[BobBob]

As to what a desirable level of atmospheric CO2, that presumes that there is some sort of "right amount."

There is most certainly a right range. All life on this planet evolved to fit the environment as we find it, not a significantly different environment we may be creating. It's clear that significant changes to the environment will result in loss of species and biodiversity, possibly radical loss.

Sure, the planet will recover, like it has from shocks in the past. I am not concerned about the future of life on Earth. But we happen to be one of those more recently evolved species that is surely screwed if conditions on the planet change significantly.

 

[kEiThZ]

It's not relevant whether global warming and climate change are related or real or whatever. Hydrogen, I would submit that because most of the public believe it to be a serious issue that merits societal and government-led efforts, you'll have to accept that there will be policy that addresses the issue, regardless of where you or I stand on the matter.

That being said, the question is whether spending 140k to staff a position simply because Toronto drew the short straw for leading a cities forum about climate change is worthwhile spending.

I would agree to this money being spent if the C40 were a pan-issue outfit confronting more than just climate change. As it stands, I see no benefit to joining a band playing with single string guitars when there are already several bands playing the same music on the stage. I'd much rather that money actually go to fighting climate change than talking about it. In our rush to be a 'global city' it seems that we are overly willing to follow each and everything they do including their mistakes.

 

[nfitz]

Any organization that can't properly distinguish the difference between the urban heat island effect and change in the global climate does not deserve $140,000.

More education is necessary then. Would you suggest $280,000 then?

 

[afransen]

There is most certainly a right range. All life on this planet evolved to fit the environment as we find it, not a significantly different environment we may be creating. It's clear that significant changes to the environment will result in loss of species and biodiversity, possibly radical loss.

Sure, the planet will recover, like it has from shocks in the past. I am not concerned about the future of life on Earth. But we happen to be one of those more recently evolved species that is surely screwed if conditions on the planet change significantly.

Quite right.

The whole 'CO2 is a compound vital to life on earth' argument is just running interference. A fallacy along the lines of 100 ppm good, 100,000 ppm better.

 

[jks]

Like a lot of people here have said: It really doesn't matter whether the Earth is warming or not, the point is that we are polluting the Earth at a substantial rate. Can you honestly argue that pumping thousands of tones of CO2 in the atmosphere it a goodthing?? Why do we keep on hearing about various ecological disasters? What exactly do you suggest?? That we keep on doing what we're doing now?? Let's see how that works!! This is so frustrating. Instead of a "climate change forum", think of it as a "protecting the environment forum".
And how can you possibly argue that global warming was cooked up by politicians?! What good would it do them?? Don't you thing the easiest thing for politicians is to do nothing??

 

[Hydrogen]

There is most certainly a right range. All life on this planet evolved to fit the environment as we find it, not a significantly different environment we may be creating. It's clear that significant changes to the environment will result in loss of species and biodiversity, possibly radical loss.

Sure, the planet will recover, like it has from shocks in the past. I am not concerned about the future of life on Earth. But we happen to be one of those more recently evolved species that is surely screwed if conditions on the planet change significantly.

If you are so certain about a "right range," what exactly is it? Atmospheric CO2 levels have varied widely over geological time, and have also varied over the Holocene - ranging from 250 ppm to over 400 ppm in this period.

The fact is that quantifying the source of the recent rise in CO2 has not actually been determined with any certainty because the problems of doing so are considerable. Carbon dioxide emissions caused by human use of fossil fuels are actually very small when compared to to the natural carbon exchange between the atmosphere, land and the oceans. The magnitude of these natural reservoirs of carbon, and the rates of exchange between them, are so large that the role of human activity in the global carbon budget is still unclear. Human emissions easily fall within the range of measurement error for the natural sources.

Yet people claim unquestionable certainty on such matters.

There is good evidence that shows atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rise as temperature rises (not the other way around). In other words temperature increases before atmospheric carbon dioxide. Additionally, warmer ocean waters emits more carbon dioxide than cooler waters, and warmer ocean water does not absorb carbon dioxide as readily as cooler waters. The equatorial oceans are the dominant oceanic source of atmospheric CO2, and the oceans are warmed by the sun. There is a good likelihood that some of the current increase in atmospheric CO2 follows a 300 year warming trend during which atmospheric and ocean temperatures have increased from the depths of the Little Ice Age.

