We Won't Stop Global Warming
Posted by Robert Rapier on February 19, 2008 - 11:00am
Topic: Environment/Sustainability
Tags: carbon tax, gas tax, global warming, greenhouse gas [list all tags]
I made the following comment recently in a discussion on Global Warming:
If you put it to a popular vote, and people learned that GHG emissions could be arrested (hypothetically) if they were willing to pay $7/gallon of gasoline, what percentage would vote for that? My guess is that it would be well less than 20%, implying that GW concerns will give way to economic concerns.
At one time I was really worried about Global Warming. And at the risk of starting a Global Warming debate here (one that I don't wish to participate in), my position is that the scientific consensus backs the hypothesis that human activity is contributing to Global Warming. I am not an atmospheric scientist, so in this case I rely on the scientific consensus of the experts. This is the same standard I apply to other fields in which I lack expertise.
I understand that the scientific consensus is sometimes wrong. But that is the exception rather than the rule. I am familiar with arguments against Global Warming, and I certainly don't want to see debate quashed. I also think that it is unfortunate that people who question Global Warming are sometimes shouted down with the kind of anger often reserved for the likes of Holocaust deniers. But even though I encourage the debate, I think the skeptics are soundly losing that debate.
So, since I do accept the scientific consensus, then why am I no longer seriously worried? Because I have come to the realization that we are never going to pay the price that it would take to halt - much less reverse - Global Warming. This article reiterates my opening comment:
To work, carbon tax must sting
Most Canadians tell pollsters they're concerned about climate change. Many insist they'd like to do something about it, and would even pay for measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
But propose actual cash amounts – 25 cents a litre on gasoline, perhaps, or a $10 daily commuter toll – and support evaporates.
"Once you put a price on it, people tend to think twice about it and say, `Maybe not,'" says Mario Canseco of Angus Reid Strategies, which surveyed about 3,700 Canadians on the issue last March.
The basic idea: Boosting the cost of anything containing carbon – the main greenhouse gas – would compel industries and consumers to seek cheaper alternatives. They'd switch to cleaner fuels or consume less – either by adopting more efficient technologies or simply reducing their activity. Presumably, the alternatives would be better for the environment.
The problem: No government appears willing to impose a cost high enough to actually change behaviour. And while several industry groups argue pricing carbon is a good idea, their enthusiasm is less than it seems.
And those excerpts explain the problem in a nutshell. I know that people aren't willing to pay the price, even though they "want" something to be done about Global Warming. If it means higher prices or inconvenience, the Western World will wring hands and wish for something to be done, but that's as far as it is going to go. Yes, I consider Global Warming to be a problem. But we simply aren't going to address it, hence I choose to focus my efforts on things that I think we will address. In the case of Global Warming, I can only try to react and position myself to prepare for what I think the consequences may be.
Now, I don't mean there won't be attempts to address Global Warming. But I maintain that we won't collectively do anything that will reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. Despite years of fretting and Al Gore's efforts and the Kyoto Protocol and all of the words and effort that have gone into action, has there been any measurable tailing off of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations? How many nations that signed on to Kyoto are meeting their targets? And how many coal-fired power plants did China and India build since the agreement was signed?
I think the disconnect is that people don't see any immediate consequences, and they know that mitigation is going to cost them money. So, they figure "Let's just wait and see what happens." The average person just doesn't see this as a problem serious enough to make meaningful sacrifices over.
I certainly favor mitigation, because solutions generally would also provide mitigation for peak oil. I want to see us greatly slow the rate at which we are using up our fossil fuels, which is why I favor higher carbon taxes. I often see the argument that higher gas taxes in the U.S. aren't going to stretch our fossil fuel supplies. The reasoning is that this will reduce demand in the U.S., which will lower worldwide prices and spur demand everywhere else.
There may be some truth to that argument, but given that the U.S. is the largest user of crude oil, I think we need to get our own house in order before worrying that China or India will use up the oil that we don't. Besides, if we make our economy less dependent on oil - and as a result China uses more oil - isn't that going to be China's problem as supplies deplete?
If people will not make sacrifices to avoid GW, it is at least partly because there are people (the deniers) telling them they do not have to. Same for peak oil (see CERA). So when the crops start failing and they're proven wrong I nominate everyone on the wrong side of the issues to take the hit. It would only be justice.
This is why the globe has cooled 0.63c since February 2007 no? I would love to see a reasonable answer for that. Also I would love to see a reasonable answer as to why La Nina is so strong this year and continuing to strengthen when all says it should weaken. And then finally all tied in nicely with all this is the sun not having sunspots.
Maybe you can explain all this rationally otherwise I fear you have bought the hype.
Please if you are going to respond back your data up with real science. Check links below to verify what I am saying.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/sunspots/
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+001
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/13/where-have-all-the-sunsp...
And to really shock you OMGWTFBBQ style.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/jan08-northern-hemispher...
Global Warming is a SCAM!!! But meh I know whats coming that is all that matters I guess. I can prepare myself but I cannot convince others to prepare. Its no different than peak food with global cooling. Sadly many will not prepare as they are ready for warming. And actually historically warming has always been tied with great times of wealth. Cold has been tied with great times of famine, plague, war, poverty etc.
Trust me I do not like the idea of Global Cooling but I think the idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming is absolute farce and looking at heightened solar activity accounts for all the warming that I have seen. If I were you I would pray the scientists are wrong who say weather is linked to Solar Cycles. If they are not wrong well.. There is estimates that even with fertilizer the earth has a carrying capacity to the tune of 2 billion.
I said my peace. Tear it to shreds please :)
Will Media Expose Global Warming Con Job?
Excerpt: In the past several months, a new "crisis" has heated up the controversy over man-made global warming. A few major-media writers and TV personalities are actually reporting statements by credible scientists who are challenging the assumption that carbon dioxide is the primary force causing global warming. There's a real possibility that big-name journalists will break ranks and pursue their next Pulitzer Prize by exposing the lack of scientific consensus on CO2 as a planet-heating pollutant. That would create a crisis of confidence among the activists, researchers and global-governance apparatchiks who want a global carbon tax to build their political and financial power base.
http://www.aim.org/special-report/will-media-expose-global-warming-con-job/
Arctic Sea Ice Sees 'Significant Increase' in Size Following 'Extreme Cold' (CBC – February 15, 2008)
Excerpt: There's an upside to the extreme cold temperatures northern Canadians have endured in the last few weeks: scientists say it's been helping winter sea ice grow across the Arctic, where the ice shrank to record-low levels last year. Temperatures have stayed well in the -30s C and -40s C range since late January throughout the North, with the mercury dipping past -50 C in some areas. Satellite images are showing that the cold spell is helping the sea ice expand in coverage by about 2 million square kilometres, compared to the average winter coverage in the previous three years. "It's nice to know that the ice is recovering," Josefino Comiso, a senior research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Branch of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, told CBC News on Thursday. […] Winter sea ice could keep expanding. The cold is also making the ice thicker in some areas, compared to recorded thicknesses last year, Lagnis added. "The ice is about 10 to 20 centimetres thicker than last year, so that's a significant increase," he said. If temperatures remain cold this winter, Langis said winter sea ice coverage will continue to expand.
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html
New Peer-Reviewed Study Shows Arctic COOLING Over last 1500 years!
(Study published in Climate Dynamics, and the work was conducted by Håkan Grudd of Stockholm University’s Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology - Published online: 30 January 2008)
Excerpt: “The late-twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in the new Torneträsk record: On decadal-to-century timescales, periods around AD 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were all equally warm, or warmer. The warmest summers in this new reconstruction occur in a 200-year period centred on AD 1000. A ‘Medieval Warm Period’ is supported by other paleoclimate evidence from northern Fennoscandia, although the new tree-ring evidence from Tornetraäsk suggests that this period was much warmer than previously recognised.” < > “The new Torneträsk summer temperature reconstruction shows a trend of -0.3°C over the last 1,500 years.” Paper available here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/8j71453650116753/?p=fcd6adbe04ff4cc2... & Full Paper (pdf) available here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/8j71453650116753/fulltext.pdf
Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age - Sunspots have all but vanished in recent years.
Excerpt: Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum," along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age." Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, says it may be happening again. Overseeing a giant radio telescope he calls a "stethoscope for the sun," Tapping says, if the pattern doesn't change quickly, the earth is in for some very chilly weather. […] In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov predicted the sun would soon peak, triggering a rapid decline in world temperatures. Only last month, the view was echoed by Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. who advised the world to "stock up on fur coats." Sorokhtin, who calls man's contribution to climate change "a drop in the bucket," predicts the solar minimum to occur by the year 2040, with icy weather lasting till 2100 or beyond. Observational data seems to support the claims -- or doesn't contradict it, at least. […] Researcher Dr. Timothy Patterson, director of the Geoscience Center at Carleton University, shares the concern. Patterson is finding "excellent correlations" between solar fluctuations, a relationship that historically, he says doesn't exist between CO2 and past climate changes.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10630
Another prominent scientist dissents from ranks 'consensus' of UN and Gore.
Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Art Douglas. recently retired Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department Creighton University in Omaha Nebraska. (Bio info for Douglas here: http://flare.creighton.edu/douglas/ )
Excerpt: Whatever the weather, Douglas said, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period. […] The amount of sea ice is the largest ever seen in the Southern Hemisphere, and it has even snowed in Buenos Aires, Douglas said. "Within four or five months, it appears that a warming trend can go very rapidly in the other direction." Douglas said the climate can quickly correct itself, restoring lower average temperatures in as little as two years. He said he doubts global warming. […] Douglas said he believes the weather patterns the world is now experiencing are regional phenomena and not a global pattern. He also noted that the warmest year on record was 1998, but questioned why, if we're in a warming trend, it hasn't gotten any warmer than it was that year. Douglas said warming trends put more moisture in the atmosphere, resulting in more snow, which leads to cooling.
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:qQt2jnH5YWUJ:www.capitalpress.info/...
Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt – July 30, 2008
Excerpt: Research in 2006 found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880’s, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955. A 2006 study found Greenland has cooled since the 1930's and 1940's, with 1941 being the warmest year on record. Another 2006 study concluded Greenland was as warm or warmer in the 1930’s and 40’s and the rate of warming from 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than the warming from 1995-2005. One 2005 study found Greenland gaining ice in the interior higher elevations and thinning ice at the lower elevations. In addition, the often media promoted fears of Greenland’s ice completely melting and a subsequent catastrophic sea level rise are directly at odds with the latest scientific studies.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&Content...
Greenland climate not varying from ‘natural climate variabilty’ (Dec. 2007)
Excerpt: RECENT PAPER ON THE HISTORY OF GREENLAND ICE MASS Showing that, although the Greenland melt has increased during the 1992-2006 period, the melt was even higher in 1900s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. So there is no indication that the current melt is above natural climate variability. Of course people who look just on the 1990 to 2007 period "see" great melting acceleration and influence of carbon dioxide and anthropogenic climate change.
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2008/01/greenland-thaw-biggest-in-50-years...
Re: Torneträsk record. So in this location there is not much of a trend. But over to the east, in western Siberia, there is plenty of permafrost loss that is quite new compared to what has occurred in the last 2000 years and longer.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18725124.500.html
I was thinking about publishing an essay on "The Last White Christmas" on how every little town and village was going to have it's last white Christmas as Global Warming took them out of the snowfall regime. That there just wouldn't be a white Christmas for that town, ever again.
Except that Global Warming is melting the permafrost all over Siberia and Canada and the melting permafrost is flowing down the rivers to the Arctic and freshening the Arctic Ocean, which is making it easier for the sea to freeze and form pack ice, which is making winter come a few weeks sooner each year.
Until the permafrost finishes melting and the Arctic Ocean resalinises, the ice pack will form faster and sooner than it used to.
The permafrost is only a few feet thick at the southern side but it is hundreds of feet thick in the areas of deep cold. It make take a while before the permafrost is completely gone.
Eventually the permafrost will be melted down far enough that the yearly melt won't be important. That make take ten or twenty years. Then the pack ice will finally go away.
So enjoy a white christmas while you can.
The only problem with this story is that it is wrong. The Arctic Ocean is losing the isolation that it had before and warm waters are helping to finish off the perennial ice.
Global Cooling: Amazing pictures of countries joining Britain in the big freeze
Increased snowfall can be an indicator of warming climates, as it is in eastern Ontario. Open waters are subject to more evaporation than frozen ones, and the air takes up more moisture.
BREAKING NEWS: CYCLES HAPPEN!
Why don't you share with all the good folks here what happened to sea ice in 2006 after a huge record melt in 2005?
Why don't you share wit the good people here virtually any climatic record? You know, the ones that always show a kind of sawtooth pattern as opposed to a nice linear change?
Why don't you share with people the total ice concentration and thickness, too? Particularly thickness. Why don't you tell the good people here how much 5 or ten meter-thick ice still exists vs. about 1 meter?
Why don't you share with the good people here what would happen if, say, sunspots disappear for another ten years but we keep spewing GHG's in a business as usual mode, then sunspots get back to normal?
Lastly, why don't you share with the nice people here which of the people above, if any, can be found via exxonsecrets?
Cheers
If you read this article
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/a-day-when-hell-wa...
And follow down some of the comments to comment number 67 you will see that Ken Tapping has discounted an article that cherry picks a few comments about the sunspot activity and indicated that he in fact thinks global warming is a far more pressing issue than the late arrival of a few sunspots.
His article about sunspot activity can be read here.
http://www.lps.umontreal.ca/~paquetteh/Maunder_SP.pdf
Not to comment on the great burden of living a Luddite life ,I have existed near the South Bank of the Red River in North Texas for the past 35 yrs.Once belonged to the Wood Heating Aliance(radical ultra left wing die hard wood burning hickies )cut and delivered over 2000 cords of oak firewood over a 20 yr period to the Dallas /Ft Worth Metroplex.Used to dream of snow laden winters and Blue Northers.1983 December was actual coldest spell during this period.
But Winters kept getting warmer-once I was unloading in a rain a week after Thanksgiving with 70 deg air temp from El Nino that fall.(1 of 2 back to back)In 1998 had to exit that business from warming,lost it!
Now I want to ask Where is this cold coming from this winter?Are diverse areas of the globe being frozen solid simultaneously?Try China,Central Asia,our Great Plains.Global dimming?Less sun spots all of a sudden?or the combined particulate areial spraying campaigns of over 100 countries worldwide.
Giant X's in the North Texas skies these past few days.
As you can see from this graph from Cryosphere Today the northern hemisphere ice cover dropped dramatically and unprecedentedly this summer and has rapidly recovered but it is still almost one million square kilometres below the 1978-2000 average. If you ignore short term variations the trend is unmistakeably down.
I saw this. Three questions come to mind. 1) what did this look like going back some 2-3000 years? Of course we don't know, so we cannot compare and make a claim as to what this trend means against past trends. 2) What caused the sudden spike down? And what caused the sudden recovery? 3) what's going to happen next?
So if you saw it, why didn't you report it?
Snot-nosed cherry picker.
The sudden spike down was caused by extended temperature anomolies reaching 10 or 20C at maximum for a long period of time in a statistically significant (in terms of changing climate versus changing weather) manner. This is orders of magnitude more serious (and more localized) than any of the global warming models predict, and has been one of the reasons people are claiming such different things.
A solid possibility on the recovery spike - Pack ice which is breaking up doesn't just melt into water immediately. It spreads out into small, floating chunks of surface ice which get counted as "low ice coverage." If a lot of this happens in a warm summer, the following winter you could be faced with a huge, several-inches-thick pack of ice, instead of a smaller, dozens-of-feet-thick pack of ice - particularly if the surface water is much fresher than the ocean water (and easier to freeze).
That there are cycles in sunspots is well known. The sun happens to be at the minimum of that cycle at present. If the predictions are correct, we should expect to see sunspot activity pick up in the next few years. Are we headed for "Global Cooling" due to a lack of sunspots, such as happened during the Maunder Minimum? It's possible, although not very likely.
http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfmms.html
Your data from UAH is just another of Spencer and Christy's anti-science attempts. For example, their data extends back to the late 1970's. So, why do they present only the AMSU stuff on the graphic, ignoring the older MSU results which they have spent years promoting? Maybe it's because the long term trend is warming, but the last few years may have shown cooling, due to the decline in the solar cycle. Spencer and Christy have continued to ignore the fact that their data has a basic flaw over the Antarctic, which I pointed out in a paper published in the GRL more than 4 years ago. My personal opinion is that they have an agenda and are spreading disinformation to discredit the other scientific results.
