Looming Climate Disaster: Hold on to you butts.

[korbel]

Hello JB,

The depth of complexities inherent in climatology offer an opportunity for many interpretations that could seem valid since nothing seems absolute about this "science". This in itself makes complete consensus very unlikely. But a lack of complete consensus is not a failure to prove the danger, and that does not mean there aren`t many commonalities among true scientists that point to dangerous human influence on the climate. Nearly all agree there has been a significant negative impact. The only real basic disagreement among most is the depth and immediacy of the danger despite the presence of some who might see little or no danger.

However, the attempts to paint this issue as some kind of religion is completely disingenuous. Whatever you think of the current information it is based on empirical data "a central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses." This definiton certainly does not fit into the basic foundations of religion. Yes, there is distortion of global warming by the media. Yes, people may have a more negative perception of what is happening than is legitimate. But, calling it a religion is just plain false. The processes involved in each are simply not compatible.

However, I do find it extremely ironic that those who seek to discredit the findings pointing to global warming or global dimming attempt to link it to a religious belief with the implication that clinging to a religious belief is a distorted way of thinking or that it offers NO PROOF. Oh how the faithful must feel comforted by the implications that religion itself is of such dubious foundations as that of global warming. Baptists, Evangelicals, Methodists, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists, etc, how can you have "Faith" any more...lol.

Seriously,

Korbel

 

[JustBob]

Guilty as charged.

Guilty of what? This is an opinion piece, an editorial, what kind of arguments are you expecting? And thru reading hundreds of articles (you, know like someone else just said ) I get the same impression. There's plenty of evidence of scientists being harassed, losing their funding or even losing their jobs because they reach conclusions that even slightly differ from the mainstream. Then they are labelled "skeptics", a term, like the author says, which has now become the equivalent of heretic. The thing is, a lot of these scientists are reputable scientists just doing their job. They didn't approach their research with a goal of proving anybody else wrong. This issue has become so politicized that it has reached astronomical levels of absurdity. And as the author points out, that does a disservice to science. Do you not agree that his description of what the scientific process should be is correct? Do you not agree that his arguments on climatology "models" has merit? Do you not believe that making historical claims based on data that only covers a couple of decades is silly? And let's forget about "skeptics" for now. For anyone that's been following this issue for years, how many times (again like the author points out) have climatologists changed their tune? Contradicted themselves?

Come on now, all you did was pick and choose passages that suited your own pre-determined opinion about the guy.

Frankly, this discussion has reverted to being just as ridiculous as it was at the beginning. It's a waste of time and nobody is going to change their minds.

 

[eastender]

Define the Start of Global Warming

Hey Bob: I'm interested! I'd love to see links to this said science. I am particularly interested in literature that refutes the notion that increased gas emissions produced by man since Industrialization have had NO impact on global warming, or that there is no relationship between gas emissions and global warming period, or that global warming has strictly natural causes.

Thanks,

t76

If one takes the position that global warming started after the Ice Age then until "Industrialization" it was strictly natural causes with extremely minimal contributions by human caused emissions.

The last "Ice Age" ended about 10,000 years - when the polar ice caps receded to more or less present day positions. Scientists recognize 3-4 similar cycles of warming and cooling prior to the last recognized "Ice Age".
Since these periods happened significantly prior to "Industrialization", these cycles of warming and cooling cannot be attributed to anything but natural causes.

One of the problems with the "since Industrialization" question is that it features a vague starting point.Arbitrarily I will set the date at 200 years ago
but my upcoming point does not require a fixed date.

Warming and cooling cycles have been observed since mankind has kept temperature data. The only difference is that with time the techniques and equipment have evolved to the point that the slightest change is now recognized and recorded.

There is a default relationship between man made heat and solar heat since the sum is obviously greater than the parts.

Regardless of the increased gas emissions caused by man the cycles of warming and cooling have continued unabated. Do we have evidence or strictly linear or exponential warming?

