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-j...
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.