A letter in response to an article in Money magazine.
I read tonight your article on the last page of the July 2008 Money magazine. In the article, you say that carbon dioxide emissions "speed up climate change" and that "pumping carbon into the air gets expensive". From this (and the rest of the article), I infer that you are of the opinion that carbon dioxide is a problem.
I believe in being responsible. Being responsible, though, means making good decisions based on accurate information, as opposed to taking what the mainstream media hands us at face value. When I started independently looking into CO2 as a greenhouse gas some time back, I was surprised by what I found. The mainstream media, for example, does not tell you that there is one atmospheric gas that has a far greater impact than CO2 on the heat retained by our atmosphere: water vapor (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Role_of_water_vapor). In retrospect, this makes sense, and common sense readily confirms it to the layman: experience a 90-degree day with 100% humidity versus a desert with 20% humidity at the same temperature and you'll have an idea of the effect of water vapor. To put it differently, take away the water vapor and our planet would literally freeze. In comparison, CO2 is a "trace" gas in our atmosphere, even with animals, humans, automobiles, and many other sources emitting CO2. What about Venus, you say? Venus' atmosphere is 96.5% CO2 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus) versus the Earth's 0.03-0.06%, and due to its total makeup, Venus has an atmosphere that is much "thicker" than that of Earth. It's also significantly closer to the Sun than the Earth (0.72 AU).
Part of the reason some people ignore water vapor is that they consider it "driven" by other factors (as opposed to directly impacted by people). If you increase CO2, so the reasoning goes, you also increase the temperature, no matter how slightly, and as a result the air can hold more total water vapor (relative humidity). With more water vapor in the atmosphere, you retain more heat, which they figure in turn might lead to even more water vapor being absorbed, and so on. This leads to the predictions of a cataclysmic end where the Earth looks like Venus. Sounds reasonable enough on the surface, except that there are serious problems with some the assumptions (such as relative humidity; see below) incorporated into the climate models used by various groups. This is why most of the models cannot match even historical data without being massaged. That we are unable to accurately model the atmosphere also speaks volumes to the complexity of the Earth and its atmosphere. Yes, you can use that as an argument to be responsible, but not as one to act rashly as some have suggested.
A serious problem with some of the climate models was identified back in 2004 by NASA (see http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0315humidity.html). In that report they noted that the assumption that the relative humidity stays constant with an increase in temperature is wrong and results in exaggerated climate predictions. That is, as the temperature goes up, the amount of water goes up more slowly. Why is relative humidity important? Because water vapor is by far the most influential factor in heat retention in our atmosphere.
Another serious problem with some of the predictions are that we have seen temperature swings in the very recent past that defy modeled predictions and effects: the 1998 El Niño event is one of these. In that event, the global temperature went up an average of 2.5 degrees and record high temperatures were recorded around the globe. Given the line of reasoning regarding relative humidity, we might have expected the average temperatures to continue to rise after 1998, or to stay at that level, since an increase in temperature means more total water is in the atmosphere. What actually happened is that the following year temperatures were actually 2 degrees below average, or 4.5 degrees cooler. In other words, a 2.5 degree increase did not produce a runaway effect, and 2.5 degrees is even more than some of the predictions currently in circulation.
I have concluded that there is a lot of fear, uncertainty, and doubt needlessly being peddled by those with something to gain over the issue of climate change, be it research money or public opinion. There is also a lot more disagreement and uncertainty about climate change than what some would have us believe (see: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb ). I would encourage you to be more moderate in your support for legislation and actions that bring considerable risk, economic and otherwise. There are extreme groups with a stake in climate change, and if we buy everything being sold, we can only wonder what will be next: regulation of water vapor, anyone?