 

[eastender]

Short Version

I'm aware that there have been cycles, but that is not the only difference. Those cycles are closely linked to CO2 emissions and there's a major difference between emissions over the past 425 000 years (to keep things simple) and those released today, which I'll get to in a minute. Just a disclaimer before I go on: if you accept that geological records can give us estimates of global temperatures over time (which you must if you accept the theory of ice ages), than you also have to accept that geological records can give us estimates of carbon dioxyde emissions for the same times

In the past 425 000 years carbon emissions have always ranged between 180 and 280ppm. During the coolest years (about 8 degrees less than today - today being the average temperature between 1960 and 1990) of the ice age between about 400 000 and 340 000 years ago the level of carbon was around 180ppm. Move forward to 325 000 years ago when the temperature was about 3 degrees higher than today and CO2 levels go up to about 280ppm. Repeat this 3 times, with peak lows at 260, 160 and 20 thousand years ago. The low always intersects with a low CO2 level (for all these years, always around 180). For the peak highs (240 and 140 thousand years ago) CO2 levels go back up to 280. Currently, levels are at about 375. That's the difference. Over the past 425 000 CO2 levels have never exceeded 280 ppm during the peak highs. This increase just so happens to coincide with the very human-made Industrial Revolution, which although can't be situated precisely in time, the phase of human reliance on fossil fuels (which happen to release CO2 in the atmosphere) to feed industry can - that starts around 1850, but we could really place the date around 1900 when the engines were really fired up, so to speak. Between the late 1800s and today CO2 emission have gone from 280 to 375. Of course, that could all be a coincidence. We can blame the higher numbers on better technology yet we rely on other, older technology to say there have always been temperature cycles therefore global warming has no human component to it. I'm not saying what is going on today is ONLY our fault. I'm simply using my eyes (to view the graphs), and my knowledge of history (and my limited knowledge of chemistry) to reach this logical conclusion: man most definitely has A responsibility for this increase of almost 100 ppm or we are witnessing the greatest coincidence of history.

t76

t76,

Just looking at your numbers. No other sources.

Basically your point is that in app 150 years CO2 emissions have gone from a high of 280 to 375ppm after previously ranging from 180 to 280ppm in the pre Industrialization age. Not quibbling about how long that was.

Note, your 280ppm level is deemed to be naturally derived and hence acceptable. The variance between 180 and 280ppm yields a fluctuation of 100ppm between the low and high or a 55.5% increase over the low.The 375ppm that you refer to is the sum of 280ppm that is natural and 95 that is man made or app. a 33.5% increase over the natural high.

Your post does not make mention of a theoretical danger level so I will leave it up to you to suggest what that may be.

The issue is simple. What is an acceptable level and how does society manage the emissions without doing greater overall harm?

Not interested in a scenario where the operation was a success but the patient died.

 

[Mike Mercury]

Would you care to point out exactly how it is flawed? Perhaps you're not interested in hearing about science that challenges your own certainties, that's your problem not mine.

It is flawed because your side lost. You are flogging a dead horse.


I can understand your frustration. It is not that your preaching is not reaching my eyes. It is my eyes have seen what you wrote & I have seen it elsewhere.

And who gives a shit about pollution. We want our cars. We want lights at night. We need HVAC. We need food. We are 8 billion. That is the problem.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Guilty of what? This is an opinion piece, an editorial, what kind of arguments are you expecting? And thru reading hundreds of articles (you, know like someone else just said ) I get the same impression. There's plenty of evidence of scientists being harassed, losing their funding or even losing their jobs because they reach conclusions that even slightly differ from the mainstream. Then they are labelled "skeptics", a term, like the author says, which has now become the equivalent of heretic. The thing is, a lot of these scientists are reputable scientists just doing their job. They didn't approach their research with a goal of proving anybody else wrong. This issue has become so politicized that it has reached astronomical levels of absurdity. And as the author points out, that does a disservice to science. Do you not agree that his description of what the scientific process should be is correct? Do you not agree that his arguments on climatology "models" has merit? Do you not believe that making historical claims based on data that only covers a couple of decades is silly? And let's forget about "skeptics" for now. For anyone that's been following this issue for years, how many times (again like the author points out) have climatologists changed their tune? Contradicted themselves?

Come on now, all you did was pick and choose passages that suited your own pre-determined opinion about the guy.

Frankly, this discussion has reverted to being just as ridiculous as it was at the beginning. It's a waste of time and nobody is going to change their minds.

JB,

Discussions revert to being ridiculous, according to you, the moment people are shown for what they are.