Was the Earth colder in 2007? Then why did the sea-ice melt in the Arctic result in such a remarkable decline?
E. Swanson
Current Arctic ice is the largest extent in 15 years, thickest too. http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html
The decline in minimum sea-ice extent last year was exceptional. Yearly variation might be expected to bring minimum extent back toward the trend line. However, the long term trend has been downward, which is the important measure, not one year's low extent. The same comment applies to yearly temperature measurements. It's the long term trend which is important and that's been heading higher.
Your quoted article does not say that the sea-ice extent is the largest in 15 years, nor the thickest.
Are you spreading denialist disinformation??
E. Swanson
"However, the long term trend has been downward, which is the important measure, not one year's low extent."
Exactly! I remember being on Yahoo's political message boards before they were suddenly and without any explanation eradicated, and the argument from the Anti-GW people was that 1998 was the warmest year on record and since then the world had cooled. Then in 2005 the previous record of 1998 was broken and that argument stopped being made.
Now there are arguments of a differing basis. Fact is though, as you mentioned in your post, the long term trend is towards warmer temperatures. The 650,000 year chart showing temperatures closely follow CO2 increases is all one needs to know to realize that if humankind puts more CO2 into the atmoshphere it will result in warmer temperatures. That's why 95% of the worlds ice is reducing in mass, not expanding.
Regional variations, La Nina's vs. El Nino's are irrelavent. The only factor that's important is the long term trend. But I've also seen these weblinks and articles trying to debunk GW and they all have one thing in common. A self interest in arguing against GW. If that is the mindset then one can always find anomolies to make their argument. Think though in long term measurements. What is happening to ice all over the world, not just in east antarctica or for one winter season in the arctic right after record melting in the Summer of the same year.
I'm convinced those against GW are intractable. There is no amount of evidence available to ever convince them otherwise. Whether that intractable position is the result of religious belief that only God can change the weather, or whether that is support of a political position, or some other reason altogether, the result is the same - intractibility.
It's like trying to convince a Catholic to become a Jew, or a Christian to become a Muslim. It's just never going to happen. What this means is the rest of us that do believe in GW just need to move forward with whatever technology and policies that make the best sense to reduce the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere. Plain and simple and not get distracted by intractibility.
Your friends at realclimate have acknowledged that the planet has remained stable in temp since 1998. They even conceded that if this continues for the next 5 years they will have to completely "rethink" their models. This was in reply to one of the comments about this very subject.
Link. Please.
Sorry, I did not keep the link. It was some time back in Dec during comments on a subject about temps. I thought you guys religeously read the site? Just email them and ask.
While I couldn't find the discussion you refer to, I found a recent article which addresses your issue, that is the fact that you are looking at short term data.
See
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-...
I'm convinced those against GW are intractable. There is no amount of evidence available to ever convince them otherwise.
I have a theory on this. Global warming has been framed as a moral issue rather than an economic one. If you accept the scientific evidence, then you must accept the policy proscription of drastically reduced emissions, because to knowingly let the earth warm would be morally wrong. This sucks all the oxygen out of what should be a reasonable debate: How much does it make sense to reduce emissions, and how much does it make sense to adjust to a warmer world?
My theory is that many people believe that reducing emissions will be more expensive than adjusting to the changes. But because that debate has been denied them, they fall back (consciously or unconsciously) to denying the science behind the warming.
I think it will make sense to do some reducing, and some adjusting, until the marginal costs are about equal (probably erring on the side of safety, since it's hard to undo emissions if their prove costlier than expected). That means more emissions restrictions than we have now (at least in the US, where the marginal cost of carbon is zero), but more fundamentally it means looking at it as an economic challenge, not a moral one.
peace,
lilnev
lilnev,
Peace yes.
But I don't see how GW can be framed as an "economic" issue.
It's all about refusing to "account" for the damage done by people pumping gases into the commons cesspool we call our atmosphere.
If someone dies on the other side of the planet due to an unusually harsh storm (arguably caused by GW), what's the cost to you, what's the cost to me?
$0
From an "economic" point of view, we don't give a $h*t about the lost lives or lost lifestyles of others. So yes, it is a moral issue.
From an "economic" point of view, we don't give a $h*t about the lost lives or lost lifestyles of others. So yes, it is a moral issue.
Nope. Lives lost are represented as lost labor pool and reduced demand, which are represented as lulls in economic growth and more expensive labor/products. This is before we even touch capital loss.
This is fundamentally an economic issue, that unfortunately is often debated by those that don't understand or flat out disbelieve economics.
So if sea level rises wipe out Bangladeshi villages, one would ask "how much value do they add with their labor?"
The answer is "not much." In fact, it might not have any measurable economic impact on the US, so by that argument their deaths and displacement wouldn't matter.
Sure. You're discounting some of the value add of their labor more than you should of course. There are a number of industrial activities in Bangladesh that have comparative advantage that would push the price up globally (if rather marginally...) but lets say there's no economic impact.
Its sad, but ultimately moral arguments dont influence policy. Economic arguments do. If there's no economic impact, we're not going to do a damned thing about it.
while the displacement of tens of millions of people in Bangladesh may no have a significant impact on the US, almost any sea level rise will hurt many US coastal cities, such as New York . (link is to a google maps overlay showing where the new coastline would be with a N meter sea level rise (N is 0 to 15m). )
It is estimated that 600 million people live withing 10m (vertically) of the sea and, no matter which country you are, there is no way the displacement of that many people across the world would have a negative impact. 10m is long term possible, the 100M people within 5m is a more plausable scenario, assuming that global warming occurs, and some ice melt occurs (total Greenland and antarctic ice melt is about a 70m sea level rise).
ipcc (2001) on greenland melt rates (on the order of meters per hundreds of years per degree)
edit: typo fix
It would take thousands of years to melt both poles completely. Wont happen any sooner as you cannot change the lasws of physics. Especially since the ice is growing in Antarctica.
Second, how come the IPCC recent 2007 report had dramatically dropped the amount of rise from previous reports, and how come they note clearly that there has not been an accelaration in the current rate of sea level rise of about 4 inches in 100 years?
Until there is definative measurements showing a change in the rate of sea level on the orders required by your post then your just armchair speculating.
Double post
Another nonsensical reply. 1. You're wrong. (Not your. English much?) 2. The North Pole has already melted by about 50%, so please explain how that is going to take another "thousands" of years. 3. All of the ice sheets don't have to melt to cause havoc for humanity, or are you not aware that billions live within meters of sea level?
Further, the IPCC didn't even deal with ice melt in the report, despite your false claim. This is common knowledge, so why lie about it?
http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/climate/floods.htm
The Scandinavian Ice Sheet gives some clues:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5766/1449
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060312210108.htm
Of course the rising sea levels 12,000 years ago was much faster, all the ice that was as far south as the Canada US boarder was melting! In Ontario we had a huge lake that engulfed most of south-eastern Ontario. The Scarborough Bluffs were once a delta from a river feeding into that lake 12,000 years ago. If you look at a geological graph of rates of sea level over the past 12,000 years you wull see it follows an S curve. Fast during the hight of the major melt, and has been gradually slowing ever since to the current rate. You cannot extrapolate that past event to today because the ice mass is tremendously lower than back then. The last time Greenland was ice free was some 180,000 years ago. The ice sheet survived 400 years of the Medeval Warm Period which had a rise of temp just as fast as today's and was warmer than today.
And as noted in these outlandish speculations, you are still looking at 500 years down the road. Do you really think the world population by then will be in the billions? Do you really think by then even a 25 foot rise in sea level will be an issue? No, survival in a post carbon world, and possible recovery from WWIII, will be the major concern.
And, oh, BTW. If you want to ban me from posting non-referred papers against AGW because they are not refereed, then that applies to EVERYONE about EVERYTHING on TOD.
You are unable to engage in intelligent debate. This will be my last response to you.
First, you posted that ice sheets take thousands of years to melt. You were wrong.
Second, don't claim it's because it was so far south when it was *Scandinavian.* When you obfuscate, you lie. It is that simple. You are lying to project an agenda.
Third, anyone proven to obfuscate, lie and distort should be banned. You are the only poster I've noted doing this. Others seem to at least support their comments with something resembling intelligence and scholarship. You just lie.
Fourth, I did not post this info to debate other issues of melt. I posted simply to correct your distortions. What I think will happen with ice melt is not worth discussing with you. It would be a waste of time.
Fifth, on the issue of AGW you contradict yourself. You have claimed to be reading the literature and being open-minded. You don't even approach that description. 1. Everything you present has an anti-AGW bias. 2. You post your crap and claim objectivity but are not familiar with the most important recent science on the subject? Even though it has been widely distributed?!
Finally, luckily for you, I am just a reader here. I am quite certain my point of view means exactly zero to the people running this site. Were I an admin here, you would be gone unless and until you learned to present information without distortion.
Hell, they should ban anyone who responds to you: doing so is *that* much of a waste and an embarrassment. I am embarrassed I've given you any attention at all. It's the equivalent of driving a Hummer one block to the store to buy one plastic bottle of oil for a Winnebago.
Cheers
A minus of a minus is a plus.
Or, if the wiped out unfortunates are owed net compensation from our country --say for sweat shop labor they didn't get paid for, or damage to their health due to sweat shop conditions, then the wipe out is a net economic gain.
Or, if the wiped out unfortunates were trying to climb the life style ladder by switching from walking to using automobiles,then the wipe out is a net economic gain because they no longer present "demand" for oil and thus they no longer cause oil to rise above $100/bbl.
Yes, "economics" is great fun and can be twisted and pulled in any desired direction just like a nose of wax.
A "lost labor pool" that is lost before we have to pay them is a gain on "our" balance sheet. A "reduced demand" that reduces our costs is a gain on our balance sheet. Believe it or not, there are some of us who do fully understand the deep "fund-a-mentals" of economic theory and of the modern world's practice thereof.
It's all in how one "accounts" for some things and blindly refuses to account for others(i.e., externalities).
This is a net economic gain. The demand they produce enriches the entire global economy.
A car has smoke and mirrors.
How does pumping noxious fumes into the atmosphere "enrich" everybody?
How does making everybody pay more for energy "enrich" everybody?
Clearly we are talking past each other. My definition of what "enriches" humanity and your definition of what "enriches" seem to be very different. I guess it's that kind of difference that makes the world spin and tilt off balance. Peace. :-)
_____
p.s. It is producers who "produce" and demanders who demand. Demanders do not "produce" demand. Demanders "consume" that which the Producers produce. "Demand" is just a psycho-babble substitute word for consumption.
You could start with Adam Smith and then read Ricardo, then move on to more modern theories of labor and capital by say Keynes or Friedman. While ideology of the role of the state may be vastly different, nearly all economic models value people as a resource rather than a cost.
...nearly all economic models value people as a resource rather than a cost.
Please think about what you are saying for just a minute. To demonstrate the absurdity of of this assertion, I offer the following absurd example: If the human population were 100 billion instead of 7, while our resource base remained at its present level, would this extra 93 billion raise or lower the average standard of living? Economic output would of course be somewhat higher, but without increasing resource availability, the per capita wealth would be drastically lower.
If there are insufficient resources to maintain full employment, there will be an excess supply of labor. This excess will drive wages down and thus reduce the standard of living for those who are lucky enough to have a job. Those who are unemployed will be a drain on everyone else, as they will not be producing anything and they will still require clothing, food, shelter, and medical treatment. Their 'demand' is a net loss, as it must be subsidized by everyone else.
This is not to say that the economic deities mentioned above were entirely wrong. They assumed world resources were virtually infinite, which was a valid assumption at the time, when the world had a much smaller population. This assumption is no longer justifiable and as such, most of the economic laws which depend on this assumption are no longer valid.
No, because people create resources. Sure there's an upper limit, but determining what that limit is is a seperate discussion.
Thats not clear at all. Its eventually not true, but its still true today.
I guess this is the place where we physics-oriented people butt heads with you economics-die-hard people.
In our world, matter/energy can neither be "created" nor destroyed.
In your world people "create" money out of thin air and apparently, since money and resources are interchangeable in your mind, people can also "create" resources out of thin air.
Sorry, they can't.
People don't "create" resources.
What we have on this planet Earth is what we have. Whether you bring 6.5 Billion of your resource-creators to the party or 100 Billion, they aren't going to be "creating" new resources. They'll be fighting over what limited resources are available. Simple as that.
Increased economic output is not the same as increased per capita income.
Increased per capita income for some is not always increased per capita income for others. There are zero sum and even negative sum games going on.
This is the argument George Monbiot made in the Guardian yesterday.
Juggle a few of these numbers, and it makes economic sense to kill people
This isn't new information. Rich people are worth more by definition.
Rich people are worth more by definition.
Ah, but that dicounts the future. I would also put many great, but certainly not rich, scientists and engineers ahead of a lot of wealthy people with respect to worth.
From at least one perspective, those who are least among us have the greatest value because our care for them connects us with the highest value of all. This suggests that attempting to extend a theory of value of labor to a theory of value of people is a mistake.
Chris
But what if it is the other way around, CO2 closely following the temperature?
CO2 levels and global temperature are co-dependent in that they form a positive feedback loop. Increased CO2 levels raise global temperature and increased temperature melts permafrost, which releases more CO2 and methane, another greenhouse gas. This cycle continues until either all of the trapped gas has been released or a more powerful negative feedback loop brings the system into equilibrium.
See Earth's permafrost starts to squelch
I think few people argue against the greenhouse effect and positive feedback loop. This is not the point.
The main debate evolves around the human-induced global warming, the anthropogenic theory, so in this case is really relevant who was the first, the hen (CO2) or the egg (increased temperature).
Increase in temp. The current warming trend started around 1890, long before we started emitting large quantities of CO2 (after 1960).
Ah, shame on me, feeding the trolls. But they do try taking over issues like this. It's like arguing with a Jehovah's Witness about the kingdom of heaven when you're late to be somewhere.
But OK, I guess it's my turn to pick up the dog poop, so I'll throw one in here.
In this chicken-and-egg argument of whether CO2 causes global warming or vice-versa, yes we're seeing positive feedbacks; at least those perceiving the real world do.
But the CO2 causes the warming, period. Many instances of it have been kicked off by volcanism releasing greenhouse gasses. Anyone here flat-out dumb enough to think that rise in CO2 causes volcanos to erupt? Probably.
You asked about the causal relationship of the correlation. This feedback loop could be triggered by either a rise in temperature from increased solar input or an increase in greenhouse gases. Given we have raised the levels of CO2, we have at least contributed to the warming.
"Then in 2005 the previous record of 1998 was broken and that argument stopped being made."
Pachauri on Recent Climate Trends
... rebound back to more near normal coverage for this time of year..."
Hi BD,
The reference to this time of year could be significant. This is, after all, Canada and it's winter so you would expect a seasonal rebuild in this ice, although judging by yesterday's +12C temperatures and today's high of +11C here on the east coast, you could be forgiven if you thought it were already April or May. In any event, I'm left to wonder how conditions will fair come spring and summer and how these coming months will compare to previous years given that these temperate seasons appear to be growing increasingly warmer. Will the more normal, winter-like temperatures of the past couple months be sufficient to reverse any long term decline? I kinda have my doubts.
Cheers,
Paul
Include that the following places have had the coldest recorded temps this winter: China, India, parts of the US, Parts of central Europe. In the southern hemisphere they also saw the coldest year in decades. Antarctic ice is at the largest extent it's been in 50 years. Now before you claim that one winter is not a trend, one winter can indeed change the trend line, especially if this continues for several more years.
Now before you claim that one winter is not a trend, one winter can indeed change the trend line, especially if this continues for several more years.
Not being statistically inclined, I won't even attempt to fluff and bluff my way through this alternate universe but, yes, I agree one winter does not make a trend and, yes, a succession of future winters that are colder than what we would normally expect might suggest the emergence of an opposing trend. But if I were a dog and you had kicked me nine times in a row, I hope you'd forgive me for harbouring any lingering suspicions if you should fail to kick me a tenth.
Cheers,
Paul
Speculate all you want, you would only really know when things do or do not unfold.
