HEATED DEBATE: A new report lays out the impacts associated with each degree rise in global average temperatures in a bid to improve decisions about how much global warming is too much.
Image: NASA Earth Observatory
More In This Article
Listen to this Podcast
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The average temperature of the planet for the next several thousand years will be determined this century—by those of us living today, according to a new National Research Council report which lays out the impact of every degree of warming on outcomes ranging from sea-level rise to reduced crop yields.
"Because carbon dioxide is so long-lived in the atmosphere, it could effectively lock Earth and future generations into warming not just for decades and centuries, but literally for thousands of years," atmospheric scientist Susan Solomon of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who chaired the report, said at a July 16 press briefing held to release it. She compared CO2 to cheesecake: "If I knew that every pound of cheesecake that I ate would give me a pound that could never be lost, I think I would eat a lot less cheesecake."
According to the report, for every degree Celsius of warming, impacts include:
* A 5 to 15 percent lower yield for some crops, including corn in Africa and the U.S., and wheat in India
* A 3 to 10 percent increase in heavy rainfall globally
* A 5 to 10 percent drop in rainfall in southwestern North America, southern Africa and the Mediterranean, among other precipitation changes
* A 5 to 10 percent change (increases in some regions, decreases in others) in stream flow in many river basins globally
* A 15 to 25 percent decrease in the extent of Arctic Ocean sea ice
The report's authors were charged with evaluating a range of "greenhouse gas–stabilization targets and describe the types and scale of impacts likely associated" without any judgment on whether such targets are "technically feasible" or which is "most appropriate." In essence, the scientists evaluated the impacts associated with a given final level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but did so through the lens of temperature change.
This represents a shift in the usual analysis of climate change, particularly in international negotiations, which tend to focus on how much concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will rise by a particular date. "Many impacts respond directly to changes in global temperature, regardless of the sensitivity of the planet to human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases," says geoscientist Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University in Lubbock, a co-author of the report, excluding effects such as ocean acidification and CO2 as a fertilizer for plants. "Those impacts don't 'care' about what the CO2 concentration is."
It also eliminates much of the uncertainty surrounding potentially ill effects; whereas various mathematical models may disagree about when and at what concentrations Arctic Ocean sea ice disappears, they all agree that at roughly 3 degrees C of warming, the far north will be ice-free. "It's amazing how consistent they become," Solomon says. "At what point do you get to three to four degrees of warming, which is roughly the time when Arctic sea ice is mostly gone."
Adds economist Gary Yohe of Wesleyan University, another co-author: "We will commit to an ice-free Arctic sometime this century. We won't know definitively until 2090, but essentially there's nothing we can do about it at that point in time and it changes the climate system dramatically."
Already, the planet's average temperature has warmed by 0.7 degree C, which is "very likely" (greater than 90 percent certain) to be a result of the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, according to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That's about half what can ultimately be expected from the roughly 390 parts per million of CO2 already in the atmosphere—the highest level the planet has experienced in at least 800,000 years.
CO2 in charge
One result of the survey of existing research undertaken by the scientists is the clear and dominant role played by CO2. Although a wide variety of greenhouse gases contribute to human-caused global warming, it is CO2, largely alone, that will determine the long-term climate, Solomon says. "If you reduce emissions of methane or black carbon, it would help you trim the peak warming that will be achieved in the next century or so," Solomon says. But it's the "cumulative carbon that will determine the long-term human footprint on this planet."
That's because it can take thousands of years to remove CO2 from the atmosphere without human intervention. So what matters most as far as total warming is the ultimate stabilized level of CO2. "It doesn't matter what road you pick to get there," Solomon notes. And achieving any stabilization target—whether 2 degrees C of warming or 450 ppm or 1,000 gigatons of carbon added to the atmosphere by human activity—will require at least an 80 percent cut in emissions from peak levels by the end of this century and, ultimately, zero emissions over the long term. "You can get there by cutting now at rates of 1 percent per year for the rest of the century or let carbon emissions rates grow for awhile and cut harder later to the tune of 4 percent per year," Solomon explains.
Yohe estimates the cost of achieving a more modest goal of holding warming to roughly 2 degrees C at a cost of 0.5 to 1.5 percent of gross domestic product for the U.S. by 2050, thanks to the expense incurred by, for example, replacing existing coal-fired power plants with renewables or retrofitting them with carbon-capture technology. That hardly impacts the U.S. economy at all. "With usual growth, we'd get to the same level of GDP in 2051 that we would have gotten in 2050," he says. "It's not an awful disaster. The hyperbole of 'all these green jobs' or 'we're going to trash the economy'—neither one [is] true."
Already, cities such as New York have adopted a risk-management approach to potential climate impacts—preparing for the prospects posed by already guaranteed global warming. By analyzing current building codes and the like, the New York City Panel on Climate Change determined the acceptable level of risk for its residents and is now prioritizing projects that hold to those same levels the perils from climate change impacts directly on the city, such as sea-level rise or more frequent heat waves. "You can't actually climate-proof a city," says Adam Freed, acting director of the city's Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability. But "the benefits of the things that make sense to do today greatly increase as our climate changes."
It remains to be seen whether there is economic value to the idea of overshooting a given target and then coming back down, given that the time frame of emission cuts matters less than the cumulative emissions of CO2, Yohe notes. It is clear that there is no environmental benefit to delay. "Climate change is already altering the character of the places we know and love," Hayhoe says. "Unchecked, it has the potential to impact nearly every aspect of human infrastructure and our natural environment—from our cities and roads to our forests and fields."