Burnett basically speaks for big oil companies and his little contribution to the debate is inversely proportional to the large amount of airtime he enjoys.

His sense of persecution refers only to perceptions, not facts, which can be counterbalanced anyway with similar verbal inflation. Guilty as well of rhetorically making positives from negatives (i.e. a theory is a religion because it is widely accepted therefore the theory is wrong therefore the anti-theory is correct...)

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Your post does not make mention of a theoretical danger level so I will leave it up to you to suggest what that may be.

Not replying for T_76 but it's worth mentioning that a April/May 2007 paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences sets the first danger point at 450 parts per million. Ref.: http://www.itwire.com/content/view/12347/1066/

 

[eastender]

Excellent Article

Not replying for T_76 but it's worth mentioning that a April/May 2007 paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences sets the first danger point at 450 parts per million. Ref.: http://www.itwire.com/content/view/12347/1066/

ZM,

Thank you for contributing an excellent article. The comparison of emissions per capita is fascinating. Unfortunately world population figures as we go back in time are somewhat guess-timates but at least we have numbers that can serve as a starting point.

Now in 1850 the estimated world population was 1.265 Billion with CO2 emissions in the 280ppm range.The era of Industrialization has produced a world population spike that has seen the world population rise to 6.7 Billion as of September 2007,(population sources = Google "world population") which is more than a five fold increase in world population whereas CO2 emissions have increased by 33.5% based on previous figures. Relative to population growth the Industrialized world is making very efficient use of its CO2 emissions.

Given that there is heightened awareness of the challenges facing the world I see the situation as being extremely manageable once it is recognized that the most inefficient CO2 emitting factories and peoples are located in the old industrialized nations. Industry is moving away from such areas. China has the luxury of building an efficient CO2 emitting industrial infrastructure as do other emerging countries.Remains to be seen if this is the option they choose.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Given that there is heightened awareness of the challenges facing the world I see the situation as being extremely manageable once it is recognized that the most inefficient CO2 emitting factories and peoples are located in the old industrialized nations. Industry is moving away from such areas. China has the luxury of building an efficient CO2 emitting industrial infrastructure as do other emerging countries.Remains to be seen if this is the option they choose.

Interestingly, developing countries would not necessarily be required to bear the full costs of building efficient CO2 emitting infrastructures alone given that carbon markets in developed countries are already beginning to deliver flows of finance to support low-carbon development. Developing countries aspirations for growth would therefore not be capped.

 

[eastender]

Capped

Interestingly, developing countries would not necessarily be required to bear the full costs of building efficient CO2 emitting infrastructures alone given that carbon markets in developed countries are already beginning to deliver flows of finance to support low-carbon development. Developing countries aspirations for growth would therefore not be capped.

ZM

Capped or not the positive effect is still there. Evidenced by east end Montreal where the oil refineries were reduced significantly and made more efficient.Likewise CCR became more efficient with the net result that populations moved into the area.

Likewise in the USA look at the changes in the old Steel Belt states and cities
since WWII.

Aspirations for growth are a function of available markets. If China's population becomes consumer oriented like the USA then the debate may take a different turn.

 

[General Gonad]

Global warming and its disastrous effects

Global warming concerns after Africa deluge

By Matthew Green and Fiona Harvey in London and Barney Jopson in Nairobi

Published: September 19 2007 04:27 | Last updated: September 19 2007 04:27

More than 1m people have been hit by some of the worst floods in Africa in a generation, fuelling concerns over the continent’s exposure to extreme weather events linked to climate change.

Experts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN-convened body of scientists, warned in a report on Tuesday that the consequences of rising temperatures are already being felt around the world, naming Africa as one of the areas most affected by global warming.

West Africa has suffered some of its worst floods in a decade, with more than 300,000 people forced to flee by rising waters in northern Ghana alone, according to government disaster officials.

Hundreds of thousands more people across Uganda, Ethiopia, Sudan and Kenya in the east of the continent have also been hit.

“The scale of the flood in northern Ghana is unprecedented in contemporary times,” said George Isaac Amoo, national co-ordinator of Ghana’s National Disaster Management Organisation.

“Villages have been wiped off the map,” he told the Financial Times, shortly after visiting the disaster zone.