True, I could become incredibly
well endowedwealthy some day, but I'm hardly counting on it. And, btw, I'm not letting those boots out of my sight. :-)Cheers,
Paul
Please don't talk about what people will know when since you have lied above about the content of the links you provided. You are not interested in anyone "knowing" anything.
"Antarctic ice is at the largest extent it's been in 50 years."
No it is not. It is barely above the mean for the time of year.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeserie...
Notice the dramatic drop in 2007, but the dramatic rise in 2008, more so than previous years. And yes, I do see the over all long term gradual drop. I never said warming isn't happening, it has, since 1890.
How is this "denialist misinformation"?
There's an upside to the extreme cold temperatures northern Canadians have endured in the last few weeks: scientists say it's been helping winter sea ice grow across the Arctic, where the ice shrank to record-low levels last year. Temperatures have stayed well in the -30s C and -40s C range since late January throughout the North, with the mercury dipping past -50 C in some areas. Satellite images are showing that the cold spell is helping the sea ice expand in coverage by about 2 million square kilometres, compared to the average winter coverage in the previous three years. "It's nice to know that the ice is recovering," Josefino Comiso, a senior research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Branch of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, told CBC News on Thursday. […] Winter sea ice could keep expanding. The cold is also making the ice thicker in some areas, compared to recorded thicknesses last year, Lagnis added. "The ice is about 10 to 20 centimetres thicker than last year, so that's a significant increase," he said. If temperatures remain cold this winter, Langis said winter sea ice coverage will continue to expand.
Ice between Canada and Greenland reaches highest level in 15 years.
Minus 30 degrees Celsius. That's how cold it's been in large parts of western Greenland where the population has been bundling up in hats and scarves. At the same time, Denmark's Meteorological Institute states that the ice between Canada and southwest Greenland right now has reached its greatest extent in 15 years. 'Satellite pictures show that the ice expansion has extended farther south this year. In fact, it's a bit past the Nuuk area. We have to go back 15 years to find ice expansion so far south. On the eastern coast it hasn't been colder than normal, but there has been a good amount of snow.'
http://sermitsiaq.gl/klima/article30834.ece?lang=EN
Hey, JR, I've some land in Tucson I'd like to sell you. I'm moving to Vermont.
So it's -30 Celsius in Greenland. Is that a surprise to you? Who do you think is impressed?
The locals are bundling up in hats and scarves! Oh my! Do tell. How much are you paid to shovel this tripe with a straight face?
It's denialist information because it represents just one area, ignoring changes in other areas, such as the Barents Sea.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298013,00.html
Your presentation is what's called "Cherry Picking". That's what lawyers and debaters do, pick the facts to support their side, while ignoring the rest. The important variable is the minimum area at the end of the melt season, not that in just one area mid way thru the seasonal changes, IMHO. The sea-ice off the southwest Greenland coast is heavily influenced by the East Greenland Current, which is, in turn influenced by the THC waters which sink in the Labrador Sea. There are fluctuations in the THC, which can also result in changes in local sea-ice.
But, none of that wouldn't interest you, would it?
E. Swanson
I live a bit north of Fairbanks, AK. The last few days have been unusually warm for this time of year at around 40 F (5 C) and this trend is expected to continue for a few more days. What does this prove?
Nothing. A few days or even an entire season does not make a climate. If the warming trend has reversed, we will not know for certain for at least a few more years, although a decade would be preferable.
A AGW denier who is trolling the site with disinformation? Colour me unsurprised. Just about every link I see there has been refute on RealClimate, just recently, the "Antarctica is cold!" and "The Earth was cooler this past year! ZOMG!!1! SCIENCE IZ WR0NG!11".
Deniers are remarkable in their ignorance. But I tire of them as I do YECs. No matter how many times you shoot holes in their bullshit, they move on to another out-of-context soundbite, scientist specialising in physiology dissenting from the IPCC or other total red herring to obfuscate the issue for the terminally stupid.
It'd be funny if only the planet wasn't dying thanks to it. Sorry, I mean the species. The planet is fine, to paraphrase George Carlin.
And Mr. Rapier, I wholly agree. Let the world burn. Least when we're all starving/drowning/bunkering down from superstorms, we can gloat to our heart's content. Kind've reminds me of the top brass during the Cuban missile crisis days. "If we're wrong, no one will be around to tell us we are."
RealClimate: Funded by Environmental Media Services
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/110
A far leftist organization with deep pocket. The site is well known for its own misinformation and censorship.
This little attempt at a smear confirms your position on GW is purely political and totally devoid of any scientific backing.
There is no mention of RealClimate in your link.
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=realclimate.org
Registrant Organization:Environmental Media Services
Registrant Street1:1320 18th St, NW
Registrant Street2:5th Floor
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Washington
Registrant State/Province:DC
Registrant Postal Code:20036
Registrant Country:US
So what. You are trying really hard to avoid the science and introduce irrelevant subjects into the discussion. Following your "logic" TOD is crap because Bush is the leader of the US.
My gosh! I have a personal site with a hosting provider. Does that mean the hosting provider is supporting me directly? Heck no! It means I am supporting the hosting provider by paying for hosting, tech support, domain services, etc.
Just because RealClimate is hosted by Environmental Media Services doesn't prove jack squat except your own ignorance about how the world wide web works. To prove support you have to prove that Environmental Media Services is giving away bandwidth or other services to RealClimate.org.
Ah, No. EMS is the REGISTERED holder of the domain name RealClimate.org, .com, and a couple other dots. In other words they OWN RealClimate. Just like I'm the registered owner of my own domain(s). My site is hosted at NetNation, but I own the domain, just like EMS owns RealClimate (And pays the fees to keep the site running). Thus, RealClimate is an offshoot of EMS and hence RealClimate is controled by EMS. If you disagree with that then you CANNOT use the argument that WorldClimateReport is owned by big oil. Either they are both the same in that regard or they are not. If RealClimate is independent then so too is WorldClimateReport and CO2Science. You can't have it both ways simply because you favour RealClimate. In fact, I'd venture to say you favour RealClimate BECAUSE it is affiliated with far left leaning organizations.
It is common for ISPs to buy domains for their customer's use. This is not necessarily in the client's best interest (because it makes it harder to move to another hosting company.
Why don't you just ask RealClimate.org to make their books public?
Guarrenteed if the shoe was on the other foot, that WorldClimateReport was owned by "Big Oil" (It's not it's owned by Tucows) there would be a flurry of comments that they are influenced by "Big Oil" and hence has an hidden agenda. You can't have it both ways.
False:
http://veritasnoctis.blogspot.com/2007/05/more-hypocrisy-realclimate-and...
More Hypocrisy: RealClimate and Funding Issues
Let's say I take him at his word that the contributors have not been paid for any reason and haven't even had a lunch bought for them. Fenton Communications is a left-liberal public relations firm that has been orchestrating Cindy Sheehan's anti-war campaign (not that I'm pro-war, I'm just saying...). Environmental Media Services is a left-liberal environmental orgnanization. Did Fenton handle RealClimate's press release free of charge or did the contributors of RealClimate pool their funds from their government paychecks to pay for the service? Does RealClimate pay EMS for hosting their blog? The author of the post doesn't say, but I would be surprised if the contributors of RealClimate paid for any of these services. If they didn't pay for these services out of their own pockets, then RealClimate has received and continues to receive the equivalent, in terms of subsidized services, of financial support from left-liberal and environmental organizations. And if they did pay for these services, why deal exclusively with left-liberal and environmental organizations?
WHY DO SO MANY OUTSPOKEN ALARMISTS HAVE NASA GODDARD CONNECTIONS?
Tom Nelson, 13 February 2008
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-do-so-many-outspoken-alarmists...
1. Uber-alarmist James Hansen is head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
2. Hansen is said to be the boss of RealClimate alarmist Gavin Schmidt at NASA GISS.
3. Gristmill alarmist Andrew Dessler says he did his post-doctoral work at NASA Goddard (at about the 40 second mark here).
4. RealClimate alarmist Eli Rabbet is said to be Josh Halpern:
Prof. Halpern is also the Co-Director of the NASA Faculty Fellowship Program at Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD in odd numbered years. This program supports about 30 faculty each year to do summer research at Goddard.
When this worldwide global warming hysteria inevitably dies, it will probably become clear that a core cause was groupthink among a surprisingly small set of people.
Is realclimate.org biased?
http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080214094138AA4BQFA
Realclimate.org is funded by Environmental Media Services, founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gore's 2000 Presidential campaign.
EMS is closely allied with Fenton Communications.
Fenton Communications client list includes organizations associated with a diverse array of social issues, but they are most known for their work with liberal causes such as MoveOn.org and Greenpeace.
Since that is such a 'leftward' bias already, and since the 'leftward' bias of AGW and GW is pretty much a known fact.
A Little Testy at RealClimate
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001...
Heaven forbid a discussion of actual substance over there. If we did we might have to discuss Kossin et al. and how SSTs don't covary with intensity in all basins, and the fact that Emanuel signed on to the WMO consensus, and well, a whole bunch of stuff that is fair game to discuss in scientific circles, but not apparently at RealClimate. In my view the issue of hurricanes and climate remains uncertain and contested and is well worth discussing.
That's a lot of name-calling in one post.
As for the those hefty "subsidized services," you might have read a bit further downthread:
Doesn't matter. What matters is RealClimate has definite links and umbilical cord to far leftist organizations and funding. Hence their agenda is far left, rejecting anything that does not support their view, and slanting information to support their position. I get that labeled at me when I present sites that have a right leaning slant to them. RealClimate is no different in that regard either. The vast majority of people are politically in the middle. They view radical left or right with suspecion and rightly so because both sides have an axe to grind, both sides have deep politically motivated agendas.
My purpose for exposing RealClimate's left leaning parents is that the site is not unbiased squeeky clean science driven. It's a political organization.
It's all just bunches of chattering monkeys to her.
The CO2 levels will continue to climb.
Infra Red absorption will continue to climb.
The system will tip over.
The monkeys will stop their chattering.
Peace at last.
We'll finally be giving peace a chance.
http://iacs5.ucsd.edu/~pbang/dance_monkeys.htm
Let the dancing begin. :-)
Bare assertion fallacy. You haven't demonstrated any "left leaning parents" of RealClimate. Because EMS hosts their blog, they're tools of Greenpeace?
More to the point, RealClimate echoes the overwhelming scientific consensus: fossil carbon emissions are heating the planet. Can you demonstrate that the bulk of the scientific community is on the take from the "far left"?
Well, reality has a well-known liberal bias..
I can't get over the pained look on all the faces as the audience squirmed in their chairs.... you would have thought the guy was roasting Stalin and the invited guests didn't know how to respond. I'm cracking myself up laughing and these folks looked like they're auditioning for the Stepford Wives. Unbelievable.
Cheers,
Paul
First, there is no "overwhelming scientific consensus", that's been grossly exaggerated to give AGW dogma the appearance of legitimacy. More and more once IPCC scientists are leaving the "consensus". I guarantee you that far left organizations and radical environmental groups are reaping MILLIONS in donations because of the hype in AGW. There are BILLIONS at stake here, some $50 BILLION so far in the past 20 years spent in their direction. Give it time, it will all be exposed soon.
Sigh.
You really like that proof-by-assertion fallacy, don't you?
I'm just throwing back at you what you people throw back at me "Funded by Big Oil!!" BTW, there are a large number of scientists in those organizations who have vocally stated they DO NOT support their organization's statements.
If you can't debunk their science, and you can't, you've nothing to say on the subject. Now, here's your test to see whether you are worth *anyone's* time given your radical positions, lies and distortions.
1. If CO2 has nothing to do with global warming, why do all past records show a strong correlation?
2. Since the sun is currently at a solar minimum, but Earth has been warming while getting to that solar minimum, why aren't you mentioning that? And the fact that it is heading out of the minimum after this year, if past patterns hold?
3. Why did the ice melt so much in 2005 and 2007 with the sun so weak?
4. Since CO2 is higher now than it has been in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years, how did it get there and why is it not important?
Here's the kicker:
5. Please explain away Hansen, et al's, recent work on climate sensitivity.
Links at the end, explanations from you. If you can't manage this, you've no business speaking on the subject.
Cheers
Answer:
Old glaciers are a wonderful repository of historical information, because past samples of earth's atmosphere are locked up in them. Coral heads and Sargasso Sea sediments also leave Carbon 14 and Oxygen 18 clues to the past temperature of the earth. We all agree that the historical CO2 curves and the temperatures curves closely match each other. But when we look very, very closely at the CO2 and temperature data, we find that increases in CO2 are actually following increases in temperature and that CO2 doesn't cause warming - warming causes CO2 to increase. We've heard several anecdotal examples of local children becoming frightened after seeing Al Gore's movie, and maybe that's why we're so angry with him. To counter that, the British High Court has ruled that the film, if shown in their schools, must be preceded by a disclaimer that it is propaganda, not a documentary.. and a specific list of inaccuracies must be included in the warning. From our point of view, we're watching a world gone mad, with everyone hustling to get a piece of the action. Politicians, radical environmentalists, and even mainstream businesses are scrambling to appear as "green" as they can - and reap of piece of the financial action sure to follow as funds are diverted from normal paths in a headlong race to save the planet. […]What is potentially more alarming, is that some of the early knee-jerk scientists that were so quick to jump on the climate panic bandwagon are now fighting desperately to save their careers by deliberately producing falsified data in a last-ditch effort to support their individual research and save their professional reputations. In our own research, we uncovered some "data" in which a CO2 curve from an ice core study was conveniently moved some 87 years up the time scale, so the desired "results" could be obtained.
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
2. Since the sun is currently at a solar minimum, but Earth has been warming while getting to that solar minimum, why aren't you mentioning that? And the fact that it is heading out of the minimum after this year, if past patterns hold?
Answer: The current warm trend (which appears to have if not stopped, at least slowed down since 1998) started around 1880 and stopped in the 1940s long before the bulk of our CO2 emissions (some 70% of which has been in the past 50 years). Then dropped until about 1976 right when the CO2 levels were starting to accelarate. What caused that? What caused the Medeval Warm Period? How would one know FOR SURE that this trend is not normal. Also:
Solar data suggest our concerns should be about global cooling
Excerpt: Solar data suggest our concerns should be about global cooling. February 16th, 2008 by Warwick Hughes David Archibald’s new paper “Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States”, will be presented at the Heartland Institute Climate Conference in NY City, March 2-4, 2008. David points out how solar data indicates that Solar Cycle 24 which is in the early throes of commencing now, could initiate global cooling. Posted in Solar, IPCC, News and Views | 9 Responses1. julian braggins Says: February 17th, 2008 at 5:29 am
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=150
3. Why did the ice melt so much in 2005 and 2007 with the sun so weak?
Answer: Reference please to back that up.
4. Since CO2 is higher now than it has been in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years, how did it get there and why is it not important?
Answer: We are currently coming out of a CO2 low, the lowest it's been in HUNDREDS of millions of years. CO2 in the geological past was often 3-4 TIMES the current levels. The current low in CO2, which started some 50 million years ago, is suggested to be cause by when India collided with Asia and changed rain patterns in that region. That rain soaked in CO2 disolved the growing mountains to produce the huge carbinate deposits in the India Ocean. And, yes, I have references to back that up (it's been understood for decades).
5. Please explain away Hansen, et al's, recent work on climate sensitivity.
Answer: Don't know it, but will google and read up.
Question for you. Why has the rate of sea level rise not accelarated? To get to the dire predictions of tens of feet there would have to be several times increase in that rate, if not as much as 10 times for the real outlandish predictions. But the rate of sea level has not changed in 110 years of measurments. In fact the IPCC says there has not been any accelaration in spite of their predictions (which they have 3 times now down graded).
Your #1: A pile of reaking excrement. You cite a judge's decision that some elements of a movie were not fully "evidence?" That judge's decision, which you left out, said NOTHING about the legitimacy of global warming as an scientifically supported theory. It said a **movie** was a little off - in it's **non-scientific** OPINION.
You're a damned fool. Next you'll cite global warming swindle...
I said talk about the science.
CO2: more ignorance. CO2 has nothing to do with warming? Warming causes CO2? This is sheer stupidity. The long cycles of solar energy trigger, other forcings reinforce. There is a lag of some hundreds of years at the beginning of warming cycles. (Can you not read graphs?) I cannot believe you would even attempt to claim solar radiation alone causes GW. Who pays you?
You fail question 1.