Regardless, the report notes that the planet has entered a new era, dubbed the Anthropocene, "during which the evolution of the planet's environment will be largely controlled by the effects of human activities, notably emissions of carbon dioxide." Hayhoe, for one, compares this report with a doctor's visit for Earth—the chronic disease being human-emitted carbon dioxide. "Many of us have had the experience of going to the doctor and receiving advice on how to improve our health by making wise lifestyle choices," she notes. "It's up to us to decide how much we are willing to change."
"There are all kinds of options: carbon sequestration, geoengineering, alternative energy," Solomon notes. "How much can we adapt? Look at corn. Maybe we can choose to grow something else or genetically engineer that corn to make it more robust."
The catch is: the decision is not just for the planet today and its present generations, it is also for the planet and generations to come. "The impacts we may be experiencing now and in the next few decades before choosing to stabilize CO2 levels," Solomon notes, "would only be about half the eventual impacts."
See what we're tweeting about
76 Comments
Add CommentThe overwhelming paleoclimate evidence from around the globe is that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warming were synchronous, world wide and much warmer than today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, the MWP deniers, such as the IPCC, the US EPA and the National Research Council will never admit the existence of the MWP because it means that their religious-like belief in AGW is exposed for the steaming pile of junk science that it truly is.
In total, climate change is complex and not well understood.
But this part is simple.
Since the world was warmer when CO2 levels were lower, CO2 cannot be the earth's temperature regulator.
In the past, the Earth was warmer than it is today; before the social and industrial advances that have made modern people the healthiest and most prosperous in history. MWP deniers want us to believe that plant friendly and life giving CO2 is a bad thing to better advance their meglomanical desire to both boss around the developed world and further impoverish the poor while pocketing a lot of taxpayer money along the way.
Useless, misguided attempts to control carbon are not the answer to the ever changing climate.There is only one answer to changes in climate that has ever worked for humanity.
That is adaptation.
One of the many links to the overwhelming Paleoclimate evidence of the global nature of the MWP is below.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Something is wrong here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomething which makes my sheath retract and my talons ooze.
I sense the ugliness of a thousand evil thoughts.
And I have traced the source of these fetid emanations...
They come from aboard your planet!
Why have you come here, foolish renegade humans?
All that you have found is your inevitable punishment.
I do not believe anyone has suggested that the only regulator of global temperature is carbon dioxide emissions. However, what has been suggested and has thoroughly been proven is that carbon dioxide emissions is the primary driving force behind the current global warming trend.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurthermore, scientists have investigated other global warming periods in recent history and there is a correlation between warming and solar output (such as the medieval warming period). This correlation, however, does not hold true for modern times. In fact, we are at the bottom of a solar cycle and our solar output is as low as it's going to get within the next few millennia. Nevertheless, 2010 could still be the warmest year on record.
I think it is a gross misunderstanding of Plant biology to suggest that just because plants do fix carbon that they are unaffected by increased concentrations of carbon dioxide. Anyone who has taken an introduction to botany class noticed that too much carbon dioxide is actually toxic and plants will stop absorption. Furthermore, temperature can affect the rate of carbon fixation because high temperature will also cause them to lose water plants close their stoma and do not absorb carbon dioxide.
Of course, it is only fair to knowledge that plants only contribute a small amount of carbon dioxide absorption to the carbon sink process. Bacteria and absorption in the ocean have a much greater affect. Which is probably why we are noticing acidification within the world's oceans. Given the sensitivity of biological systems even small increases in a city can have major effects on marine ecology.
All of this means as temperatures continue to rise and carbon dioxide concentrations increase the Earth ecology will be less likely to cope with continued human activity and will accelerate global warming trends, climate change and decrease biodiversity.
All of this is based on really good science. But I suppose deniers never really care about science anyway.
The only steaming pile of junk here is orkney. The MWP was local, not global. But then, trying to inform a locked mind is patently useless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn what concentration is CO2 plant-friendly?
One thing's true - ork will have to adapt.
@Orkneygal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPay no mind to the sniping of those members of the Church of AGW who are biting at yer ankles. You've hit the nail on the head right down the line.
Bionate definitely had my attention until his/her last sentence. I've said before and I'll say again - good science does not need to engage in name calling. Only weak, uncertain, people do that. I cannot understand how any scientist can ever say such idiocy as "the question is closed" or "no further research is needed". This is a religious statement - NOT a statement EVER made by a true scientist. For a scientist, NO question is ever "closed"!
I, personally, don't have any answers for anybody. All I can do is add my voice to the growing number of folks who have realized that our present partial knowledge of this subject begs us to get off our butts and do the research that can end the acrimony and arguments. We cannot afford to have "a bit of information" being our guide into the future of the human race. We need the best information that we can obtain. And we are NOT going to obtain that information in the Church of AGW. We will only find it in the work of dedicated scientists.
Research. Research. Research!!!
Orkneygal is just flat out lying. Climatologists have discussed the MWP extensively, reports make reference to it, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is Orkneygal who is in denial, about many things.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo why, in your opinion then, is the Arctic ice melting for the first time in million of years, which you will certainly agree, spans multiple MWPs.
I just got done looking at the link you posted. After searching the site, I found nothing about Arctic ice melt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis one glaring fact is something I have never seen one claimant that human made emissions have little or nothing to do with global warming address.
Please be the first.
Cute... "The Church of AGW".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is the Arctic ice melting? Why are 6500 climatic scientists (not engineers or others like Burt Rutan) in consensus? Why are a few scientists backed by political special interests making this issue a public debate, rather than a scientific debate?
Like yourself, I have no answers, but I certainly have questions.
I haven't done any research myself on the issue of the melting of Arctic Ice but what seems reasonable to me is this: The present Arctic ice cap is the remains of the glaciers that once covered to a much further south area of the earth. As the earth warmed, beginning (I'm told) about 17,000 years ago, those glaciers gradually melted back to their present limits. I see no reason to think that this "melt back" would, for our sake, stop right there. It would, I think, continue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince such melt back would probably not occur in a smooth, year by year manner, but occur in fits and starts in the manner of most recorded climate change, it seems reasonable to think that this is what is happening. I grant you that what "seems reasonable" to a non-scientist such as myself, may not be supported by scientific research.