Dozens of people have died as rising water swept away bridges, homes and roads in more than 20 African countries in recent weeks, underlining the continent’s vulnerability to extreme rainfall.

The World Food Programme, the United Nations’ emergency food aid arm, is appealing for funds to help some 75,000 people in Ghana and a further 60,000 in neighbouring Togo. The agency has also begun distributing food aid to tens of thousands of people in Ethiopia and appealed for help for several hundred thousand people in Uganda.

In Niger, part of a swathe of countries on the southern edge of the Sahara normally more prone to drought, UN officials have warned of the risk of locusts that could cause further damage to the staple millet.

“We’re concerned about the impact these floods will have on crop production,” said Bill Stringfellow, country director for CARE International, which is working on a project to improve food security in the country. “A lot of people have lost virtually their whole harvest.”

However, the strong rains have in some areas boosted production, for example, in Mali. But the WFP says the overall effect of the floods on production is still unclear in many countries.

“We have to be vigilant to see what impact it’s going to have for the next season,” said Stephanie Savariaud, spokeswoman for WFP in West Africa.

Dirty and stagnant water in flood-hit areas is also creating a high risk of cholera outbreaks and malaria cases. In western Kenya, close to the Ugandan border, Médecins sans Frontières established five camps for people in vulnerable areas as the threat of flooding rose last month, but the medical aid group was unable to reach three of them on Tuesday.

“The risks will increase now the population is isolated because we can’t give them supplies to purify the water and we know people are drinking it,” said Elena Velilla, head of MSF’s mission in Kenya.

In the longer-run, scientists fear that Africa may struggle to cope if such occurrences become more common. Jon Finch, of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, said: “There will be more energy in the system. Under a changed climate, you will tend to see exceptional events become more common.”

Africa, though, has few resources to invest in flood management techniques such as regrowing forests or building barriers and canals.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

 

[JustBob]

Look, I'm not going to flood this thread with links. People can easily Google "CO2 Global Warming" and find hundreds of articles pertaining to this issue. Now, to save people time, I can summarize the main objections to the "CO2 levels drive temperature" argument:

1. Historical records show that the reverse occurs, i.e. that increases in CO2 levels lag increases in temperature by 800 to thousands of years. Climatologists will often argue that: one, this is irrelevant to current conditions (hmmm okkkkk) or that this can be explained by "forcing"/"feedback" mechanisms. To me this is far from convincing. You want to make up your own mind, read the (long) discussion after the first few paragraphs (rebutal of documentary) here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#more-414

Note that realclimate is considered an "alarmist" website, not a "skeptic" one.

2. There was a cooling period between 1940-1970 where CO2 concentrations were at their highest. Climatologists quickly explain this using the "aerosol effect". See above link paragraph 2. Note that the research on aerosols was pioneered by Stephen Schwartz, hardly a "skeptic". Note that he carefully qualified his research as follows:

"We're not saying that aerosols can counteract the greenhouse effect," said lead scientist Stephen Schwartz, an atmospheric chemist at Brookhaven, "but rather that we need to know how much of a cooling effect they have so we have a clearer picture of the greenhouse effect. To whatever extent aerosols are offsetting greenhouse warming, then the offset is the unseen part of the greenhouse 'iceberg,'"

This was in 2002. Regardless, "alarmists" had their explanation, and have stuck to it ever since. Furthermore, more recent research has indicated that aerosols could actually have a warming effect.

3. The unreliability of temperature records. Steven McIntyre, a statistician who blogs at ClimateAudit.org, wrote to NASA on August 4. He had found miscalculations in the NASA’s U.S. temperature recordings. (Note that alarmist in chief James Hansen, director of NASA's GISS had always refused to disclose the methods and the source code used to interpret temperature data, and was only recently forced to do so by the US government). NASA quietly thanked McIntyre (who had somehow managed to download data from NASA), changed the temp data on their website, and blocked his IP address Anyway, after the revision, the temperature records now show:

"Now, the ten hottest years on record in the U.S., beginning with the hottest year, are: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938 and 1939."

So 5 of the warmest years in history occured before 1940.