#2 Why do you cite NONE of the evidence against solar causes presented to you on this thread? Soon and Baliunas BS "research" was discounted FOREVER AGO.
Repeating the same incorrect, narrowly cast BS you've already posted does not qualify. You've offered nothing to support what has already been shown to be false.
You fail question 2.
#3: You are unaware of the Arctic melt in 2005 and 2007? Yet you post here on the topic? The links are already on this thread.
You fail this *topic.*
#4: What the hell have the lows for CO2 to do with the current unprecedented high? And what the hell do we care whether at some far distant time when dinosaurs roamed the earth had more CO2 and more heat? How is it in any way relevant to the current situation? It was a different world at that time with different geologies, etc. Irrelevant except in that the past helps us learn how things work. It is not in any way relevant to our current condition. Our current condition has never existed before. Never before has any organism terraformed this planet and ***artificially* raised the level of GHGs.
When are fools such as yourself going to understand the relevance of AGW? It is the changes in the planet relative to **current life** on the planet. I.e., it matters not what a dinosaur can live in, but what WE can live in. Further, our terraforming of the Earth is interrupting natural cycles leaving us with no historical data upon which to base future hypotheses because **this has never happened before.**
Does the fact that for hundreds of thousands, even millions, of years CO2 never went above 300 ppm, yet now stands at 385 not register in your brain?
Another non-answer. You fail question 4.
For the love of god...
Enough. I am sick to my stomach.
>> We've heard several anecdotal examples of local children becoming frightened after seeing Al Gore's movie, and maybe that's why we're so angry with him.
Better burn some books and the Wizard of Oz, because some kids become frightened with that, too. "Oooh! I'm sooo angry with Al Gore!"
I don't need to be a meteorologist to decide who's telling the truth and who's full of it. I just read how people reason (or pretend to).
Re: The sun and CO2 levels:
Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States (By Geologist David Archibald of Summa Development Limited in Australia)
Excerpt: I will demonstrate that the Sun drives climate, and use that demonstrated relationship to predict the Earth’s climate to 2030. It is a prediction that differs from most in the public domain. It is a prediction of imminent cooling. […]I will show that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is not even a little bit bad. It is wholly beneficial. The more carbon dioxide we can put into the atmosphere, the better the planet will be – for humans, and all other living things. […]We have 29 years of satellite temperature data. It shows that the temperature of the Southern Hemisphere has been flat, with a slight increase in the Northern Hemisphere. Note the El Nino peak in 1998. Globally, we have had 10 years of temperature decline since that peak in 1998, with a rate of decline of 0.06 degrees per annum. I am expecting the rate of decline to accelerate to 0.2 degrees per annum from the end of this decade. That satellite record is corroborated by the record of Antarctic and Arctic sea ice extent over the same period. There is no long term trend evident. Most recently, there has been a 1 million square kilometre increase over the long term mean. This is a five per cent increase. […]The peak US temperature was in 1936, at much the same time that Total Solar Irradiance peaked. If you have wondered why US temperatures are still lower than what they were 70 years ago, the fact that Total Solar Irradiance is lower than what it was 70 years ago might provide an explanation. […]The peak of the Medieval Warm Period was 2° warmer than today and the Little Ice Age 2° colder at its worst. The total range is 4° centigrade. The warming over the 20th century was 0.6 degrees by comparison. This recent warming has melted ice on some high passes in the Swiss Alps, uncovering artifacts from the Medieval Warm Period and the prior Roman Warm Period. […]2008 is the tenth anniversary of the recent peak on global temperature in 1998. The world has been cooling at 0.06 degrees per annum since then. My prediction is that this rate of cooling will accelerate to 0.2 degrees per annum following the month of solar minimum sometime in 2009. Dr Hansen’s statement that the maximum safe level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 350 ppm begs the question of what the actual ideal level is. I have taken the 1,000 ppm figure from the level that commercial greenhouse operators prefer to run their greenhouses at. The ability to grow food is going to be the overriding concern next decade. Regarding that 1,000 ppm level, we will never get there. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been much higher in the geological past. But most of that carbon is now bound up in the Earth’s sediments where we can’t get to it. Half of the carbon dioxide we are producing now is being gobbled up by the oceans, in soils and in the Russian tundra. At best, we might get to about 600 ppm. What I have shown in this presentation is that carbon dioxide is largely irrelevant to the Earth’s climate. The carbon dioxide that Mankind will put into the atmosphere over the next few hundred years will offset a couple of millenia of post-Holocene Optimum cooling before we plunge into the next ice age. There are no deleterious consequences of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are wholly beneficial.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
Uh, sorry to interrupt ... anyone else find these massive copy/paste efforts on climate inappropriate on TOD?
Anyone think non-peer reviewed, non-scientific papers should be allowed to be posted on the TOD? One that shows no sources for data? One commissioned for the Heartland Institute? Particularly one that says because greenhouses are set at 1000ppm of CO2 that is the standard for the entire ecosystem of the Earth?
How can that guy not be banned from this site?
Cheers
If people want to continue to debate anthropogenic global warming, that is, of course, their right. However, perhaps their should be a special thread set aside for just that purpose. That way, jr can cut and paste to his heart's content and those who enjoy spending their day reading his links and refuting him can also do that to their heart's content. Seems like a waste of time to me, but people deserve to waste their own time any way they feel like it.
Many of the rest of us would like to move on and discuss possible solutions and ways to mitigate the effects of global warming and peak oil. And we are supposed to believe that realclimate.org cannot be trusted because it is an extreme left wing web site. Better that we get our info from extreme right wing web sites, I guess. It's all a fucking conspiracy, ya da , ya da.
I have spent tons of time examining this issue but don't feel I should be required to study and debate this issue for the rest of my life. The potential consequences of doing nothing just seem unacceptable to me.
David Archibald (Summa Development Ltd) is associated with the Lavoisier Group - a global warming denial entity funded by the oil and coal industry. All of Australia is funded by the oil and coal industry of course, but his research and public statements are not science you can rely on.
"5. Please explain away Hansen, et al's, recent work on climate sensitivity."
http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Papers/Hansen_2007.html
This page discusses Climate change and trace gases by James Hansen, et al., 2007.
I don't make it a point to simply read and criticize Hansen's work ... but this paper begged for it.
In this paper, Hansen admits and then proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the ice core data shows that CO2 will NOT have any effect on temperature. That's right, in an effort to prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, Dr. Hansen provides all the evidence that anyone should need to actually prove the contrary position.
But, then he provides the solution - Just fudge the data so that it matches his theory.
...
The same Vostok ice core that defines past Antarctic temperature also reveals the history of long-lived atmospheric gases. Bubbles of air are trapped as annual snowfalls pile up and compress gradually into ice. page 3
The temperature change appears to usually lead the gas changes by typically several hundred years, as discussed below and indicated in figure 1b. This suggests that warming climate causes a net release of these GHGs by the ocean, soils and biosphere. page 4
The temperature–GHG lag is imprecise because the time required for snow to pile high enough (approx. 100 m) to seal off air bubbles is typically a few thousand years in central Antarctica. ....
Despite multiple careful studies, uncertainties in the ice–gas age differences for the Vostok ice core remain of the order of 1 kyr. ....
Data from a different Antarctic (Dome C) ice core with slightly higher snow accumulation rate ... support temperature leading GHGs by ca 600–800 years. page 4
Basically, this says that temperature change causes a change in CO2. And when you look at the plots in other sources, it is obvious that the CO2 increase did not cause any additional temperature increase. In fact, in almost all cases, an increase in CO2 is correlated with a significant temperature decrease.
You can not tell that from the graphs in Dr. Hansen's paper because he has adjusted them so that most of the major CO2 increases coincide with temperature increases - that's right, he changed the data to fit the theory. In fact, that is the purpose of his paper - to explain why he thinks he is correct in changing the data in this way.
That's right, the data proves his theory wrong, so he changes the data.
Every schoolboy who has read anything on AGW knows the Ice Age/warm interval cycles are initiated by solar cycles. This is what he is referring to. You know this. Thus, you are a liar. Or you are unable to understand simple science. Which?
The idiot you quote is NOT a scientist, he's a twit. His explanation, which you failed to note:
So, rather than read and respect the work of a man considered to be among the foremost climate scientists in the world, you take the word of a computer programmer in Florida?
Nutjobs, the both of you.
Global Warmer Hoaxer James Hansen Once Pushed Global Cooling
The Global Warming Money Trail
"Reality has a well-know liberal bias."
Stephen Colbert, putting the phrase into a conservative's mouth.
Cheers,
Davidyson
Jesus dude, you will really go out on any limb in order to try and disprove the overwhelming scientific support for AGW won't you?
"WHY DO SO MANY OUTSPOKEN ALARMISTS HAVE NASA GODDARD CONNECTIONS?"
ummm, because NASA puts up most spacecraft that can study the earth from space? Because NASA funds a lot of science (which is their job!) - because Goddard is one of the leading research centers in the US (and world)
lets see what the mission of Goddard is shall we?
"GSFC has the largest combined organization of scientists and engineers dedicated to increasing knowledge of the Earth, the Solar System, and the Universe via observations from space in the United States. GSFC is a major U.S. laboratory for developing and operating unmanned scientific spacecraft. GSFC conducts scientific investigation, development and operation of space systems, and development of related technologies."
Gosh - you were right! how nefarious! those people are INCREASING THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE EARTH VIA OBSERVATIONS FROM SPACE!!!! Somebody ought to stop this at once!
my father is a very well-known geophysicist (not an appeal to authority) - he gets much of his research $ from Goddard and NASA - does this somehow mean his work (not AGW related btw) is not to be trusted?
seriously - you are borderline out of your mind with this stuff - you may as well be spewing out Trilateral Commission crap at us as to imply there is something sinister about scientists being connected to (OH THE HORROR!) well-known scientific centers and science-oriented government agencies
I know, I know, why do I bother responding to the crazy......
Wrong question. The question to ask is, "How did any NASA scientist get published or heard on climate change given their reports were edited or withheld and they were banned from speaking publicly about climate change that supported AGW?"
Bonus question: Why has G. Dumbya Bush squashed sound science on Global Warming and done nothing about Peak Oil while living in a modern, solar-powered, off-grid home?
NOTE: it is slander or defamation or something like that to call into question a man's word when his work has been above reproach. Show me ONE peer-reviewed paper debunking any of Hansen's papers. Just one.
A quick google found this:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=796
In fact if you go to ClimateAudit.org and search in their site you will find numerous articles challenging Hansen's "theories."
An unrefereed blog post by a guy who has a few stories in Energy & Environment? I'm not hearing the edifice of Hansen's peer-reviewed work crashing down just yet.
Then you are missing part of the story by ignoring ClimateAudit. Are the critizisms there sound? If you don't read the critizisms from other sources you are not getting a complete picture. Besides, Hansen saying we need to bulldoze all the coal fired plants is a polticial radical statement that very much strains his credibility and puts questions as to his true motives.
Please tell me his true motives.
Oh he's handed out that drivel as well
"it's all a big left-wing tree-hugger conspiracy"
or my favorite
"they lie to get all that juicy fat research money that is just pouring out for AGW research"
Yep, some $50 BILLION over the past 20 years. CitiBank has vowed to fund AGW research by an additional $50 BILLION.
Citi Targets $50 Billion Over 10 Years to Address Global Climate Change
Includes Significant Increases in Investment and Financing of Alternative Energy, Clean Technology, and Other Carbon-Emission Reduction Activities
Builds on Existing $10 Billion Climate Change Activities
http://www.citigroup.com/citigroup/press/2007/070508a.htm
Oh no, investment in alternative energy technology -- those dastardly Commies at Citi will stop at nothing to destroy Capitalism!
Well, you tell me why Hansen would want millions to freeze in the dark, and thousands die because of his desire to bulldoze all the coal plants? Does he want to cull the US population? As that's what his actions would do. Seems highly irresponsible to me. Smells of some agenda to me.
I repeat:
Now get your uneducated butt out of here.
Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back
You go to Newsmax for your science info? Why not just quote Rush "There Is No Ozone Hole" Limbaugh?
Oh, I see, just because YOU dislike the source means that the ice is not growing? Give me a break. Classic dogmatic reponse "I don't like that source so their information is a lie." I guess it will take the next IPCC report to say that the ice has returned before you accept the information as real, eh?
For data on the cryosphere, I go first to Cryosphere Today.
The Arctic ice pack is not growing; the long-term trend is clearly downward. See Nick Rouse's post upthread for the (alarming) graph.
How do you explain the current extent the largest and thickest in 15 years? Guess we will see what happens this summer. If it does not retreat as per previous years, then what? I guess you will just call it some anomally or caused by AGW. Everything that happens is because of AGW regardless, right?
This claim is false.
Images of early breakup of the Beaufort Sea ice pack:
Beaufort Sea ice pack fracture
German scientists warn of changes in Arctic Ocean circulation
The 10-20 cm sea ice thickness increase (in only a part of the ice sheet, BTW) is no longer sufficient to accumulate ice from year to year. In addition to the atmospheric warming, the sea ice has to fight warmer ocean currents. The change in the ocean circulation is the main story of the dramatic ice loss in the last few years.
Sir, don't post such things. Dontcha know this sort of rubbish proves you're a communist in cahoots with the greenies in trying to overthrow capitalism and Jesus with this filthy lies? The Cold War was lost, comrade. Let us not try and sully America and FREEDOM's victory with such attacks based on science and logic.
Now, go and consume more, there's a good materialist.
I think it's looking more and more like the West lost The Cold War as well :-(
I confess, I am a member of the reality based community and associate with members of the reality based community.
the real data is here:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg
the picture shows that the sea ice is where it was in 2005, approximately. There was one other time on the record when the sea ice anomaly changed that much: 1996/97, when the anomaly changed from -1.5 to +1. 2007/08 it changed from -3 to -0.5. This is consistent with a trend of d e c l i n i n g sea ice:
The bottoms get lower, and the tops get lower, too.
That lack of sunspots is related to cooling is just a hypothesis, and a relatively poorly supported one. The Maunder minimum did correlate to the so-called Little Ice Age. However, there no evidence that the LIA was global (and some evidence that it was not). And if the LIA was caused by reduced solar activity, it should have been global, not just a North Atlantic phenomenon, since the same sun shines on all of us.
The amount of radiation the earth receives from the sun is directly proportional to the number of sunspots. Fewer sunspots means a cooler sun.
As for this winter being cooler than last winter just shows that climate is the average of weather over a period of decades.
Great Links SlicerDicer (seriously), especially the amsutemps link. Always been curious about the day-to-day global temperature.
Can we conclude that 'global cooling' began on Jan 1, 2008 and ended on, say, Feb 6, 2008? Wow, global temperatures have risen 0.74F since Feb 6! What's up with that?
OK, some sarcasm there, but the point is, climatologists should, I believe, focus on 10 year running averages (or something or that order) and leave the day-to-day stuff to meteorologists. The issues of why January 2008 was cooler than any year since 2004, is very interesting stuff and should be understood - but do you really want climatologists to focus only on that?
Cold? January 2008 was one of the warmest since 1879 here in Sweden. Top five or so. Almost no snow at al here in the mid south. My parents live in the mid-north and have had very warm weather too. All time high in one place. February might get many all time highs from many places in the east of the country, but that is yet to be seen. It might get cold yet.
Winter is defined as sub zero temperatures (Celcius) for five consecutive days here. None yet here in the south. And it is neither spring, and fall was officialy ended a week ago. Strange weather.
The rest of the world might have a cold winter, but not us here in Sweden. So visit warm Sweden! Not so sunny though I'm afraid. Rain rain rain...
Thank for sharing.
However, your assertions are incorrect on a number of points. Let's start with your assertion that globe has "cooled by 0.63 °C since February 2007.
That's a farily meaningless statement. As for looking at month to month variation compared to the 30-year baseline does not get you much and longer term trends are also key since there are some significant lag times built into the system dynamics. It's like predicting the outcome of some election based upon a survey of one-eyed, vegetarian monarchists.
Here is the data from the NASA GISS:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt and the trend toward increasing temperatures is definitely present. Also note that 2007, as a solar minimum year and the beginning of a new cycle od increased in sunspots, tied as tthe second warmest calendar year on record (with 1998 which was a record year withan extremely strong El-Nino associated with the ENSO).