NOBODY is going to be able to answer these questions, neither scientists nor AGWers, without much further serious scientific research.
Orkneygal offered a site for anyone interested to check out. She did not claim it had "All The Answers" to your questions or to mine either for that matter. But I have spent a few hours over there and I find it reasonably credible. I do wish that that site, like some folks on AGW sites, could forego the name calling though. Calling each other "Alarmists" and "Deniers" does not contribute to scientific knowledge of any sort that I'm aware of.
@Orkneygal, the medieval warm period was a local phenomenon. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU where it is well explained.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as I know, the MWP was not global, but I would like to point out an important detail concerning that event: it coincided almost exactly with a period of exceptional drought in the Southwest US that lasted for 400 years. During this time, there were at least four extreme droughts that lasted for decades at a time. There is evidence (I can't really quantify how much, it's been a while since I researched this) that the MWP was responsible for this. Imagine California, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico getting virtually no rain for 10 years. The aquifers are already being overstretched, as are the major rivers, and the snowpack of the Sierra Nevada mountains has been shrinking in recent decades, probably because of global climate change. What happens when 50+ million people have no water? Those of you who have lived in these states know that their natural state is not the greenscape we make it, but desert, and I really can't imagine how global climate change is not going to force it back into more extreme desert conditions. Also, to address the issue of what causes climate change, there are ultimately only two causes: astronomical events and atmospheric composition. Usually, only the sun and volcanoes tend to affect either of those. However, since the Industrial Revolution, we have been changing the composition of the atmosphere, at an increasing rate. Consequently, the average temperature of the planet has been rising. How do we know it is neither of the others? Solar output has been constant with regards to the natural 11-year cycle since the 1950's, but the temperature has gone up, so it's not the sun. Meanwhile, there hasn't been an increase/decrease in volcanic activity over the last century either (as far as I am aware, produce evidence contrary and I'll listen), so it can't be volcanoes. What else could affect either the amount of light coming in or the amount that sticks around? Provide a mechanism, that isn't the sun or volcanoes, and then we can have a discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSez me, the thing about your idea of the Arctic being a continuation of the glacial melt, is why hasn't it done this in millions of years? Glaciers have melted and rebounded time and time again during the peak of the warming periods. The Arctic ice has not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks. You are the first person I've asked out of hundreds that ventured a response.
Sorry, you are demonstrably wrong in virtually every assertion here. Please link to any climate scientist that "denies" the existence of other historical maximums.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can't because no one does.
No one denies that there have been other periods of warmth. What the scientists are pointing out is that this time it is different. For the first time ever in the history of the planet, co2 rise is preceding temperature rise (or better said on a geologic scale they are synchronous). This has never happened before.
Climate contrarians have had ample opportunity to show that a) the earth is not warming b) the warming is solely due to natural processes
Why have they not done these things? Sure attempts have been made, like pointing out proxy errors or showing that temperature acquisition equipment are in a heat island, and those facts were either known or corrected for and in each case the data is still showing warming.
The latest banter is about how in the last decade there has been no warming. There has been no cooling either despite the fact the sen just recently went through a minimum. Why has there not been cooling (don't bother linkingvto the straight line fit from the last 10 years is not a statistically significant conclusion)
This whole thing is like watching a meteor approach, and having the ignorant and greedy deny it's existence, and those who accept the existence simply refuse to acknowledge the calculations that show a direct hit, and those who acknowledge a direct hit yammer on about the cost of trying to change it's course versus the actual economic damage the meteor would do.
It's long past time to start affecting the course of it.
Sorry, you are demonstrably wrong in virtually every assertion here. Please link to any climate scientist that "denies" the existence of other historical maximums.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can't because no one does.
No one denies that there have been other periods of warmth. What the scientists are pointing out is that this time it is different. For the first time ever in the history of the planet, co2 rise is preceding temperature rise (or better said on a geologic scale they are synchronous). This has never happened before.
Climate contrarians have had ample opportunity to show that a) the earth is not warming b) the warming is solely due to natural processes
Why have they not done these things? Sure attempts have been made, like pointing out proxy errors or showing that temperature acquisition equipment are in a heat island, and those facts were either known or corrected for and in each case the data is still showing warming.
The latest banter is about how in the last decade there has been no warming. There has been no cooling either despite the fact the sen just recently went through a minimum. Why has there not been cooling (don't bother linkingvto the straight line fit from the last 10 years is not a statistically significant conclusion)
This whole thing is like watching a meteor approach, and having the ignorant and greedy deny it's existence, and those who accept the existence simply refuse to acknowledge the calculations that show a direct hit, and those who acknowledge a direct hit yammer on about the cost of trying to change it's course versus the actual economic damage the meteor would do.
It's long past time to start affecting the course of it.
And no, I'm not claiming I know the full extent of CC damage or even what size meteor to compare it too.
Why do People knowledgable of climate chane call deniers, deniers? Why did I use the word ignorant? For the same reasons the scientists who got their email hacked do. Because the great majority of the evidence is clear, the case has been made stronger even after 40 years of being attacked. Because everytime a denialist starts yammering about scientist not listening to them, the opposite is found to be true, for example the claim above about MWP demialism which is the exact opposite of what is true.
There is a side on this subject who are acting like zealots. It's the deniers (and perhaps some of the more doom and gloom age alarmists like dicaprio)
What in the world are you talking about?!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"But by issuing these CO2 death threats to billions of children, THEY have become the new neocons of fear, lying and leading us to false wars with false enemies."
