So in response to my previous post on climate change, a couple of friends made a few points. First they said that there was no real hysteria by “anyone serious” and second they said that climate change was a much more serious threat than I was giving it credit for because scientists don’t believe that evolution would do anything to slow climate change.
As to the first assertion, I disagree. Many notable mainstream people are stoking climate change hysteria. Just recently, Stephen Hawking said that climate change could make the earth like Venus. Is he not a mainstream figure? Al Gore narrowly lost (or even won according to some people) the 2000 U.S. presidential election. He has just released a movie and forwarded a plan to spend 90 trillion dollars to reduce carbon emissions. Is Al Gore not a mainstream figure?
As to the second point, this is a perfect illustration of exactly what I was saying. Climate change hysterics are taking a myopic view and missing the basic reality of what is going on. The fact that a bunch of scientists don’t think evolution will slow climate change doesn’t mean anything. Evolution does not slow or stop because a bunch of scientists aren’t thinking about it. Let us do some back of the envelope calculations to see why I think that climate change is a bunch of hysterical nonsense.
Have you ever been to an actual greenhouse? I have and the first thing that struck me was how hot and humid it was in there. That is why we call it a brown house right? Because it kills all the plants? Oh, wait a minute. We call it a green house because plants thrive in hot and humid conditions. The hottest most humid places on earth are rain forests and jungles that have the highest biomass density on the planet . . .
So the question that I want to ask is, how much carbon would mankind have to release in order to make Earth a global rainforest?
If we assume that it would take 1000 ppm carbon dioxide, this is 2.5 times the current level of 400 ppm in the atmosphere 120 ppm of which is attributable to human releases made since 1850. Just to get to 1000 ppm in the atmosphere, therefore, would require us to release 5 times as much carbon dioxide as we have up until now in all our history. Surely this must give us some basis for comfort as we consider the suggestion of Dr. Hawking that the planet will become like Venus (which has a surface temperature that would melt lead) because Donald Trump pulled out of a worthless climate accord?
But this isn’t the only place where our carbon dioxide emissions would go. Making the planet into a global rainforest would increase the biomass density of plants covering the entire surface of the planet. This would require at least 5 times again the emissions we have done in our entire history.
Do I want to live in a global rainforest? No. But as I pointed out in my previous post, I don’t think that is at all likely to happen. Even if it did, however, it would not mean the end of our species and it certainly wouldn’t mean that the earth would become like Venus. These liberals need to get a grip on reality.
Do the calculations yourself. Calculate the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Find the estimates of human release. Calculate how much the biomass would increase if the Earth became a hot and humid global rainforest. The following links will be helpful.