I also observe that the uah website departs from long-standing meteorological practice of using 30-year averages to compute anomalies for individual sites and to roll them up (~5000 of them globally) into an aggregated value for each month. The folks at uah apparently decided that they would like to have a noisier baseline (why not use at 10-year average, or a 5-year average? Then you won't see anything).
As for hype, the physical basis for global warming theory and current anthropogenic causes is grounded in physics, plain and simple and the properties of the various GHGs that have been measured and confirmed in the field and the laboratory. It is not based upon some correlation. However, what is correlated is human's use of fossil fuels (as well as land-use practices) and the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. Oxidation of carbon will give you carbon dioxide, whether through an intermediate step of carbon monoxide, or directly though complete combustion. If you use carbon-based fuels, you are going to produce carbon dioxide. Some of the strongest GHGs (in CO2 equivalent) are purely manmade.
To presume this is hype is a choice you make and there is a simple test you can take to prove the physic and chemistry wrong. So far, no person that has proclaimed this to be "hype" is willing to take the test.
As for solar cycles and the impact on contemporaneous measurements, it is a theory that is dead on arrival.
First, the Earth is heated (primarily) by solar radiation and the rate of radiation heat transfer is given by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which relates the rate of radiation heat transfer (watts/square meter) to the fourth power of the absolute temperature of the radiation source (note the Sun is a near-perfect blackbody radiator). We have been monitoring the rate of radiation received (by satellite) for nearly 30 years and find that variation to be small (1368 W/square meter, +/- 1.5 watt/square meter over the sunspot cycle). The cycle variability is simply too small (by about an order of magnitude) to be the cause in temperature variability.
Second, the radiation spectrum is defined by the Planck Blackbody radiation law (that's how we know the Sun is a near perfect blackbody radiator) and so that too would change if there were significant variation. Simply put, there isn't that sort of change present.
Third, changes in solar activity of the magnitude required would have measureable effects on the quantities of various stable isotopes as well as radionuclides.
Lastly, temperature changes due to solar variability would heat the entire atmospheric column such that both tropospheric and stratospheric heating would be measureable. Unfortunately, what has occurred is tropospheric heating and stratospheric cooling, which is the fingerprint of global warming from a changing composotion of the atmospheric column.
A problem is that for those who wish to ignore anthropogenically caused global warming (which might be translated that they might have some role in the cause and therefore the assumptions about lifestyle and impacts might be incorrect) is that no cogent theory of "natural cause" to explain current observations, based in science (and with data) has been put forward. You may not wish to read the 1500 pages of the IPCC AR4 WG1 document or each one of the peer-reviewed documents used in the assessment report with all the uncertainties and the consideration fo alternative explanations, but it stands there ready to be read. The shorter technical summary gets at the highlights but not the details.
But unless and until such a cogent theory is put forward, all that can be said to you is "thank you for sharing" because it's made sure that our pencils are sharp.
There is a tendency to suggest that "this has happened before." My counter question is and shall always be "And how did the 6.7 billion people living on Earth at that time fare 'when it happened before'?"
I would like to make clear firstly that I understand that man-made global warming is probably causing global warming, and in any case support measures likely to reduce emissions.
I would also like to make clear that I am in no position to properly critique the issue, and it is in any case true that those who claim that we are instead going to have global cooling say that that should be apparent very soon, which at least is a nicely falsifiable position.
Having said that, I wonder if you could improve my understanding on a couple of issues?
You said that Global warming was based on well-understood physical processes.
It is my understanding that the straight-forward consequences of these are in fact many orders of magnitude too small to produce the results modelled, and that they rely instead on much more subtle positive feedback mechanisms, and positive feedbacks being far larger than negative.
Is this true?
Secondly, I understood that theories which claim that the sun are the reason for climate change also rely on feedback mechanisms, in a very similar manner, and so the fairly small variability can be magnified.
I also understand that one other mechanism suggested is cosmic rays affecting cloud cover.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml
I would be grateful for your thoughts on the matter - as I said, my understanding is that man-made GW is the most likely fit, but enquiring minds want to know!
Please see RealClimate's excellent Start Here page for an introduction to the science.
No. Try Spencer Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming". Some pages may be missing from that. There used to be a free PDF at http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html but it's not responding right now, maybe it will again.
As I understand it, predictions of warming, especially at the poles, were made without attempting to take into account positive feedbacks such as more dark sea showing through at the poles, so that melting would accelerate itself, but this may explain why it has been occurring faster than expected.
A quarter of the carbon in the atmosphere is of recent arrival, having come out of a smokestack or tailpipe. Here and in linked pages, I figure we can get it out.
How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?
That's a decent link - shame it cuts out when it gets interesting.
I am up to speed on the excess CO2 being man-made - different isotopes - that's the way I like my science - conclusive!
http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/climate/
I've found an interesting link which seems quite balanced. They say that man-made GW is becoming increasingly certain.
However, some there think that there is some fuzziness in the data:
http://www.physorg.com/news122655339.html
I am always attracted to argumentation which does not seek to overstate it's case, and fro my purposes this sounds 'good enough', or rather the summation in the whole article does, as due to resource constraints we should be moving on from fossil fuels in any case, so the practical actions taken would be similar, and the risks of man-made GW can't be characterised as other than significant.
I still haven't found a resource that I am really happy with anyway to look in some more depth at GW without getting involved in huge amounts of work and evaluation.
Baliunas? Please... It is quite clear a lot of people here are unfamiliar with the research on climate change. Go do a person search on exxonsecrets.
I know of no original research from her. She does surveys of others' research, and - surprise! - only manages to find data against AGW. Her work with solar forcings has been trashed before. Look at her work with Soon.
Cheers
I clearly stated that it was the whole article not just the extract which I found balanced, which again clearly states that man-induced climate change is overwhelmingly likely, so I don't really see why you have much problem with that.
I had not heard of the stuff she was saying about beryllium before, hence my selection of that part for my quote.
Regardless, consider the source. She's not very credible with regard to AGW. Do note she is not a climate scientist, as so often is the case with the anti-AGW people.
Also, you have stated you have not found "a" source. Why would you expect to? The very term concensus indicates a gathering of a wide range of research from a wide range of sources. But what concerns me is that you go searching and come back with one of the best-known deniers. Were you me, would that not raise a red flag for you? Besides which, you have already been given the single best source for an intro to the science of AGW:
http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/climate/index.html#contents
Regarding the sun:
http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/climate/solar.htm#eddy
What we need to be most concerned about in the short or long-term, aside from the total overall change:
http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/climate/rapid.htm
If you read Weart's history and still claim you haven't found "a" source, you simply are not looking for one.
NOTE: Keeping an open mind when there is legitimate reason is sane. Doing so against all reason is insanity. There is no legitimate counter-claim to AGW. Period. The only degree it can be claimed there is is in the same league as claiming evolution is "just" a theory. The scientists who did the IPCC did not say they "think" this is real. They said there was no longer any doubt.
What is entirely possible is... anything. In fact, we don't know all the triggers associated with climate change. It is entirely possible we could shift into another Ice Age fairly quickly *because of* imbalances caused by AGW. It is not the most likely scenario, but is possible. That silly movie a few years back about the Earth going ice ball in a month is fantasy. It happening over some decades or hundreds or thousands of years is not. Should the thermohaline shut down, all bets are off. Snow starts building up in Europe, more sunlight is deflected, snow and ice return to the North Pole.... etc., etc. But the trigger would have been AGW, not the sun.
People acting as if there is any legitimate debate on this is bordering on the criminal. Most of the "scientists" doing so do *not* do science on the subject, do not get peer reviewed and have been in the pocket of Big Oil in the past.
Again, WHY does G Dumbya live in an advanced, eco-friendly, off-grid home while battling against AGW and PO?
Cheers
You are clearly ignoring what is being said to you, ie that it was the body of the article which I was in agreement with rather than the quote.
As for your rantings about red flags rising in your mind and not liking the quote I gave or it's source and so on, why would anyone in the world care? - I certainly couldn't give a stuff. I am responsible for my words to which you are not paying attention as opposed to your interpretation of the world or who you have chosen not to like.
I had not yet looked at the link you quoted as I simply haven't got around to it, but will do so in due course, although your fundamentalist attitude is hardly encouraging confidence in it's impartiality, but I will try to forget the source.
Please do read the excellent Weart history. It will answer your questions about the science.
Thanks for the recommendation, I will certainly do so when I have a chance to look at it properly.
I haven't studied the subject much, just took a quick look around and decided that there were genuine grounds for concern, and since my position was not far off consensus and I am not qualified to fully assess the conflicting claims just left it there.
Some of the critics of GW sound to me borderline insane, but OTOH some of the proponents of man-made GW do their argument no favours by the expression of almost religious degrees of certainty about what is after all a very complex system.
The intensity of the debate has also tended to overshadow other major impacts by man on the environment.
My main beef about the whole GW argument is not that it is incorrect, but the statement that sorting it out and moving into something which is rather metaphysically referred to as being in tune with nature is going to solve anything at all.
What is plain as a pikestaff is that the past 12,000 years have been a period of almost unprecedented climatic stability, and that even then major events have nearly wiped out whole civilisations, for instance the drought in Egypt which destroyed the pyramid builders.
Swings of the suddenness and magnitude as have occurred many times in the past would just be unsustainable by present civilisation.
In practise it seems that man's activities have stabilised the climate against what could otherwise be expected, and we are in the ball-game of trying to balance climate, not just stabilise it to some hypothetical natural level, unless we want to achieve harmony with nature by being dead.
Evolution when I was a boy was assumed to meander on, changing things gradually at a fairly constant rate.
We now know it works by sudden fits and starts, so called punctuated equilibrium.
It is clear that previous assumptions of consistent gradual change in climate are false, and swift and violent fluctuations occur.
Over and beyond the GW debate, we have to start accepting that, and coming up with ways of managing the climate, fluffy talk of nature's harmony just does not cut it.
Dave,
You have made a fundemental error here. The orgin of holocene stability is in the balance of the ecosytem which stabalizes the composition of the atmosphere. It is not possible to fruitfully consider the question of managing the climate without taking this into account. You seem to think that past fluctuations in climate were swift. This is not the case except perhaps during mass extinction events. After the work of Hansen et al. (2007) it now seems quite clear that the cycle of ice ages really is owing to orbitial forcing driven by albedo changes on ice fields that experience spring time surface melt. That the refreezing takes longer that the melting over ice age cycles gives a visual impression that the melting is rapid, but it is not compared to the ability of the ecosystem to adapt. The American Pika, for example, would not be in trouble at the termination of an ice age because the range of their forage would move gradually and their range would follow. Biodiversity is thus maintained. The ecosystem is adapted to that rate of change. It is not adapted to the rate of change that is seen in some mass extinction events and it takes a very long time to reestablish a complex enough ecosytem to be able to provide stabilization to the climate after such events.
The ice ages themselves play an important role in interglacial stability. The phosphorous in soils can become exhausted over the interglacial period and the character of erosion from the movement of glaciers during ice ages replenishes this element allowing the subsequent growth of forests. Without the phosphorous, forests give way to grasslands. The growth of forests as glaciers retreat may provide a buffer for carbon released from melting disturbed soils so that carbon dioxide does not rise so rapidly that the ecosystem cannot follow. Climate and the ecosystem are very intricately intertwined.
What we are doing now is changing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at a rate that is much much faster that the rate at which it changes at the termination of of an ice age. The effect of this is that climate is changing at a much faster rate than the ecosystem is able to respond. Its repsonse will not be rapid enough to avoid a serious reduction in its complexity and thus its ability to stabilize climate for hundreds of thousands of to millions of years. We cannot manage climate without the assistance to the holocene ecosystem of which we are also a part. An athropocene mass extinction will lead to larger amplitude climate shifts than the complexity of the current ecosystem allows.
Because you do not adequately appreciate the role of the ecosystem in climate stability, you are dismissive of it. But this is a problem with your lack of knowledge rather than with the suggested approches from those who are aware of how the climate is regulated. The ecosystem is climate stability. This is fundemental.
Chris
Chris, I am not really interested in debate with you since you choose not to stick to normal debating conventions.
You said in another discussion on nuclear energy that the licensing process in the States was corrupt.
On being asked to provide evidence of this your reply was that public funding of political parties in the US would result in an end to licensing.
This is plainly merely another unwarranted assumption, and is not evidential for your original slanderous allegation.
Since you will not retract I refuse to interact with such a dishonest debater.
However, for others who may think Chris is talking more than his usual eco-babble, here is one source for sharp variations in climate:
http://www.learner.org/channel/courses/envsci/unit/text.php?unit=12&secN...
Please note that this source is not one which disputes anthropomorphic GW, as you can clearly see by going to the pages which deal with this on their site.
Please note also that I do not attempt to deny that man-made GW is anything other than rapid and severe, I am just pointing out that not everything in the garden is rosy even if it is sorted out.
Nor is it even necessary to hypothesis such a severe event as that one to realise that at current population levels we could be in deep trouble even with normal climatic such as that which occurred in a 200year drought which brought down the pyramid builders:
http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/wcrp/pdf/3.5_Paleo_JSC-28_Afr_28.03.2007.pdf
3.5_Paleo_JSC-28_Afr_28.03.2007.pdf
http://egypt.union.edu/
Ancient and Modern Egypt - Union College's Egypt Miniterm
This kind of major shift has happened many times, and we would be in deep trouble again if it did.
We therefore need to manage the climate actively, as we already make major impacts, we have got to make sure that they are in right direction.
Dave,
It is your style of debate which leads you into difficulty. I have been very clear about the type of corruption we are experiencing and your insistance that that it take more of the form of the Stello-Fortuna affair is really your attempt to twist things because you do not apporve of your government's prudent actions in not over extending the operating lives of reactors. Your agenda is getting in the way here.
You should really look more carefully at your sources, as usual. The Younger Dryas was a thermo-haline circulation shut-down that affected Greenland strongly, but obviously the energy input or retention was not changing globally. This was a redistribution of energy not a loss or gain. The "mean" in your quote it the mean in the ice core, not over the globe, as you would know if you had bothered to read the footnote rather than selecting to leave it out of your quote.
Your difficulty here is that you do not comprehend the nature or scale of the greenhouse gas problem.
Chris
This is the last time I will bother to respond at all Chris.
As usual you are cherry picking, and instead of using your undoubted intelligence to inform you seek to mislead and to bend arguments to your agenda.
As usual, you are in error in your attempt to impute my motivation, as I most certainly would not support any attempt to extend the life of reactors beyond safe limits, and though I feel that that may in fact occur in the event of fuel shortages this can only be taken as approval by someone as determined as you are to distort the truth.
The footnotes were clearly available for everyone to see since I posted the link.
However, you seem to be fixated on the footnotes but have great difficulty reading the actual article itself, which clearly states:
Now I have no doubt that you were well aware that opinions diverge about the speed of climate change, and if you had presented your argument along the lines of:
'there are a number of opinions on the speed of natural climate change, but I find it most reasonable that it has been fairly slow, and this is supported in.....and so on'
I would not have an issue, but as you most certainly know many who are firmly of the belief that GW in man-made also suspect that climate works by passing trigger points, and that we will trigger one by CO2 emissions. If triggers can cut in now they could in the past, so that climate change may have been more abrupt.
In fact, you invariably seek to represent that yours is the only, really, really scientific opinion possible, and certainly try to avoid confusing the issue by indicating the range of opinion, in exactly the same way that you invariably present the very worst opinions that you can find about nuclear power, such as the death rate from Chernobyl or uranium resources, taking respectively the very highest estimate and the very lowest, without the slightest attempt to give contrary opinion.
In the present instance once again you argued the bit you fancied, and ignored the fact that much more recent changes such as those in Egypt would be enough to pretty much do for us, flannel about being in tune with nature aside- AFAIK they did not burn fossil fuel, of course they affected the climate in other ways but six and a half billion of us can hardly fail to do so too.
Your difficulty is that you have not confronted the fact that you are using your intelligence and training in the service of propaganda, and are in fact seeking to deliberately distort and obscure the issues, in other words, effectively lying.
Dave,
Regional climate change, such as your examples in Greenland or Egypt are not global. The species living at that place could be wiped out, but the effect on the extinction rate will not be all that strong since many species or their close kin will survive elsewhere. This means that the ecosystem can rebuild and is robust. Overall, it can contribute to climate stability. A global ecosystem collapse that results in mass extinction does not have the ability to rebuid quickly. The complex web of niches is gone. Because of this, it cannot provide as much of a stabilizing influence. It can't even support megafauna such as ourselves.