There are no "CO2 death threats", and people who tell us about global warming are not "lying and leading us to false wars with false enemies".
And climate change is certainly not a "liberal wet-dream of finger pointing".
You are obviously very mislead about climate change. I suggest you try to learn some more about it.
LOL, yeah the contrarians have a real good team mate there who seems completely rational and level headed. Keep yammering away with conspiracy theories instead of the most obvious answer. We are concerned.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisexcuse me "Sez Me", but calling a collective of scientists "the Church of AGW" is immature and simply points out what a complete hypocrite you are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's this, "NO" compelling evidence? In just one location at the IPCC web site there is about 1/4 GB of material concerning the physical science underpinning of the various climate models and analysis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've haven't finished reading this stuff yet, but I think there are several testable assertions one should think about while examining this very substantial work. Just as a barometer of where your mind sits on these issues, answer yes or no to the following propositions.
1. We are currently in one of many naturally driven inter-glacial warm periods.
2. Over the last 150 years or so there has been a steady and recently accelerating upswing in the average global temperature.
3. Temperature and CO2 levels, measured by various methods, tend to correlate over vast intervals of time.
4. Human greenhouse gases, aerosols, and particulate emissions have the physics potential to modify the global rate of temperature change.
5. There is a causal relation between recent warming and human generated greenhouse gases, aerosols, or particulate emissions.
6. Climate modeling is a credible predictor of adverse environmental effects arising from human activity.
I'm not yet convinced on all of these assertions myself, but a lot of serious effort continues to resolve them. Of course it's a lot more hard work that just shootin' off your keyboard based on the last BS from either old Al or the climate denier wing-nuts.
The North serves to cool off the planet. Now the North is melting, which explains these unheard heat waves, the short winters, the change in climate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I was born, people could ski in the high mountains of Bolivia. The glaciers provided water for some of the cities. Only 2 glaciers are left and soon no more.
We are not finish with the heating up of the planet, people come on wake up.
Dear Climate "skeptics", *
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease embrace your self-described skepticism and think of the things that cause you to beleive what you beleive.
Then, go here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Find the points you think are valid (because yes, climate scientists have heard you), reads the explanations. THEN come back with the reasons you still think what you think.
oops I used scare quotes and an asterisk because what most of you are doing is not what skepticism is. some of you are doing it right, but its a small minority.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMCMALKEMUS,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt must have done so at some time or another. Unless my memory fools me, I seem to have read that scientists have brought up core samples from under the Arctic ice that contain seeds and other examples of "tropical" plant life. I have grave doubt that tropical plants would have ben there in such a quantity that a random sample of the material under the ice would produce such evidence of warm temperature foliage.
reterry,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeautifully put! Excellent questions to which we need solid answers. I know of no way to obtain those answers without good research. Do you?
I find myself skeptical of the "The Sky Is Falling" crowd, largely because they seem to prefer to castigate anyone who asks questions or indicates skepticism (y'know about skepticism - it's that attitude that SCIENTISTS are SUPPOSED to exhibit). The little hard science that I can get out of them or their favourite - "go here" links - seems to be not understood by them and just "believed". I won't -because I can't - "deny" the accuracy of those claims, but it does seem odd that they aren't presented in a more scientific manner if they are valid.
Unfortunately, I'm beginning to see those who cannot believe in AGW also engaging in the name calling. It is disgusting no matter who does it. And yes, it would appear that I do it too. But there really IS a very large number of folks who do not understand the science at all but who have "decided" that AGW is about to kill us all off. This, to me, is the Church of AGW.
I also note that those who advocate the concept of AGW seem quite happy to interweave evidence of GW with evidence of AGW. Perhaps I am wrong but I really can't think that this is necessarily the correct thing to do.
Yoiks!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe typo gremlins have struck! The last two lines of my comment at 2:50 pm should have read.....
.......been there in such a quantity that a random sample of the material under the ice would produce such evidence of warm temperature foliage unless that area had indeed had such temperatures at sometime in the past.
"Orkneygal"; no one could've said it better. It is not CO2 we should be worrying about, I think this is a ploy by greedy people to throw people who does not know better off kilter, it is CO1 (Carbon Monoxide) from the coal, oil, nuclear, and natural gas burning that we should and must stop immediately. This is easy to do if we can get these big goofy manufacturers, who insist on fossil fuel to power us to stop destroying the air, water, and land we live on, breathe, and drink. After Bush stopped all flights in the U.S. after 911, the atmosphere immediately responded positively.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo stop the CO1, we need to convert over to electric vehicles immediately, start building geothermal power plants in every state, where they can become independent, to stop fossil pollution, and make every person's utility in this country independent. That means that we have to stop these greedy people from taking advantage of us by becoming self-sustaining. If we are not forced to do this now, the fossil fuel lovers will continue to destroy our country, our lives, our health, and our childrens' future.
The hand-wringers can try to stop global warming, it may be smarter to start adapting to the warmer climate now. Being prepared for the change will make it easier to adjust when it happens.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJamesDavis, and others, thank you for your kind words.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike almost all jihadists of all religions, the warmists are relentless in their attacks against the real science of climatology.
Your support helps in the fight against the Mann made falsehoods.
Well then, where do you part company with the consensus, #3,4, or 5? Because, if you read the science claims, most workers mostly think these assertions are mostly accurate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso I would say that it is problematic which squad of cheerleaders most deserves the "Church of" appellation.
To answer the question; I'm willing to take a bit more. Throughout human history the global climate favored humans when it was warming. When ever there's been cooling there's been drought and crop failures, decreased rain in dry areas and increased rains in wet temperate regions like Northern Europe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI doubt that the man made contribution to the CO2 'load' of the atmoshpere will lead to catastrophic problems in the immediate future. Not that some won't claim it is due to some human activity. But to me, no matter whether CO2 specifically does or doesn't, the rest of the carbon energy extraction, transportation and consumption processes undeniably are interrupting our increasingly complex and managed natural systems. But the hyped claims for climate unravelling due to CO2 buildup...I don't think so.