Oh, and McIntyre is not done. Now that he has the methods and source code, he's (and his group) are the process of evaluating data from all the US temperature recording stations. See his website. Note that he's already found bizarre stuff like recording stations in parking lots, near building heating vents and close to spots where people were BBQ'ing... Now if temperature data from the US are supposed to be the most reliable, one can't help but wonder about those in Russia or China...

Now let's go back to Stephen Schwartz, whose research "alarmists" used to support their point of view. He recently published a paper on CO2 effect on global warming:

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

Essentially, he concludes that the Earth’s climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC assumes.

According to Schwartz’s results, which are based on the empirical relationship between trends in surface temperature and ocean heat content, doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would result in a 1.1ºC increase in average temperature (0.1–2.1oC, two standard deviation uncertainty range). Schwartz’s result is 63% lower than the IPCC’s estimate of 3oC for a doubling of CO2 (2.0–4.5oC, 2SD range).

Right now we’re about 41% above the estimated pre-industrial CO2 level of 270 ppm. At the current rate of increase of about 0.55% per year, CO2 will double around 2070. Based on Schwartz’s results, we should expect about a 0.6oC additional increase in temperature between now and 2070 due to this additional CO2. That doesn’t seem particularly alarming.

Please note that Schwartz is careful to include the appropriate caveats to his results. But he also shows that his estimates are consistent with much of the previous literature on the subject. His study also has the virtue of relying largely on empirical measurements of actual climate behavior during the 20th Century, rather than on climate models.

So what's happening to Schwartz now? Gasp! He's been labelled an evil "skeptic" (note that Schwartz's credentials as a scientist are impeccable.) So the good folk at realclimate have started attacking Schwartz's research. Except this time they didn't assign one of their climatologists to do the job, the "rebuttal" was done by some blogger named Tamari (or something like that) who nobody has ever heard of...

Anyway, what I'm trying to say here is that science changes. Global warming research is still in it's infancy and will, hopefully, continue to evolve without all the bickering and the political crap. In 2001, the IPCC report foresaw a possible rise in sea levels over the next century of around 3 feet, the new report cuts that figure in half, to about 17 inches. Why the revision? "Mainly because of improved information," the IPCC notes in the fine print. It goes on to note that even its latest estimate involves some guesswork: "Understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood." The science is getting better, but it's far from settled. Climate scientists are still trying to get the basics right.

The latest issue of Science magazine notes that many researchers are only beginning to factor the planet's natural climate variations into their calculations. "Until now," reports Science, "climate forecasters who worry about what greenhouse gases could be doing to climate have ignored what's happening naturally. . . . In this issue, researchers take their first stab at forecasting climate a decade ahead with current conditions in mind." Note that Science used to fall squarely in the "alarmist" camp. They are now much more balanced in their coverage of global warming issues.

 

[JustBob]

Note that I'm not advocating doing nothing. We should try to help the environment by reducing our (human) footprint. But let's not do it because of apocalyptic scenarios based on global warming. Let's do it because of tangible issues (like increases in cancer due to chemical pollution) and let's address the costs/benefits before blindly spending trillions of dollars like we did on Kyoto when that money could have been put to better use.

 

[korbel]

Note that I'm not advocating doing nothing. We should try to help the environment by reducing our (human) footprint. But let's not do it because of apocalyptic scenarios based on global warming. Let's do it because of tangible issues (like increases in cancer due to chemical pollution) and let's address the costs/benefits before blindly spending trillions of dollars like we did on Kyoto when that money could have been put to better use.

Hello JB,

Well, GWs preference for the money seems to be war in Iraq instead of cleaning the environment for whatever reason you wish. Good choice huh!

Toodles,

Korbel

 

[beautydigger]

Quebec introduces carbon tax

Don’t mean to butt-in on Canadian issues, Butt, see what you did! I could be wrong, but won’t this have a damaging effect on your economy?

http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news..._01_N01295303_RTRIDST_0_CANADA-QUEBEC-TAX.XML

 

[JustBob]

Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize.

Peace Prize??? Oh, and BWAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

 

[Esco!]

We're all gonna fucking die anyways, so whats the difference????????
All you farking tree-huggers are trying to do is re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Makes no difference, the end result is the same

 

[Esco!]

Um, future generations, perhaps. Stop being so selfish.

No way mate!

The globe is warming they say, so lets party till its 1999 degrees