is a more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and we know that much of the industrial and agricultural revolutions involved the conversion of water into water vapor, why do we focus on carbon dioxide as the root cause of global warming? From a pragmatic standpoint, water vapor has a much shorter half-life in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, meaning that it is rapidly cycled between the liquid and gaseous states. This makes water vapor concentrations very difficult to track, and any trends in water vapor concentrations difficult to observe. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is subject to less dramatic variation, and trends in carbon dioxide concentrations are easier to track. Scientists would therefore tend to focus on a master parameter that they can accurately measure, because an unmeasurable master parameter is virtually worthless.

That explains why the scientists are focused on carbon dioxide, but why have the politicians promoted this hypothesis so fervently? Certainly, placing limits on water usage in the largest contributor of water vapor, agriculture, would not be politically expedient. In particular, agriculture industries in tropical or arid locales would be disproportionately large contributors of water vapor to the atmosphere, and would be subject to the greatest restriction on water usage, further impeding the advancement of developing nations.

The prospect of placing limits on fossil fuel consumption, the basis of economic power in the developed world, however, presents an opportunity to level the global economic playing field. There is also the added benefit that we lack sufficient data to reject the carbon dioxide hypothesis, and that nobody knows how to identify or measure any success of our carbon curtailing efforts. Do we measure success as a decrease in the loss of polar ice? If so, which pole?

I liken the current climate of the global warming debate to the discussions that must have occurred among the ancient inhabitants of volcanic islands. When the volcano erupts, the local witch doctor hypothesizes that the gods are angry. He further hypothesizes that, in order to appease the gods, a tribesman must be sacrificed to the volcano each month. After months of successful implementation of this practice, the volcano erupts again. When confronted by confused and angry tribesmen, the witch doctor of course concludes that the gods must require the sacrifice of two villagers instead of one. And so goes this cycle until either all the tribesmen have been tossed to the volcano, or somebody begins to suspect that there is some other cause and, therefore, solution to the problem.

We are currently at the point where the witch doctor is urging us to begin throwing tribesmen into the volcano. I hope we can identify the root cause and solution to this alleged problem before we fill up the volcano with tribesmen.

DR X, 2008

(please credit www.newamericanrepublicanmom.blogspot.com)