But no matter: The best way to a get to a point where the human race could achieve the ability to finally control nature by geo-engineering would be, ironically, to get to space in a really large-scale comercial way for mining asteroids and stuff and even more importantly the harvesting the ten times more intense solar energy in which our planet is bathed, up in the pure vacuum of space..
Trafalgar,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do people like you always have to say something foolish?
These are important problems.
"Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Baghdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them." --Dr James Lovelock's lecture to the Royal Society, 29 Oct. '07
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is what Climate Code Red says:
--Human emissions have so far produced a global average temperature increase of 0.8 degree C.
--There is another 0.6 degree C. to come due to "thermal inertia", or lags in the system, taking the total long-term global warming induced by human emissions so far to 1.4 degree C.
--If human total emissions continue as they are to 2030 (and don't increase 60% as projected) this would likely add more than 0.4 degrees C. to the system in the next two decades, taking the long-term effect by 2030 to at least 1.7 degrees C. (A 0.3 degree C. increase is predicted for the period 2004-2014 alone by Smith, Cusack et al, 2007).
--Then add the 0.3 degree C. albedo flip effect from the now imminent loss of the Arctic sea ice, and the rise in the system by 2030 is at least 2 degree. C, assuming very optimistically that emissions don't increase at all above their present annual rate! When we consider the potential permafrost releases and the effect of carbon sinks losing capacity, we are on the road to a hellish future, not for what we will do, but WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY DONE.
"The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state." --Dr James Lovelock, August 2008
Yes, there have been samples of plant fossils under the Arctic that only grow in much warmer conditions, however these fossils date from around 55 million years ago, when the planet overall was much warmer than it has been at any time in the past 30 million years or so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismy favorite denier website is worldclimatereport.com for the reason that it lists thousands of studies and has a nice index.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you value the bird more than yourself, you deserve every word of the mystical climate science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStop breathing and reduce your carbon footprint to zero, please.
@ Orkneygal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"One of the many links to the overwhelming Paleoclimate evidence of the global nature of the MWP is below.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
You do realize that their director spent much of his career working for the largest private oil and coal company (Peabody Energy) in the world, right?
reterry,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am reminded by much of your input by the old phrase, "Nonsense believed by a million people, is still nonsense." You seem mightily impressed by the claims that hugh numbers of "climate scientists" (Just who determines exactly what "climate scientist is, anyway; You? Those of your crowd?) are all "on board" with the extreme views of AGW. I have serious doubts about this. I have found that many, many scientists seem much less certain than you appear to be. I am also less than impressed by the information about who these scientists are and what recognized institutions the are connected to, being, in some cases totally false. In one case, info given to me was so false that the university named as the sponsor of certain research didn't even exist!!
I am fairly sure that there are honest scientists working under the aegis of proper Universities and organizations, who genuinely have evidence to give about this subject. I, for one, would like to hear this evidence, straight up; undiluted or polluted by those who are determined to make it out to be more than it is. And I grow very, very weary of the claims of AGWers that each and every scientist who does not instantly agree with them, is of necessity, in cahoots in some way with a shadowy, "cohort of evil rich men" who are seeking to obfuscate and confuse these difficult subjects.
Oh yeah.... and I don't like death threats against my person because I too have not instantly "read the holy word" of the AGwers and fallen to my knees in instant acceptance of their beliefs.
Techskeptic,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI went - I read - I wept. Is this what you call evidence? Proof? My dear Sir!! Your 10 year old sister could do better!
When the last tree is cut when the last river is poisoned , man will realise thet he cany eat his money.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK Sez Me, you assert:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I am reminded by much of your input by the old phrase, "Nonsense believed by a million people, is still nonsense." You seem mightily impressed by the claims that hugh numbers of "climate scientists" (Just who determines exactly what "climate scientist is, anyway; You? Those of your crowd?) are all "on board" with the extreme views of AGW. "
So, to be clear, consensus does not prove anything to me either, except to suggest that some careful thought is warranted when trying to assail that consensus. This is why I sort of organize my study around the six propositions aforementioned.
So, again, I put it to you, Sir, which of the propositions do you think is in error and why?
Ignore the pea-brained nattering nabobs of negativity, Orkney girl. You are most correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am no expert on climate change and I would agree that no scientific debate should ever be closed. I would also agree that the issue is complex and more research is definitely needed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe theory of the greenhouse effect has been around since the 1800's. Scientists have shown the gas's composing the earth's atmosphere (including c02) keep the earth's temperature warmer than it otherwise would be. So I find it odd that this went relitively unchallenged until the AGW debate and now so many people try to deny that co2 has any effect.
This is just an endless cycle of argument, flaming, and trolling. You're not going to convince a troll to change their "beliefs," as for the people who are coming on here who genuinely believing that climate change isn't real and that it's all a conspiracy or scientists simply won't LISTEN to their "common sense" reasons why it can't possibly be real... Well, they'll reap what they sow. We aren't on a path to do anything about the problem, the US congress is paralyzed on climate change action by the republicans, and just about all the other countries aren't doing anywhere near what's necessary either, and the US population appears poised to sweep the republicans, particularly the anti-government-regulation, anti-subsidy, tea partiers into power in the upcoming elections.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the Devil's plan is to trick us into driving ourselves extinct, everything seems to be on track for him (even if that whole nuclear armageddon thing didn't work out).