You are urging managing the climate without taking into account the greatest factor in the climate system, the ecosystem. I can only say that this is a very dangerous proposal and will surely lead to disaster if followed.
I'm sorry that you are so thin-skinned about nucelar power. If you have any specific criticisms of methodology in estimating cancer deaths from Chernobyl, or if you have evidence of substanial new uranium deposits this would be very interesting, but just spouting the pro-nuke line as you are doing is not very informative. As we have seen over and over again, that line is not well supported by facts but is rather rife with deception and is almost always presented with a great deal of posturing and bluster.
Chris
Well, you have got me, this is so nonsensical that I am going to reply.
Do you seriously imagine that a drought of that magnitude and severity in the area of Egypt and Ethiopia would not be matched by other major events elsewhere?
Even supposing it was miraculously not matched elsewhere, what do you think the result of such an event in that region would have on the world, with millions starving?
Your statement that I do not take into account the ecosystem is so ludicrous that I have serious doubts that you in fact are capable of understanding much at all, and so possibly I was in error to some extent in accusing you of malice in misrepresentations, as you display all the traits of an incapacity to comprehend anything.
Of course the ecosystem is important, it is the idea that you are OK if you just get into tune with nature that I was critiquing, as nature is very likely to kill you no matter how in tune you are - in fact, to do anything effective you have to understand what is going on, but move far beyond 'being in tune' to actively seeking to manage the ecosystems you have researched.
You seem entirely unaware also that you are just spouting the anti-nuke line.
The difference in our argumentation is that I try to put the other case too, so far as I am able, or if it seems so downright daft that I am unable to fairly present it at least give an indication of where such arguments may be found.
As for new facts, you are so consistent in your 'principled opposition' - ie prejudgements on purely theoretical grounds based on dubious philosophies, that it is quite clear that no amount of evidence would sway you.
On the contrary I have always altered my positions when new evidence came to light.
Now, must close, I really can't work out why I am wasting my time on you.
Dave,
Would you then propose a different analogy? Harmonization as opposed to discord pretty much sums up where we need to get to. Of all human creations, our imitation of the bird in our music probably most resembles the workings of the ecosystem. The web of interrelationships within the structure of a symphony mirrors the necessity of each role of species in the ecosystem rather clearly. Thus, getting back in tune and supporting the overall functioning of the ecosystem, and to some extent now, boosting certain portions of the whole to a greater role, particularly those that pull carbon out of the atmosphere, is just what is needed. Excluding nature from out efforts is just not going to work. If you are only opposed to the particular analogy, well, that is something different.
I would say that in some ways I am contributing to the argument against nuclear power. I've found that I'm able to ferret out the misrepresentations from the industry and thus provide a clearer picture of what is going on. There is a growing consensus around my critique of the ORNL page on radiation from coal, for example. Because there is so much that is untrue that is put out by the industry, I do not claim that I've found all the instances, but I have found some. Since this is original work, it is hard to call it "the line."
Chris
I said, "Regardless," which clearly indicates I considered your explanation and found it wanting and/or irrelevant. I further will point out: "I’m looking for the millennial scale of solar variability..."
A good scientist defining an agenda then going looking for the evidence? Note she did not state a hypethesis, she simply is seeking something she hopes is there to justify the money she gets from Exxon, et al.
I repeat: please.
She is not a climate scientist and is not working objectively. She sets out with an anti-AGW agenda. Clear?
Cheers
Seems my reply from yesterday was "eaten." So, I will try again to answer your questions. As you will note, there are lots of strong feelings about this. I will add that the science does not care about feelings, you will not find "left-leaning" terms in the equations or "left-leaning photons."
So, I classify all of this under physics (e.g., chemistry as a subset of physics). So here's what I meant by well-understood physical processes (classified under physics):
Physics Principle 1: Carbon plus oxygen results in an oxidized (and lower energy state) for carbon as either partially oxidized carbon monoxide or fully oxidized carbon dioxide. These compounds might go on to other reactions, but it is the CO2 that has become the focus of the global warming discussion. I'll discuss the physical properties in another principle below.
Physics Principle 2: Mass (from the standpoint of chemical reactions) can neither be created nor destroyed. Thus, chemical reactions here on Earth follow a mass balance such that one unit mass of carbon produces 3.67 units of mass of carbon dioxide upon complete oxidation. We can ignore the amount of mass lost through energy release (in a nod to Einstein). We have reasonable estimates of carbon release to the atmosphere from various anthropogenic sources that go back quite far in time. We also know there is a cumulative effect when the rate of addition exceeds the rate at which the biosphere can process the additional carbon load.
As an aside, you can take the atmospheric measurements of CO2 from Mauna Loa (the longest continuous data source) and the estimates of carbon release per year and cumulative and run the regression back to the limit value you would get before the Industrial Revolution and you get ~280 ppm, which happens to correspond with the values found in glacial ice. Before someone gets bent out of shape over the earlier data not being accurate, I would point out that their values are so small compared to today that even if the values were in error by a factor of 2, they would have no effect on the regression.
Another interesting factoid: since 1979, more CO2 has been released to the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources than had been released by the human activities from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution through 1978 (and quite likely since man first began using fire). At the most recent rate of growth in the use of fossil fuels and land use, by the end of 2035 (assuming sufficient fuels exist) more CO2 will have been placed in the atmosphere than the entire Industrial Age up through 2007.
This is a correlation in support of a physical process that is and can be measured. The correlation is not causation, the acts of humans are causation. Thus, there is a relationship between the amount of anthropogenic activity and the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. I'll get back to CO2 and other GHGs a little further down.
Physics Principle 3: The rate of radiation heat transfer is given by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. The rate per unit area (watts/sq meter) is related by a proportionality constant associated with blackbody radiation behavior AND the 4th-power of the absolute temperature. A 1 percent increase in the absolute temperature results in a nominal 4.1% increase in heat transfer rate. The Sun is a near perfect blackbody radiator and radiates at an effective average temperature of 5778 °K (you will see this number rounded to anywhere from 5000 - 6000 °K). If you plug this temperature into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, you will get a heat transfer rate of more than 63 megawatts/sq meter from the Suns surface.
Physics Principle 4: The radiation spectrum, i.e., how much energy per unit of frequency (wave number) is given by Planck's Law of Blackbody Radiation. If it has mass, it has temperature. If it has temperature it radiates according to this relationship. The Sun's measured output spectrum is a near perfect match to the equation (that's how we know it's a near perfect blackbody radiator). This is the spectrum of mostly visible light that we see. Even the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) follows this equation (to better than one part in 100,000). Even if solar temperature increases or decreases, it must show up in the spectrum.
Physics Principle 5: The Inverse Square Law. The rate of radiation received at one astronomical unit away (~93 million miles) from the Sun's surface is given by the inverse-square law. In addition, it has been measured by satellite at 1368 W/sq meter. As I mentioned in the previous post, the variation due to solar periodicities has been measured and is quite small.
Physics Principle 6: The Earth is not a "target" for radiation measurement and due to geometry (the Earth as a sphere in space), the average top of atmosphere solar insolation is 342 W/sq. meter.
Physics Principle 7: Of the 342 W/sq meter that reaches the top of the atmosphere, 107 w/sq. meter is reflected back into space without be "used" by the planet. This is the "albedo." The remaining 235 W/sq. meter are what is available to "heat the planet" (and that must be radiated back out into space to maintain thermal equilibrium).
These principles associated with radiation are the principles that those who think that its all solar driven, have to contend with (and provide data that supports the contention). There are really only three factors involved, solar temperature, distance to the Sun, and albedo that can change the amount of energy available to heat the planet. The distance to the Sun is addressed by the Milkanovitch cycles of roughly 100,000 years. Solar temperature has not provided enough change to account for the observed recent temperature fluctuation, and albedo has been changing (land use, loss of ice which are both direct and indirectly associated with human activities).
Now, if you plug in 235 w/sq. meter, you will get an average planetary temperature of ~ -19.5°C. In addition, the radiation spectrum at this temperature is very different from the spectrum coming from the Sun. Clearly the planet is not that cold, so something must be at work to keep the temperature up. I'll skip through all the rest of the intermediate steps and come to the probable source. The source of this must be greenhouse gases (GHGs).
Physics Principle 8: Gas transmittance with respect to frequency (and reradiation) has been well-studied and documented for most GHGs. Diatomic oxygen and nitrogen are virtually transparent to both visible (incoming) and the outgoing IR radiation from Earth. Other gases, like water vapor, CO2, methane, ozone, nitrous oxide are not (at least in the IR ranges we are concerned with. You've probably seen the spectral transmittance graphs for various gas and it looks like "bands" that absorb light. In truth, it is more like a picket fence where, at distance, you can't see the pickets, just the fence. The best analogy I've found is that the GHGs are like an open weave blanket. The greater that amount of blanket, the greater the "insulating value" and the higher the temperature under the blanket becomes until the rate of heat release through the weave restores the heat transfer balance.
Physics Principle 9: The atmosphere is not the same from the ground to the top of the atmosphere. This is where people really screw up and it's hard to wrap your mind around it because it's not a simple computation.
At ground level, standard pressure and temperature conditions, the nominal water vapor content is about 21,000 ppm (volume, wet-basis. It is "zero" on a dry-basis). As a GHG, it is the gas with the highest concentration at sea level. But at 15,000 feet, on average, there is practically no water vapor in the air at all, so it's effect as a GHG falls as one increases in altitude. This is a fact of the vapor pressure/partial pressure relationship for water in air that is tied both to temperature and pressure.
OTOH the concentration of CO2 is "constant" with altitude in that it mixes quickly in the atmosphere. The same is true with nitrous oxide, methane and most other GHGs (the one exception is stratospheric ozone). Thus, while the GHG effect of water vapor "goes away", the effect of the other gases keeps on giving until such a level in the atmosphere that the rate of radiation release is equivalent to 235 w/sq. meter. The proper way to compute this is spectral "line-by-line" and layer-by-layer through the atmosphere and that takes lots of processing power. You might hear that the absorption spectrum is "saturated." Well, maybe in one sense standing at sea level. But 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 feet above you, it's a very different story. It isn't "saturated" at all.
Those are the basic physics and physical principles at work, though I could extend them further. The feedbacks, with regard to the radiation, is built in. Now as to the General Circulation Models; as to where the heat comes from and goes to, there are feedback loops involved, both negative (e.g., chemical reaction and absorption of CO2) and positive (e.g., heating changes the equilibrium concentration solubility of CO2 in water causing it to be released, which increases the atmospheric heating, which increases the ocean water heating, etc.). The models are becoming more complex to take into account more and subtler processes but they are only a representation (just as a map is a representation of geographic locations). Like maps, the only "100% accurate model" is the full-scale version. You got a spare solar system with a spare Earth you can lend me for experiments" ;->
As for the cosmic ray theory, it too is pretty much dead on arrival (see above on the CBR spectrum). However, an area where there still is uncertainty is with clouds and aerosols and whether and how they behave as either a positive or negative feedback in the global heat balance. Satellite (and other data) are currently being gathered to discern the degree of forcings associated with this.
I know this is a long response, but it takes more than a few simple phrases to illustrate the underlying principles. I hope this helps.
Thanks for a truly excellent and informative post.
I have found that some of the information I dig out either tends to be at too basic a level, or is really dealing with the details in a very technical way.
I should make it clear that I intend no disrespect to Barrett808, and the no doubt excellent link he provided, but it is somewhat daunting as it appears to be so comprehensive, and I have not plucked up the courage to tackle it yet!
One question - and for clarity's sake I wish to make it quite clear that I am not personally presenting this as an argument against GW, but it is a critique that I haven't heard answered and I am curious, is that CO2 lags rising temperatures by some time, I have seen the figure of 800 years bandied about, and hence anti GW people say CO2 emissions are a consequence, not a cause of GW.
I wonder if you could spare the time to throw any light on this issue?
Regardless of whether they are right in saying it is a consequence of warming, this would not establish that it is not a cause of warming.
How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?
In principle, true, but should there invariably be a time lag of the kind of order mentioned then it is difficult to see how the mechanism works, and I believe I am on safe grounds in saying that present understanding would lead to the sequence being the other way around, and if what you are arguing were the case then you would expect to see a step effect - ie. warming occurs, CO2 rises, and at a later date GW further increases.
I was not aware that such step effects had been observed.
I had assumed that the discrepancy was due to some of the dating being simply erroneous, but perhaps not.
Well, I have ventured out into the land of tin-foil helmets inhabited by some of the folk who think GW is some kind of government plot to answer my own question, googled for carbon dioixide, lagging indicator and came up with nothing of interest, so I had a look at the site Barrett808 referenced , Real Climate and came across a chap when I searched for the same thing there who was expressing exactly the same sentiment as myself:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/index.p...
The nearest I found to an explanation from the mainstream was this from New Scientist:
Since we have not isolated what in fact causes the initial rise, and are assuming that it is not the same unknown something but rather CO2 and other GW gasses which cause the further rise, based on admittedly strong grounds for suspicion from the physical models, I would tend to characterise our understanding of the climatic processes at work as something short of perfect.
I am therefore a little surprised at some of the degrees of certainly expressed, although I do sympathises with the frustration of those who have to keep rebutting the absurd anti-GW rants of the terminally stupid.
What rather alarms me is that with all the nattering about carbon, we may be missing the rather large 'something' which seems to be the effective trigger mechanism of the end of ice ages, and for all we know may have more influence than we presently think on later climate, so that we may be curing the wrong disease, or at least one of the symptoms rather than the main protagonist.
A little more agnosticism is called for, I think.
I do hope the folk in tin foil helmets don't latch onto this still more! - however, they are entirely unable to distinguish between a rational doubt and lunatic paranoia, so the rationality or otherwise of an argument does not matter to them.
The ice age timing and strength depends on an asymmetic distribution of land on the Earth's surface, having land where snow can acumulate close to the poles. The Earth's orbit is eccentric, not quite round. It travels faster when closer to the Sun and slower further away (Kepler's Laws). This affects the duration of the seasons. The Earth's orbital eccentricity is not constant so that there can be larger differences on the durations of the seasons or smaller differences. At high eccentricity, if the boosted season happens to be Winter/Fall and the diminished season is Spring/Summer, then snow can persist without melting at a lower latitiude. This increases the amount of sunlight reflected to space, cooling the region. More snow accumulates and glaciers are formed.
During glaciation and cooling there are a number of things that pull carbon from the atmosphere. A cooler ocean can hold more disolved carbon dioxide. Frozen soils do not release carbon doixide from decomposition. The snow itself holds a portion. This is a negative feedback that increases the extent of glaciation. The end effect is that larger non-atmospheric carbon pools are created which are ready to be released upon warming.
Last year, Hansen et al. pretty much nailed one of the loose ends in this theory by showing that terminations of glaciation can be explained by considering the effect on albedo (the amount of sunlight reflected) that surface melting of snow fields can have. This explained the timing of termination events as coinciding with increased sunlight during the spring time: http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/l3h462k7p4068780/?p=82c7a0f7525...
Once the glaciers begin to melt, then carbon from adjacent permafrost can be released, warming oceans release carbon, etc... This provides a positive feedback. Hasen et al.'s work suggests a climate senstivity of 6o C for a doubling of carbon dioxide, about twice as high as usually estimated using fast feedbacks. Thus, he has since said that the stabilization target we need is below the current atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.
Chris
Chris,
This is a standard response which from now on you will always receive when you reply to one of my posts.
Your post will not be read by me or otherwise responded to.
In discussion previously you made statements alleging corruption in the licensing program for the nuclear industry.
When asked for your evidence you replied that if the political parties were publicly funded no more reactors would be licensed.
This is obvioualy an unfounded assumption on your part, and in no way evidential.
You nonetheless refused to withdraw, preferring baseless slander to debate.
On all other issues we have discussed you have consistently tried to load the dice, using every debating trick in the book.
For instance when discussing deaths at Chernobyl you chose to select the estimate form Greenpeace, without indicating that as respected a body as the World Health Organisation had vaastly different, lower estimates.
This is an attempt to deceive by misdirection.
Similarly, you chose The Limits to Growth, Greenpeace, estimate of uranium resources which are very low, without even a nod to indicate how different other estimates were.
