CO2 in the atmosphere
Scientific consensus does not support what CSouthard contends is common sense. What used to be common sense is not that common anymore, but science sometimes has to fly in the face of common sense. That CO2 at a few hundred ppm in the atmosphere can in fact substantially alter the climate is well documented physics, because of its very high absorbance of certain wavelengths. That the complex feedback of atmospheric composition and temperature is governed by numerous factors is also well accepted. As someone who works intimately with the petroleum industry, and has been cautious about adopting a scientific consensus view from a field apart from my own, I also consider it fairly clear from data I first saw in Alaska in the 1980s that the current warming, evident in wellbore temperature profiles in the Arctic, does in fact coincide well with the increasing output of old carbon from human activity. We currently return that carbon to the atmosphere at one billion times the rate at which it was deposited over tens to hundreds of millions of years. As a geologist I have seen the calculations, and they are both rational and scientific. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the increase of about 100 ppm in atmospheric CO2 cannot reasonably be achieved under current conditions without both anthropogenic and natural forcings. An increase of 5 ppm per year, as reported by Mr. Southard is a remarkably large increase, given that every decade it increases the CO2 content by 15-20%. Brief rapid increases have occurred in geologic time, under unusual circumstances, and they provide useful models for what is happening now due to anthropogenic inputs of old carbon. Unfortunately, Mr. Southard's view is not becoming the main stream, but the rear guard. Increasingly, the arguments of this scientific opposition take on the form of creationist arguments against evolution - citing of long refuted arguments, concentration on uncertainty, ad hominem attacks on participants.
I am not a fan of the Obama administration actions on oil and gas, as they run counter to the high rhetoric of the policy, and support cutting modest but useful tax benefits to one industry, while supporting much larger (in cost per unit energy delivered - as noted by John McGrew) for another, but am not in love with the Republican pronouncements of support for all, but avoidance of legitimate government support for research and development in both fossil and renewable fuel.
Jeremy Boak, Director
Center for Oil Shale Technology and Research
Colorado School of Mines
Viewpoints expressed are mine, not positions of the Colorado School of Mines.