You know, if it wasn't for the CO2 in our atmosphere, the planet would be too cold to be inhabitable (by us, anyways). We're actually outside or on the border of the goldilocks zone for our sun; the CO2 traps enough heat to make the planet livable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis has been known, and been public knowledge for a very long time.
As has been pointed out, it was proven in 1859 that CO2 traps infrared radiation, and the average temperature of the Earth would be just below freezing were it not for the greenhouse effect. The only reason people dispute that adding CO2 will increase the temperature is because the effect is slow, so people don't notice. That combined with the oil companies having hundreds of billions of dollars both at stake and at their disposal to dispense false information with (a la tobacco companies 40 years ago) has made a very large segment of the public skeptical/denialist about the whole thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Five Step Scientific Method Applied to the Global Warming Debate:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. State a real problem. Average global temperature has risen beyond what can be determined to be caused by natural processes such as solar or geologic activity.
2. Form a testable hypothesis. CO2 levels in the atmosphere greater than levels that can be accouted for by natural processes and introduced by human activity will proportionally increase average global temperature by containing greater levels of heat within the biosphere resulting in the extinction of large numbers of species.
3. Observe an experiment. We, along with every other species on this planet, and the respective generations to come, are the experiment.
4. Interpret useful data. See post by dobermanmacleod at 12:38 AM on 07/18/10.
5. Draw a valid conclusion. We can not afford to run this experiment to conclusion.
So, we have two choices. One, we continue the experiment. Or, two, we stop the experiment now because the experiment poses unacceptable risk to the survival of our species and the millions (perhaps billions) of other species within the biosphere that support us.
This is not about saving the planet, the planet will get along fine without us.
Aren't you guys tired of beating this horse yet? It's dead already. Fraud is fraud, religion posing as science is not science. Better go find another gravy train to jump on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere to start...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMann's "Hockey Stick database will produce hockey sticks with average NASCAR speeds.
Turns out that NASA (Hanson) doesn't actually have a temperature database after all, they were using the CRU database.
The CRU Database is "made up" according to Ian Harris in the HarryReadMe.txt file.
NOAA had around seven thousand weather recording stations scattered all around the country in 1980 and by the mid 1990's is down to around 1400. Funny how the weather recording stations that weree showing declines or no change were culled versus the ones showing increases were kept.
Funny how NASA's space bourn temperature recording equipment shows no net significant change in surface temperature along with the Argos bouys at sea.
How many times do these "Scientists" get to get busted fudging their numbers, making up their data or just outright lying before they are discredited?
I know, we'll have another completely biased, "unbiased" committee of acedemics whitewash the whole affair. Better yet, let's have a collection of unbiased RICCO prosecutors take a look at what's going on and see who ends up in jail.
I'll give the AGW crowd this much. It doesn't matter how corrupt their advocates have been shown to be in manipulating data, they'll follow and defend them no matter what it takes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is this? We are in the middle of a discussion based on presentable facts and evidence. Politics will not solve this issue. Scientists are not trying to disrupt some feel-good campfire session.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say "warmists are relentless in their attacks". Let's get something straight, the scientists conducting this research are not doing it to insult you. They are not doing it to undermine you. They aren't concerned with anyone's feelings about this subject at all.
Scientists care about data. They care about causality. They care about consequences. If you have a fight with anything, it is with the data that has been collected over the years that asserts that the planet's climate is in danger of being destabilized.
Instead of trying to appeal to our empathy, why don't you start providing data of your own? Otherwise you have nothing to contribute to this discussion.
Can anyone recommend any sites/new groups where members rationally discuss the important scientific issues of the day (I don't mind paying)? I love reading the Sciam articles but the public comments section always turns into a war between the uneducated idiots like Orkneygal and those actually interested in scientific understanding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSez Me,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said:
"I haven't done any research myself on the issue of the melting of Arctic Ice but what seems reasonable to me is this: The present Arctic ice cap is the remains of the glaciers that once covered to a much further south area of the earth."
You've made a number of assertions that are inaccurate; I'll just respond to your first one. Glaciers are fresh water; the arctic ice cap is salty. The ice cap is not the remains of glaciers, never mind yearly, seasonal turnover rates. Your definitions of 'reasonable' or 'evidence' are not very interesting.
In general:
So, if CO2 is a plant fertilizer, shouldn't plants be absorbing more of it? If that is the case, would you expect the sequestration rate to increase? If so, why is approximately all of the CO2 emitted by people accounted for it in the sea and air?
Which would you expect to have more effect on plants, more CO2, or changes in temperature and rain patterns?
Otherwise, it certainly has been warmer and cooler in the past. So what? The earth wobbles, continents collide, frozen methane occasionally melts, super-large volcanoes erupt, etc. It is the rate of change that matters. CO2 absorbs within the radiation band that the surface emits; it will have an effect on the temperature. Look at the current rate of change, the middle ground of what is projected under BAU, and then look at the fossil record during periods of rapid change. First of all, you won't find any periods where the change is as rapid outside of some pretty cataclysmic events. You will find is common for bad things to happen during periods of rapid change.
ND3G,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSkeptical Science is relatively good. Those that argue for a no-problem scenario tend to get hammered a bit, but then they're conclusions are generally based on a misunderstanding of physics.
Science of Doom has a bit higher ratio of technical content to other material.
If you want a chance to actually hear from someone who studies climate science for a living, you can try RealClimate. They do tend to tell their side more than their rivals, but then, it is their site. I've seen plenty of dissenting opinion there still.
Yeah, I know these are all 'warmest' sites. However, I've been to several 'skeptic' sites and I've yet to find one where the arguments are compatible with undergraduate level physics.
A bit more detail on the same story as this article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100707180930.htm
Chris G,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs you say: "I've seen plenty of dissenting opinion there still. .... I've yet to find one where the arguments are compatible with undergraduate level physics."