These are only two examples of a consistent pattern of obscuring the facts, effectively lying.
This is without talking about the fact that you have dug out some obscure theory of eco-babble which sets down a set of criteria which, surprise, surprise, happens to rule out all the options but the ones you have chosen.
You are therefore pre-judging issues, and cherry picking data, so that no genuine debate is possible.
Since you insist on continuing to door-step me, I will tell you now just as I would any other fanatic with a bee in his bonnet, that you will receive absolutely no more attention from me, and I am entirely uninterested in your opinions, or any so-called ‘information’ from you, as it is entirely biased and untrustworthy.
If you want to read this again, keep replying to my posts.
Your present post is unread.
Dave,
I replied because you felt that in your brief research you had educated yourself enough to be able to pronounce that very little is known about the termination of ice ages. You thus felt we should all view pronouncement about climate climate with caution owing to your now expert opinion. In fact, your opinion is not sufficiently informed to be considered expert. You might want to take a graduate course ot two in the subject. There is quite a lot of expertise in the UK and I'm sure you would enjoy the mental exercise. But, since you claim not to be a denier and thus not in the business of spreading uncertainty and doubt, you present statement, delivered as it was, needed correction.
We certainly do know what causes the initial rise in temperature: albedo change tied together with greater spring time insolation. If you were expert and following the literature closely, you would know this.
The quote I find from New Scientist is:
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19426041.100
Perhaps you could either post your link or explain what editorial liberty may have been taken with the quote.
In any case, your opinion is not supported.
Chris
Chris,
This is a standard response which from now on you will always receive when you reply to one of my posts.
Your post will not be read by me or otherwise responded to.
In discussion previously you made statements alleging corruption in the licensing program for the nuclear industry.
When asked for your evidence you replied that if the political parties were publicly funded no more reactors would be licensed.
This is obviously an unfounded assumption on your part, and in no way evidential.
You nonetheless refused to withdraw, preferring baseless slander to debate.
On all other issues we have discussed you have consistently tried to load the dice, using every debating trick in the book.
For instance when discussing deaths at Chernobyl you chose to select the estimate form Greenpeace, without indicating that as respected a body as the World Health Organisation had vastly different, lower estimates.
This is an attempt to deceive by misdirection.
Similarly, you chose The Limits to Growth, Greenpeace, estimate of uranium resources which are very low, without even a nod to indicate how different other estimates were.
These are only two examples of a consistent pattern of obscuring the facts, effectively lying.
This is without talking about the fact that you have dug out some obscure theory of eco-babble which sets down a set of criteria which, surprise, surprise, happens to rule out all the options but the ones you have chosen.
You are therefore pre-judging issues, and cherry picking data, so that no genuine debate is possible.
Since you insist on continuing to door-step me, I will tell you now just as I would any other fanatic with a bee in his bonnet, that you will receive absolutely no more attention from me, and I am entirely uninterested in your opinions, or any so-called ‘information’ from you, as it is entirely biased and untrustworthy.
If you want to read this again, keep replying to my posts.
Your present post is unread.
I provisionally take this reply as an admission of mendacity in doctoring a quote from New Scientist to attempt to insert uncertainty which was not present in the original.
Chris
Jesus, this is painful.
The answer to your query you have already found. You quoted it above. You are making the mistake of interpreting scientific caution in speech with actual uncertainty. Let me say it as a layman because a scientist cannot state anything as "fact" that is not absolutely provable. This is why we call evolution a theory, when it is, for all practical purposes, fact.
Same applies here. The relationship of the Earth to the Sun as they fly through the sky is the trigger, or the primary trigger, for the primary cycle. At least, most of the time. AS your opponent, whom you foolishly dismiss as he provides you with the info you seek, stated before, the tectonic movements make a difference, volcanic activity, etc., etc. The primary mover is the orbital cycle. It leads to warming which triggers feedbacks.
Cheers
I am perfectly prepared to accept the scientific consensus, the difficulty for the layman is in determining what that is.
In other words, experts will always disagree to some extent, so if you are not expert in a field it is rather difficult to determine the best source.
If I find a particular source to be unreliable, I seek other sources, and in fact if you read down to the post below you will find that Starship Trooper has answered most of the questions I had.
Naturally as with any normally curious person that gives rise to further questions.
Of course I take no notice of sources where to my certain knowledge on other subjects on which I am better informed it was clear that there was an attempt to bias the argument.
So you need not be concerned, as Starship was kind enough to help.
Everything he gave you you have already been given. You are either being petty, as it seems with the other fellow who gave you tons of info only to be dismissed by you because the two of you have some sort of personal issue, or lazy. Did you not read the info given you? I gave you the Weart info. Another person re-recommended it (whom you thanked, ignoring the fact it was I who actually gave it to you.) But you take the trouble of then thanking someone who is repeating what was already told you?
You are creating your own problems, friend. You are not an honest debater on this topic. Your personal feelings interfere with your intellectual activities.
Cheers
You do seem to have problems reading what is written down.
I clearly said that I checked the Weart information, and indeed quoted from it for part of the information I found.
If I missatributed the link I was given, I apologise - it is a fairly long thread, and I was under the misapprehension that it was Barret 808 who gave me the information.
As for your dislike of my choosing not to give weight to information from MD solar, I clearly said in replies to him the reasons for that.
You might not agree with those reasons, but that has essentially nothing to do with where I should choose to place confidence - your own decisions on where you place your confidence are of course yours, as are mine.
Life is also far too short to engage in dialogue which is clearly unproductive. It takes some time for me to do so, but once I have clearly stated that the dialogue is at an end I regard any attempt to continue it and force their opinion or viewpoint upon me, as an imposition and worthy of no further notice.
You end up buying an awful lot of double glazing if you don't have some point where you cut people off.
We are all obliged to form judgements in issues in which we are not expert, be it should we support nuclear power, although we are not nuclear engineers, or if we are ill, which doctor we should trust.
We do it partly by looking at the information and assessing it to the best of our ability, and partly by deciding which of the various expert we have most faith in, as there is usually at least some variety of opinion.
You would be a fool to go to a doctor you did not trust, regardless of their medical qualifications.
As for your own case, I repeat what I said before, and you often damage the case you seek to advocate.
The vast majority of people are in the same position as myself, and are obliged to form some opinion on subjects which they are not qualified to do.
I am perfectly prepared to accept the scientific consensus, whilst noting if there appears to me to be some differences of opinion within it and trying to assess how great that is.
However persuading me that the viewpoint you espouse IS the scientific consensus is hardly achieved by your shouting loudly that that is the case- in short, because you say so it is not necessarily the case that what you say is correct.
I have some sympathy for your position as you were arguing against many quite absurd positions from some guy who is obviously a flat earther or whatever, and that can get irritating.
Essentially the difficulty you were having there is that you were attempting to use rational arguments against a radically irrational position, which a little thought would have shown you was not worthwhile.
If you find yourself arguing through a cloud of objections, where every reasoned rebuttal leads to fresh objections, and it becomes clear that the fundamental decision is a priori and not founded on logic and not subject to rational consideration, the best plan is usually to discontinue the dialogue - or at least that is what I do.
You are not however distinguishing that prior and unreasonable position from other, more reasonable hesitations others might have.
You appear to think that it is sufficient to say that they should have informed themselves better, but in the real world with real time constraints we are all more or less ill-informed about virtually everything.
Starship Trooper, on the other hand approached the issues from the point of view of the person, in this case me, who was somewhat lost in the morass of information.
Without that degree of empathy your case would be better supported had you never spoken.
You don't persuade or inform by shouting.
No. I have trouble giving a damn about irrelevant, personal dislikes - particularly in a discussion that is supposed to be about science. You are a good example of much of what is wrong with the world:
For chrissake, man, grow a pair.
There were severe contradictions in your postings. 1. You were searching for truth (but only from people you like.)
2. You were searchin for truth (but the best you could do is a bought-and-paid-for denialist.)
3. You were seeking the truth from "a" source. A = one. That was given you by the poster you mentioned above. You found it inadequate. I gave you an updated link to the same information, and complete, but you do not seem to have ever followed it. That is "A" source that I personally find to be "the" source as an introduction to the topic. But that wasn't good enough for you.
Since this is, indeed, going nowhere, let me leave you with this: You have not been enaging in honest debate. And, to the extent you need your hand held sweetly while attempting to educate yourself, I suggest you not do your exploring via public forums where doing such things as dismissing Weart's work as insufficient for an introduction to the issue will get you laughed at.
BTW, I am a teacher. Children I will mollycoddle. They need that support as they are still in the process of growing into adults. Adults? No. If you haven't figured out you can't have everything wrapped in pretty little bows by now, then you are seriously in need of a slap upside the head.
Final: We are well beyond any reasonable doubt about AGW. That is what the IPCC stated and that is what common sense, the science and even just our eyes tell us. I worry about the intelligence/sanity/humanity of anyone who really hasn't figured this out.
Cheers
God help the children you are browbeating.
The fact is that with your attitude no one at all will take any notice of you, or care what you think.
In your opinion you may have all the answers, but anyone with any sense is going to discount your views as the judgement behind them seems so faulty.
If you don't understand that is how people think, then you don't understand human nature.
You still seem unable to listen or respond to the very simple answer which I have repeated made that I agree that GW is man-made.
You are deluding yourself when you claim that your treatment of the children in your charge will differ substantially.
People are all of a piece and your fundamental arrogance will affect your dealings with them.
Anyone as entirely lacking in empathy or human understanding, and who has such difficulty hearing what he is repeated told, is entirely unfitted to educate anyone, and in fact incapable of so doing.
Your children are forced to sit in the room whilst you pontificate, and then have to give back the same information and opinion that you have dished out.
They don't do it voluntarily and no one at all is going to pay you any attention who does not have to.
It has long been noted as a professional deformation to which the teaching profession is subject that their presence in the classroom with no peers, as the fount of all authority and information, can lead to their becoming entirely unfit for general society where they are one amongst many equals.
Of course the more intelligent are aware of this, and take care to mitigate it's effects.
It appears however that you are an excellent example of the problem.
Dave,
This is just to freeze your reply.
Chris
Thanks for coming to my defense here. As you can see in Dave's reply, he resorts to personal attacks. I have pretty much come to the conclusion that he is not sincere but rather has a mission as a provocateur. He is here to appear to seem reasonable in finding a balance between renewables and nuclear power while spreading as much FUD about renewables as he can. Sincere discussion of these issues is beneficial, but Dave brings insincerity and fabrication which basically wastes everyone's time. I would say, just keep your eyes open for more of his deliberate falsehoods and correct them as they occur for the record and otherwise ingore him. I share a concern for his humanity, but it may be some time before he discovers what this means given where he is starting from. Until then, there is little more that can be done. Put the trolls on a restricted diet.
Chris
It's interesting you should ask as I spent part of last evening answering this question. Of course, we are talking about the previous natural cycles between glaciation maximums (minimum temperature) and the rise to interglacial maximum temperatures. The Milkanovitch cycles relate orbital dynamics of planetary motion to these periods.
Using the methodology that is currently employed on the EPICA ice core samples (Antarctica) from the Ice Dome C (Concordia) and the Vostok samples, it does indeed appear that CO2 changes "lag" temperature atmospheric temperature increases(as derived from stable isotopic concentrations in the ice by anywhere from 200-1000 years, though a more recent approach suggests that the actual time is much shorter. But is not the issue that some people would have you believe that it is.
First, as the energy flux begins to increase because of the orbital dynamics, the air temperature will begin to rise and much more quickly than water temperature, given their vast difference in specific heat. This begins the change of the ratios of the stable isotopes that relate to temperature conditions (in forming the snow and eventually the ice found in the ice cores). However, as ocean water temperatures begin to warm, the solubility relationship between water and CO2 (and other gases) begins to change. But remember it takes somewhere around 3,000 years to completely overturn and circulate the world's oceans once, so you have considerable lag before the CO2 that was "sequestered" by the ocean just before the temperature began rising, rises to the surface once again.
Now for convenience sake I'm going to round these numbers into a workable approximation of what the data shows. At the glacial maximum, nominal average CO2 concentrations have been around 190 ppm (dry volume basis, the lowest measured, however, was 172 ppm is the most recent data release from ~695,000 years ago) and during the warmth of the interglacial periods, the nominal CO2 level achieves ~290 ppm (In the last "super-long interglacial" period approximately 425,000 years ago that lasted about 30,000 years, the maximum concentration was 300 ppm). Further it takes at least 5,000 years for the temperature rise to "complete" to the interglacial maximum (most seem to take ~7000-8000 years), so even though the measured lags slightly behind the initiation of the temperature increase from the proxy data, almost all of the warming period benefits from the rising GHGs as a positive reinforcement of the increasing energy flux. Simply put, this lag is synchronous with the temperature rise and is entirely consistent with a system with long lag times as any engineer that remembers his or her process control theory will recall.
Now the thing I would stress is just because it seems to take a while for the increased CO2 levels to increase, does not mean that they aren't increasing from the get go. Assuming the nominal increase over 5,000 years of warming is 100 ppm of CO2, how long would it take you to "see" increasing CO2 levels and to be able to measure them is only 1/3000th of the oceans CO2 is available at any given time to release some portion of the gas due to increasing temperatures. Dealing with this mass flux has been a challenge and once models moved away from slab models to multi-layer, the complexities have gotten more difficult (more computations required) but finer resolution both temporally and spatially has been one of the benefits.
And if you consider how long it took in the past cycles for both temperature and GHG levels to rise, then present day values become all the more worrisome. At more than 380 ppm (Mauna Loa achieved 387 in 2007 and the high northern latitudes punched through 390 in 2007), we are way beyond anything seen in the ice data for the past 885,000 years. More importantly, what took a century to achieve in terms of CO2 increases is now being achieve yearly and the most recent data suggests that we are seeing century level increases every 6-8 months. Most of the previous interglacials lasted around 10,000 years before beginning the descent back toward glaciation. Again you would have a lag (and some lagging support for increased temperatures as the solar insolation rate declined, but it seems unlikely that we will enter that phase anytime soon given the concentrations compared to the previous interglacials.
We are driving this addition of CO2 to the atmosphere (and the temperature increase has responded accordingly. We may be driving but we are not steering.
Thanks, Starship, that makes a lot of sense, it seems the issue is basically similar to my assumption, one of measurement errors, and I would certainly agree that present CO2 emissions, and other greenhouse gasses, are unprecedented and worrisome.
Just for laughs, try feeding the same search terms as I did into google, and see the number of nut-case hits there are! - unfortunately, through all that chaff it is quite difficult to get some serious comment, and the New Scientist was surprisingly weak on the issue - it does seem to me probably the most difficult area to reconcile to the record.
One issue you might care to comment on - from the data I found (trying to avoid the nutcase sites) it appears that the period since the last ice-age has been one of unusual climatic stability
http://www.learner.org/channel/courses/envsci/unit/text.php?unit=12&secN...
The Habitable Planet Unit 12 - Earth's Changing Climate // Online Textbook
And that sharp swings are more normal. Please do not take this as any comment on GW, as it just makes things even more worrisome rather than weakening GW case - do you feel that this is an artifact, due to poor data points, or are there trigger points where rapid climate change occurs even in the absence of GW?
Whichever you think is the case, how consensual do you think this is? Or is it an area of wide and justified debate?
If those greater extremes are the norm, even if we deal with GW, it is perhaps rather difficult to see our path through, as we would be in some difficulty even with more historic swings, such as the Little Ice Age or the drought which contributed to the collapse of the Old Kingdom in Egypt and can hardly have been of purely local significance, in any case just a repetition of that would make it difficult at present population densities to know where to put 60 million Egyptians.
Can the climate record more fairly be described as one of punctuated equilibria?
If you understand chaos theory, you have your answer. Chaos tells us that we can extrapolate (to a limited degree, obviously) what the multivariate possibilities are, but not what order we night see them in. Flipping a coin is a simplistic, but effective example.
Yes, climate can flip any time a bifurcation (tipping point) is reached. We don't know enough to predict these with any degree of certainty or, in fact, to identify them all. It has only been fairly recently that we got all this ice core data. It is only recently that multidisciplinary approaches helped us figure out that where the continents are has more effect than first assumed. (For example, dinosaurs down near Antarctica during periods of relative cold because the particular positions of continents kept climate in that specific area milder than expected.) Hell, it's only been 50+ years since we learned tectonic plates exist.