BobBob, if you are concerned about species loss, maybe you should look at land use practices. That is an actual factor potentially contributing to species loss. As of yet, no one has ever directly linked the loss of a species of animal or plant to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. In fact, plants thrive in carbon dioxide rich environments.

And if you are concerned about climate shocks, consider the glacial periods. We are actually living in an interglacial warm period within the ice age (lucky us). Twenty-five thousand years ago the planet was considerably cooler, and what is today Toronto was under a massive glacier. Yet this is the period in time when our ancestors were getting around the globe.

 

[BobBob]

The fact is that quantifying the source of the recent rise in CO2 has not actually been determined with any certainty because the problems of doing so are considerable. Carbon dioxide emissions caused by human use of fossil fuels are actually very small when compared to to the natural carbon exchange between the atmosphere, land and the oceans. The magnitude of these natural reservoirs of carbon, and the rates of exchange between them, are so large that the role of human activity in the global carbon budget is still unclear. Human emissions easily fall within the range of measurement error for the natural sources.

You don't think the fact that we have been burning massive quantities of fossil fuels at a rapidly growing rate probably has something to do with the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels? Or that we have been cutting down forests?

Seems silly to wonder whether humans might be having an impact on the planet when everywhere we have left an indelible mark.

We need to take responsibility for that and try to understand what the repercussions of our actions are, and adjust them to safeguard the continuation of the environment which has allowed us to thrive.

Claiming that it's all too complicated and that we can't be certain (and should therefore just go on happily doing whatever feels good) is irresponsible and reckless.

 

[Hydrogen]

Quite right.

The whole 'CO2 is a compound vital to life on earth' argument is just running interference. A fallacy along the lines of 100 ppm good, 100,000 ppm better.

That, of course, makes no sense. Your exaggeration is an attempt to obscure the fact that all estimates of carbon dioxide levels during the recent past are very low by the standards of earlier geological history. There have been periods where atmospheric carbon dioxide has exceeded 2,000 ppm (during the Eocene for example).

The point here is that going from 380 ppm to say 560 ppm makes no significant difference in terms of warming, but does have a beneficial effect for plant metabolism. Only you misconstrue that simple statement of fact as an argument for more carbon dioxide. Drop below 180 ppm, however, and there is the onset of carbon starvation that will start to affect plant life.

The relationship between increasing carbon dioxide and increasing temperature is logarithmic. Simply put, each successive increment of carbon dioxide is increasingly less efficient in absorbing infrared energy. The first 40 ppm in the atmosphere has already done the majority of the absorption that CO2 can possibly do. A doubling of carbon dioxide from the levels of today would result in a trivial few tenths of a degree celsius, and even that would be largely mitigated by the negative feedback of clouds (as shown from satellite data over close to a thirty year period). That's exactly the opposite of what AGW models assert.

 

[Hydrogen]

It's not relevant whether global warming and climate change are related or real or whatever. Hydrogen, I would submit that because most of the public believe it to be a serious issue that merits societal and government-led efforts, you'll have to accept that there will be policy that addresses the issue, regardless of where you or I stand on the matter.

I recognize that Keith, but its unfortunate that the issue is being lead by way of exaggeration. It's a lousy way to conduct environmental policy - and increasingly - economic policy.

 

[Hydrogen]

You don't think the fact that we have been burning massive quantities of fossil fuels at a rapidly growing rate probably has something to do with the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels? Or that we have been cutting down forests?

Seems silly to wonder whether humans might be having an impact on the planet when everywhere we have left an indelible mark.

We need to take responsibility for that and try to understand what the repercussions of our actions are, and adjust them to safeguard the continuation of the environment which has allowed us to thrive.

Claiming that it's all too complicated and that we can't be certain (and should therefore just go on happily doing whatever feels good) is irresponsible and reckless.

It really does not matter what I think. In the end what matters are the facts. Burning fossil fuels have emissions other than carbon dioxide which should be of concern. Ironically, catalytic converters increase carbon dioxide emissions, while reducing other harmful discharge.

As for forests, I've said on this forum many times that land use management is a valid environmental issue. The thing is, carbon dioxide is good for plant life, and as NASA satellite imaging has shown, the world has grown greener over the last two decades. We all love old growth forest, but new trees take up far more carbon dioxide than fully grown mature trees.