And as you can see here, the dissenters here have virtually nothing quantitative to say, just weak arguments about trivia.
So, six propositions:
1. We are currently in one of many naturally driven inter-glacial warm periods.
2. Over the last 150 years or so there has been a steady and recently accelerating upswing in the average global temperature.
3. Temperature and CO2 levels, measured by various methods, tend to correlate over vast intervals of time.
4. Human greenhouse gases, aerosols, and particulate emissions have the physics potential to modify the global rate of temperature change.
5. There is a causal relation between recent warming and human generated greenhouse gases, aerosols, or particulate emissions.
6. Climate modeling is a credible predictor of adverse environmental effects arising from human activity.
So, all you skeptics, if you think AGW is just religion, then some of these statements must be incorrect. Which ones are wrong and why?
NDG3-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am neither uneducated nor an idiot. I am a science student interested in better understanding the details of climate change.
reterry-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour item number 6 is clearly incorrect.
Anyone that has studied the models results used by IPCC knows that.
Neither you nor the IPCC can produce a single climate model amongst those used by IPCC that can accurately backcast the recent significant climate change periods such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
One thing is blatantly obvious : Deniers have far more financial backing from energy companies than scientists. Redress the balance and people would soon feel far more concerned and motivated to see really effective measures (such as biomass pyrolysis) implemented.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissez me says, "The present Arctic ice cap is the remains of the glaciers.....orkneygal offered a site..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*************
Arctic sea ice has nothing to do with any glaciers, since glaciers are moving rivers of packed snow on land, and Arctic sea ice is just frozen sea at the top of the globe.
As far as co2science.org goes, it is run by the idso denialist family of craig, sherwood, keith and julene, of OISM fame, and funded by $90,000 from Exxon between 1998 to 2005, among others in the fossil fuel industry, promoting dis-information.
rtaylor says, "If you are honestly in favor of decreasing the use of coal and oil for power..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*************
You seem to completely miss the point that all fossil fuels are in finite quantities, and at the rate we've used them over the past century, they will get harder and harder to access, we will see more spills and leaks, and eventually they will run out. The fracturing process that the fossil fuel industry uses to get natural gas opens up a whole different can of worms, destroying aquifers for drinking water with nasty chemicals.
Each day the sun delivers enough energy to support all life on our planet, and this free, abundant power has the grace to rival every energy source we know without harmful emissions.
orkneygal says, "I am neither uneducated nor an idiot."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this******************
Maybe not, but it seems you are quite misguided, and using dis-information sites on the internet that already agree with your ideology and preconceived thoughts like idso's co2science.org.
Because of CO2's inescapable greenhouse effect, and the fact that CO2 absorbs some wavelengths of infrared that water vapor does not so that it independently traps heat in our atmosphere, more water vapor enters our atmosphere and multiplies that CO2 greenhouse effect as the temperature rises.
With your science student background, please explain why in your scenario, steadily increasing levels of CO2 in our atmosphere is not compounding the problem.
www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
orkneygal says, "However, the MWP deniers..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*********************
While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.
www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
In three generations, urbanization at the cost of extracting energy BELOW the earth is causing non-zero NET surplus of atmospheric CO2. Deforestation due to inaproppriate geopolitical agenda in equatorial countries, with the curse of imported cattle from Europe overgrazing in Africa, are part of the blind ambition of a political monster behind human provoked climate change denial. Humans may choose to be superior to themselves as no other species, unless we are brainwashed into believing a mighty dictator will sweep our numbers off this planet to fix things without democratic consultation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are at least three scientific unknowns about CO2 that relate to your question-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) The saturation level of CO2 as an atmospheric greenhouse gas is not known with any significant level of certainty. Therefore, the point at which increasing levels of atmosphereic CO2 result in no additional greenhouse warmimg is not known by science.
2) Forcing factors for all the greenhouse gases is not known. Even the forcing factor of water vapour, which is the most common and most potent of the greenhouse gases is not known. Therefore, from a scientific point of view, it is not known whether more greenhouse gases increase surface temperatures or have a level at which the sensitivity reverses and additional greenhouse gases result in a negative forcing of temperature. These unknowns have a significant impact on the ability of anyone to accurately predict future impact of CO2 levels on surface temperature. That is what even the NSA and the Royal Society have admitted recently.
3) The dwell time of CO2 in the atmosphere is not known. In their last report, IPCC retracted their previous estimate of 5 to 200 years and quite clearly state that the dwell time of atmospheric CO2 is not known. Since even the IPCC cannot estimate the dwell time of CO2 in the atmosphere, it follows logically that any projection about the impact of increasing or decreasing levels of atmospheric CO2 is a fruitless effort.
That's what the state of the scientific knowledge is about the impact of atmosphereic CO2 levels on surface temperatures.
About 80% of the paleoclimate reconstructions show the MWP to have been warmer than the current warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome of the reconstructions suggest that the MWP was as much as 3.8 Degrees C higher than today. A tiny minority of the reconstructions suggest it was ever so slightly cooler then.
The MWP was synchronous in nature and global in extent. Paleoclimate reconstructions demonstrating that fact have been completed on all continents including Antartica as well as in some oceans.
That is what the real science says. That skepticalscience site is an apologist mouthpiece for the Mann-Hockey Stick Team who are the head deniers of the true extent and impact of the MWP. If they were to admit that the MWP was warmer than today, their government handouts would be stopped.
orkneygal says, "That is what the real science says. That skepticalscience site is an apologist mouthpiece for the Mann-Hockey Stick Team who are the head deniers of the true extent and impact of the MWP."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*********************
Typical ad hominem attacks on real scientists by an apparent 7th grade science STUDENT, spewing the typical propaganda without so much as ONE CITATION or even a link backing-up any of the outrageous claims you posted is silly. Parroting the usual religious denialist propaganda while attacking true paleoclimatologists, only to show your worship of political statisticians is beyond belief.