The reason the unusually high CO2 (at least for relatively recent geological time) is a problem is that we don't know what such a fast buildup of CO2 is going to do. It is, in fact, unprecedented. All the more so in that it is anthropological in origin, thus adding a layer of complexity never before seen. One guess is we are preventing an ice age from occurring, either now or in the future. In essence, we may have terraformed the planet into one of long-term warmth. If so, the trick is to maintain it at a level homo sapiens can survive at. Some believe we have already passed that and need to get back to, and maintain, about 350 ppm.
I fully accept that we need urgently to tackle greenhouse gas emissions.
My concern, and I suppose it is premature to say the least considering how far we are from dealing with man-made GW, is that the assumption seems to be that if we deal with that then everything is rosy, and that we can move into something which is usually termed harmony with nature.
I have no objection to being in harmony with nature, providing it doesn't involve me being dead.
Unless we can somehow mitigate, or at least predict these violent swings which it seems from what you say are, or at least may be, the natural order of things it seems that GW apart it is very difficult to see how an advanced civilisation could long maintain itself - I would have thought that that would be a very popular position for scientists, as it involves scads more research! :-)
So I was just trying to get a handle on what the present thinking is regarding the swiftness of purely natural variability, man-made activities to one side.
The climatological record is a mixed bag on this point. In the short-term, there is evidence of fairly dramatic swings (e.g., just look at how different the termpreature profile of 1998 "looks" compared to the years immediately preceeding or immediately following 1998. On very large time scales (say the EPICA ice core data) changes can look dramatic because of the compressed time frame (although I would point out that both the CO2 increases and the temperature increase over the past 100 years would "stand-out" compared to the normal variation.
If you go through the nearly 900,000 years of ice core data (the updated results for the period back from 650,000 years ago to the current limit is supposed to be published soon), you will find that most of the data suggests that the length of the "stable period" at the top of the interglacial curve is ~10,000 years though even in that period there a pertubabtions. Each cycle seems to have it's own variations and at more than 100,000 years per cycle, geological and evolutionary considerations are likely to come into play. The last "super-interglacial" appears relatively stable over 30,000 years.
But underpinning your question is whether the climate systems at a local level that humans have depended upon are subject to danger from variability and the answer is probably yes, even though on a global basis the climate "looks" quite stable. From my peers, there is less consensus on this, beyond, the likelihood that changes are likely to be more dramatic than anything we've experienced in the recent past. But whether that is a danger depends upon how we, as a species, can deal with changes that include both natural and manmade?
What is clear is this: on the path of exponential growth, natural cycles will get overwhelmed by human activities or systemic failure will occur because they system dependent upon growth as an underlying and fundamental principle and justifaction for "existence" encounter limits that are real.
As you have probably discerned from my writing, the math and the science do not depend upon or even "care" what path we choose. And yes, there are some very interesting personalities out there. But no matter how much handwaing goes on, the underlying principles that we as a species have distinguished as "science" goes on...relentlessly.
The Weart history is a bit daunting in size, but his writing is such a pleasure to read, you'll hardly notice.
Seems my reply from yesterday was "eaten."
Just FYI, it may have scrolled to the 2nd page. Only the first 300 posts will show up on the first page. After 300, the bottom ones go over to Page 2 of the thread.
Truly excellent. In all my readings I have never seen this laid out like this. Simple, elegant, effective.
Thank you.
I find it telling no deniers took a shot at responding to this. May I copy and paste and/reference this post from my blog or other sites?
Cheers
Yes. Please do.
Thanks to Trooper for summarizing the case against solar forcing.
I would also add the following.
If solar forcing were the driver for the observed warming trend, we would expect:
Variation in solar output is not responsible for the warming trend.
So what caused the warming from 1880 to 1947, what caused the cooling from 1948 to 1978? What caused the warming in the medeval warm period? How does one separate those natural warming trends from this one (which appears to have stopped in 1998)? What events have happened that were predicted? What events that were prediced have NOT happened?
Devil's advocate - evaporation at the equators (where evaporation has a much greater variation in response to temperature changes) nulls this effect, and causes a more stable temperature under the cloud layer.
Just making the case that *proving* anything in climate science is just as difficult as in economics, because any effect that can be stated self-consistently is undoubtedly felt to some degree (say, "Welfare destroys the free-market incentive to succeed"), but without being quantified to a prohibitively exhaustive level.
So detractors who are not interested in the truth of the debate (only in proving their pre-defined truths, such as "Taxation and government are inherently bad") will latch on to any effect they can theorize, and will not drop it until someone bothers to blow a few hundred man-years deploying sensors and satellites, exhaustively forming a narrative of weather patterns, and evaluating enough data to drive a man crazy, and conclusively proves that it's not statistically significant. By which time half a dozen other hypothetical disproofs will have arisen.
The problem is that we as a society place the onus of proof on the pro-GW scientist, rather than placing it on both sides of the battle. So one side gets to throw bombs, and the other side gets to try and defend themselves against bombs.
One can just as easily argue that those who prpmote AGW are far left leaning radicals hell bent on destroying capitalism and setting up a World Government. You diatribe against the right side who challenge AGW is just the same thing in reverse.
"The problem is that we as a society place the onus of proof on the pro-GW scientist, rather than placing it on both sides of the battle. So one side gets to throw bombs, and the other side gets to try and defend themselves against bombs."
That's not a "problem" that's a REQUIREMENT of science. The positive side must provide the evidence, and others get to "throw the bombs" at it. That's what makes science work!
The "other side" must provide a compelling counter argument to explain the data. Sunspots and cosmic rays have long been dismissed.
Also, your rhetorical style would be improved if you would rein in the SHOUTING.
An I have posted that very data. Must I list them?
Average temp static since 1998
New evidence of changes in the sun prediced to cause global cooling.
Ice increases in both poles.
Atmospheric CO2 lags temp increase by some 800 years.
New paper shows tornados have nothing to do with AGW.
Medeval Warm Period warmer than today, life flourished.
Predictions of AGW not come true
No increase in rate or intensity of hurricanes.
No change in rate or intensity of storms.
No change in rate of sea level rise.
The list goes on. You need to read posts in WorlClimateReport and CO2Science. Don't just dismiss the sites because they do not fall into your idology, read them with an open mind.
I wasn't shouting, I guess I should have used the bold tag, sorry.
Proof by verbosity and proof by repetition.
I agree. It's nothing more than the governments of the world trying to control the economies of other nations. And while all the nonsense about "global warming" is being pushed forth, the real issue - Peak Oil - takes a back seat.
I'm absolutely not worried one bit of "global warming." It's a joke. I do worry about Peak Oil. That's real and it is already impacting everyone, especially the poor people.
You may not be worried about anthropogenic global warming, but you should be worried about drastic changes in ocean chemistry:
Now that's a realistic concern. But do you think we're going to control CO2 because we might damage ocean life? Look at all the horrible pollution we have already been doing to the oceans over the past century.
Agreed, we must severely reduce toxic effluents into the oceans as well, if we're to have oceans in the future. And it's becoming pretty clear that when the oceans get sick, they take a lot of land species with them (e.g., Permian-Triassic extinction).
You casually dismiss decades of climate science, but this tangential problem you accept after a single press release.
This thread is eroding my faith in humanity.
My faith says that humanity will continue to act like a bunch of irrational monkeys flinging mud (or nastier stuff) at each other while the cage closes in on them.
Nothing here has shaken my faith.
Let the flaming wars begin.
Not.
One of the most interesting opponents of the idea of man-made global warming being the biggest problem is Pielke, who in amongst the critique of GW puts to my mind a very persuasive case that changes in land use etc are causing severe problems.
Here is a link to his ideas:
http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=445
Interview with Roger Pielke, Sr.
I concern myself with Emissions yes absolutely. I concern myself with peak oil yes absolutely.
However I think policy decisions based on CO2 and Anthropogenic Global Warming are a farce. Yes I think we should reduce emissions to stave off peak oil.. yes I think we should for health benefits. However for all the other mumbo jumbo to hell with it. I see all the kids born with asthma and die from it increasing... lung cancer increasing with no smoking involved. Leads one place TACKLE THE PROBLEMS AT HAND!!!
I am so angered by the nonsense of AGW I could puke. As for all the comments above that support global warming. I only saw one link that contained hard data the rest was just words. Words that have hollow meanings. If you wish I will start listing scientific journals you can tear through at your university to show how serious of a threat the sun is and how it will change your life. However it seems that you would not take the time to drive down and check it out at your uni.. Nor would you even be responsive due to brainwashing of Al Bore and company.
I have heaps of respect for Al Gore but AGW is not one of them.
For hard data on climate science, please visit RealClimate's Start Here page.
And for references RealClimate WON'T publish, visit www.co2science.org and www.worldclimatereport.com.
You're going after RealClimate for allegedly corrupt financing by EMS, then you post a link to the Pat Michaels blog? Why not just link directly to Western Fuels and cut out the middleman?
For the same reason you don't cut out RealClimate as the middle man for far leftist political agenda of their parents. Why should anyone get just RealClimate's view? It's called balance. Read EVERYTHING you can from ALL sides.
That's why I still pay a lot of attention to the flat earth society.
For the "other" side to be taken seriously, it must present an alternative theory to explain the observed data.
Can you propose a mechanism by which dumping hundreds of gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere on a geologically brief time scale will not significantly change atmospheric/oceanic chemistry and climate? Be sure to account for the tight correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature observed over the last several hundred thousand years.
If your theory is "it's the sun" or "it's cosmic rays", be sure to account for the extreme sensitivity required for the warming trend to be caused instead by these tiny changes in total solar irradiance/cosmic ray flux, while remaining insensitive to billions of tons of fossil carbon emissions.
If you have such a theory, please publish in a peer-reviewed journal.
"far leftist political agenda" Please provide proof of your claims, or you can't expect to be taken seriously. There's an established monetary link between almost all AGW deniers and the oil and gas companies. I've not seen that relationship on the left.
I did. RealClimate is owned and funded by a left leaning political organization. David Susuki's foundation is the same. He is a VERY left political person. I've also noted a number of times that $50 BILLION in 20 years has been funneled into AGW "research". That's not including the BILLIONS in donations to left leaning environmental groups. The far left political parties are the ones on the AGW bandwaggon.
As for funding by "big oil" to combat AGW, it's a tiny fraction. You made an accusation, give the names of those who are funded by "big oil" and the evidence to prove your allegations. You want it from me, now I want it from you.
Typical denier tactic, repeating the same nonsense on every thread.
Yes, it's depressingly similar to "debates" with creationists.
Barrett808, yes jr is reminiscent of a creationist and believers of a 6000 year old universe.
I don't know if you have ever argued or debated with a religious zealot but the denialists like jr remind me of it.
They have too much at stake to ever change their beliefs. Their standing within the group they belong or lead is dependent on them standing up for the cause, faith or church. Their arguments are always circular. They may not want man to held to blame for GW as god created man, they would think that ultimately god would be blamed.
They may even secretly understand they are wrong but to save face they must always stand up for the cause.
They rarely change their belief even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Their dogmatism is impregnable.
Finally they are left with "well I believe it to be true, nothing will destroy my faith".
GW denialists are nothing short of being just plain bad people. The future of the human race is at stake and they want to discourage research and attempts at mitigation of human GW contributions!
They have nothing to lose. If GW destroys civilization, there will be no history to denounce them for future generations.
It has been pleaded many times on TOD to ignore jr's denialist posts but there is always someone who can't let it rest.
If we ignore him (hopefully) he will go away.
Indeed, normally I wouldn't feed the trolls, but I like The Oil Drum and I feel compelled to defend the climate science community from these scurrilous attacks.
The larger issue is that there's a distressing strain of AGW "skepticism" among even prominent Peak Oilers like Colin Campbell (see the latest newsletter). So I occasionally try to do my small part in educating TOD readers on the science.
What a bunch of dogmatic crap. Bad people, I guess you would agree to throw people like me in jail for challenging your dogma. People like you burned heritics at the stake not so many centuries ago.
It's unfair to ask for proof that the majority of deniers are funded by big oil? How double standard. Typical of a dogmatic position. So I ask again, what PROOF do you have that skeptics are funded by big oil? Show me references. Let's pick one of your favorite targets: Richard Lindzen. Show me he is funed by big oil.
Sure:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org
Click the "Biggest Exxon $$ Winners" map.
And why would I believe this obvious smear from some leftist organization with their own agenda?
I wrote to Lindzen last spring over this issue, this is what he sent me.
Thanks for taking the bait.
So you'll take Lindzen's denial at face value, but not RealClimate's.
Absolutely. RealClimate is a mouthpiece for eco-fanatic left wing groups. Unless you have DEFINATIVE proof Lindzen is on the take, you should stop claiming he is. I have more than enough shown that RealClimate is owned and funded by left wing political organizations. Besides, your ExxonSecrets is owned and funded by Greenpeace, a far left wing political organization. One wonders as to the accuracy of their data.
You don't like what Lindzen says because you WANT him to be the big boggy man. You just can't fathom that someone can be a genuine AGW skeptic without being in bed with big oil. Wake up.
Heartland Institute vs RealClimate
RealClimate is a "hardcore smear ecoNazi website," eh?
I call Godwin's Law on this subthread.
Have read it have laughed. I still see nobody giving reasonable explanation of why CO2 causes temps to rise there. I mean given if you look at the REAL CLIMATE data its CO2 lagging the temp increase by 800 years but whatever. Fact is not reasonable these days only propaganda.
BTW warming of the oceans can account for most of the CO2 rise and fall the lag being due to the time the oceans take to warm.
While you were laughing, you apparently missed this:
This is a person who hasn't read the science. Find anything by James Hansen, then get back to me. (He is linked on my blog.) Search on James Hansen and climate sensitivity for starters.
Do you dispute the existence of the greenhouse effect?
Do you dispute the ability of CO2 and other emissions in the atmosphere to simulate a greenhouse in place of glass?
Do you dispute the solid measurements we have of CO2 concentration rising rapidly during the fossil fuel age?
---
It is easy to cast aspersions on piles of research that's been through a peer-review process if you don't respect the scientist or the peers or the process, and your challenges don't meet the level of falsifiable claims based on more than anecdotal evidence. It's remarkably easy to do so when there is a well-funded (in political and monetary capital) opposition to the conclusions of the research. And it's drop-dead easy when you're faced with researchers who are content to admit that they don't know everything about the world. What is a necessary default mode to take (these people are tasked with advancing the frontiers of human knowledge) for them is an irrefutable sign of incompetence for you, and for a significant portion of the human population.
Can you conceive of a disaster which we aren't mature enough as a culture to take seriously?
What angers you is not AGW (valid or invalid). It is that a social movement has arisen to act on the preliminary conclusions (the *best guesses* of our scientists), and another social movement has arisen to oppose them. For many, this is a continuation of a centuries-old political rivalry, not an investigation into the arcana of natural systems. It has become a political fight. And it's absolutely impossible to solve it as a political fight. The prominent figures aren't concerned with science, they're concerned with interaction between people. And having politically-concerned people who don't know what they're doing try to influence the science inevitably makes the scientists resistant to outsiders (quacks). How many perpetual motion machines does a physicist have to discredit before he refuses to inspect any more? You see this as a conclusive proof of conspiracy, I see this as an inevitable reflex towards aggressive politics by a scientific tradition which was there for humanity in the past and will hopefully be there for humanity in the future. Support for global warming is astronomical within the scientific community at large even while the global-warming-specific community is quite small - because they understand what's happened, and how much of a warzone the social atmosphere is around climate science right now, and preliminary results suggest that there isn't time to allow a few decades to form an armistice.
If reasoned debate and investigation can shoot down 95% of anti-global warming propoganda, and reasoned debate and investigation can shoot down 30% of pro-global warming propoganda, is that 30% adequate proof of a sinister conspiracy?
Well give me a few days and I will pull all the peer reviewed journals information on Global Warming and how its related to solar cycles, ocean causing CO2 lag and everything else. But I am quite sure you could not find the time in your busy day to read them. However if you are truly interested I will find them just respond back.
:) Yes I do read real data and I have come to my own conclusions.
This is true wisdom. "Who cares if there will be death and destruction for civilization, as long as it happens after I'm dead!"
Brill.
Cheers