I've never said that humans have not left a mark on the world. We have - and will. We are part of the planet. I'm sure we'd find agreement and disagreements when it came to how problematic that "mark" is.

Believe it or not, but people have taken responsibility. We tend to forget that there has been progress with respect to the environment. It's not all doom and gloom. Are their problems? Yes.

I don't know where I've ever claimed that things are too complicated. What I have stated is that there are many things that are not fully understood when it comes to global climate. That's stating a fact, not admitting defeat.

 

[afransen]

That, of course, makes no sense. Your exaggeration is an attempt to obscure the fact that all estimates of carbon dioxide levels during the recent past are very low by the standards of earlier geological history. There have been periods where atmospheric carbon dioxide has exceeded 2,000 ppm (during the Eocene for example).

The point here is that going from 380 ppm to say 560 ppm makes no significant difference in terms of warming, but does have a beneficial effect for plant metabolism. Only you misconstrue that simple statement of fact as an argument for more carbon dioxide. Drop below 180 ppm, however, and there is the onset of carbon starvation that will start to affect plant life.

The relationship between increasing carbon dioxide and increasing temperature is logarithmic. Simply put, each successive increment of carbon dioxide is increasingly less efficient in absorbing infrared energy. The first 40 ppm in the atmosphere has already done the majority of the absorption that CO2 can possibly do. A doubling of carbon dioxide from the levels of today would result in a trivial few tenths of a degree celsius, and even that would be largely mitigated by the negative feedback of clouds (as shown from satellite data over close to a thirty year period). That's exactly the opposite of what AGW models assert.

No, the only relevant point is that there is ample CO2 in the atmosphere to support ongoing plant metabolic processes. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

 

[Glen]

That, of course, makes no sense. Your exaggeration is an attempt to obscure the fact that all estimates of carbon dioxide levels during the recent past are very low by the standards of earlier geological history. There have been periods where atmospheric carbon dioxide has exceeded 2,000 ppm (during the Eocene for example).

The point here is that going from 380 ppm to say 560 ppm makes no significant difference in terms of warming, but does have a beneficial effect for plant metabolism. Only you misconstrue that simple statement of fact as an argument for more carbon dioxide. Drop below 180 ppm, however, and there is the onset of carbon starvation that will start to affect plant life.

The relationship between increasing carbon dioxide and increasing temperature is logarithmic. Simply put, each successive increment of carbon dioxide is increasingly less efficient in absorbing infrared energy. The first 40 ppm in the atmosphere has already done the majority of the absorption that CO2 can possibly do. A doubling of carbon dioxide from the levels of today would result in a trivial few tenths of a degree celsius, and even that would be largely mitigated by the negative feedback of clouds (as shown from satellite data over close to a thirty year period). That's exactly the opposite of what AGW models assert.

I am Mr. Spock and I approve this message.

 

[Hydrogen]

No, the only relevant point is that there is ample CO2 in the atmosphere to support ongoing plant metabolic processes. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

I agree with you. All the worrying, fear-mongering and freaking out over carbon dioxide levels above that useful to supporting plant life is just smoke and mirrors.

There are more pressing environmental concerns or mitigation processes. Better to spend $140,000 on addressing those.

 

[TrickyRicky]

This thread is kind of silly is it not? The police budget is around 1 billion dollars. Now how is that 1 billion dollars being spent and is it an efficient use of resources (I chose police just because it is the largest budget item).

If you were to conduct a line-by-line audit of expenditures in the police budget you would find some marginal efficiencies and someone could write a report that politicians could point at saying there is only 2% waste in the budget. Therefore there is no waste and money is being well spent by the good people employed by the city. Sound good? Now who here has ever tried to deal with police services because they had a problem? Who here has a small window into how their local police division operates in their community? If you have you will most certainly be nodding your head if I suggest that police customer service is borderline insulting and their operational effectiveness questionable. So the real question with police or any other city service is are we getting PRODUCTIVE results for the expense? I don't know but I certainly don't suspect so.

 

[afransen]

I agree with you. All the worrying, fear-mongering and freaking out over carbon dioxide levels above that useful to supporting plant life is just smoke and mirrors.

There are more pressing environmental concerns or mitigation processes. Better to spend $140,000 on addressing those.

They could do any number of things to save $140,000. In my opinion, it is not within the mandate of the City to be partaking in such studies. I don't think the scientific merit of AGW is particularly relevant to the issue.