The greenhouse gas qualities of CO2 have been known for over a century, and the absorptive qualities of CO2 have been more precisely quantified by decades of laboratory measurements.
www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/RamAmbio.pdf
While it is true that CO2 has a variable atmospheric lifetime, and cannot be specified precisely due to the fact it is absorbed by the oceans and used in photosynthesis and other processes. However, recent work indicates that recovery from a large input of atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels will result in an effective lifetime of tens of thousands of years:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.fate_co2.pdf
Journal of Geophysical Research
My advice to any "student," would be to read peer-reviewed articles by real scientists in scientific journals, and leave the blogs and websites that agree with your preconceived ideas, since they only contain mis-information and dis-information.
What a shame. SA used to be a serious scientific journal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fastest answer is GenIV nuclear reactors that eat nuclear waste. Indeed, the waste older reactors have left behind is not the problem, but the SOLUTION to our energy problems. We could run the world for 500 years on the waste we have today!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen a mix of New Urbanism, Fast-Rail and electric car can wean America off oil. If every American city took note of Portland Oregon, you guys would cut your dependence on imported oil. Then as you shifted to fully electric vehicles, 90% of your driving would be charged at home or work at HALF the price of oil! Then, for the occasional highway drive, you could have a "Better Place" automated Battery Swap for instant range extension. The Better Place taxi battery swap in Tokyo can swap out a battery faster than you can refill your car!
But the bottom line: which is more convenient: ONLY being able to fuel up at the local petrol station, or being able to charge up overnight at home?
Nukes + New Urbanism + Fast rail + EV's and America would be energy independent, have the most abundant and cheapest power available, have energy efficient cities and CLEAN AIR with no smog!
Why haven't you guys done this already?
eclipse says, "why haven't you guys done this yet?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this**************
Because the infrastructure and energy policy has been dictated by BIG OIL and the fossil fuel industry for so long now, it will take an act of God to change direction any time soon, and the record profits of the fossil fuel industry will continue to fight any change tooth and nail.
Eclipse: You are ablsolutely right, except for the fast rail part. Compared to Japan and Europe, America is just too large a land mass to lay the necessary fast rail to make a small reduction of interstate and regional air transport.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding nukes, unfortunately we Americans get a notion in our collective heads that something is dangerous and no amount of fact will change our minds. So, in one last attempt at fact: no fatalities have occured on U.S. soil as a result of a nuclear accident. None, zero, zilch, ever. I am not capable of counting the deaths from fossil fuel mining and processing. And, except for the Hanaford Nuclear Test Site (a federal government run facility in Washington Statef noted for poor waste management) toxic waste is not a problem with nuclear. The toxic waste from commercial reactors is very well accounted for and very durably stored in 100 ton casks and would only fill a football stadium to about 40 ft deep. Newer GenIV, as you stated, would consume the existing toxic waste. Modular reactors would reduce the capital costs of bringing new plants online, and even compact nuclear reators that fit on the back of a truck (at last count seven different companies are about to release commercial units) would reduce costs even more as economies of scale reduce unit costs.
New urbanism is gaining in popularity but unfortanately the expanse of suburban landscape and long commutes common to American cities will take a long time to convert to such a paradigm.
Currently the electric vehicle is the only part of your equation that actually seems to be gaining some traction. Thank you Elon Musk and Tesla Automotive for showing us what is possible. The American and Japanese "Big Six" automakers got caught with their gas tanks exposed on that one. But they are playing catch up with a vengence.
I might add to your equation sustainably produced (nuclear or solar) hydrogen for energy storage and use after dark and as a transitional fuel until batteries become more energy dense and less costly. Big trucks can be run as hybrids but on pure battery power they wouldn't make it up the front side of the the first mountain.
Finally, which one you who denies global warming is willing to gamble the lives of your children and their children, ad infinitum, on the CO2 experiment of which we are all now a part. The species of this third rock from the sun don't deserve to run this experiment to conclusion.
Eclipse: You are ablsolutely right, except for the fast rail part. Compared to Japan and Europe, America is just too large a land mass to lay the necessary fast rail to make a small reduction of interstate and regional air transport.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding nukes, unfortunately we Americans get a notion in our collective heads that something is dangerous and no amount of fact will change our minds. So, in one last attempt at fact: no fatalities have occured on U.S. soil as a result of a nuclear accident. None, zero, zilch, ever. I am not capable of counting the deaths from fossil fuel mining and processing. And, except for the Hanaford Nuclear Test Site (a federal government run facility in Washington Statef noted for poor waste management) toxic waste is not a problem with nuclear. The toxic waste from commercial reactors is very well accounted for and very durably stored in 100 ton casks and would only fill a football stadium to about 40 ft deep. Newer GenIV, as you stated, would consume the existing toxic waste. Modular reactors would reduce the capital costs of bringing new plants online, and even compact nuclear reators that fit on the back of a truck (at last count seven different companies are about to release commercial units) would reduce costs even more as economies of scale reduce unit costs.
New urbanism is gaining in popularity but unfortanately the expanse of suburban landscape and long commutes common to American cities will take a long time to convert to such a paradigm.
Currently the electric vehicle is the only part of your equation that actually seems to be gaining some traction. Thank you Elon Musk and Tesla Automotive for showing us what is possible. The American and Japanese "Big Six" automakers got caught with their gas tanks exposed on that one. But they are playing catch up with a vengence.
I might add to your equation sustainably produced (nuclear or solar) hydrogen for energy storage and use after dark and as a transitional fuel until batteries become more energy dense and less costly. Big trucks can be run as hybrids but on pure battery power they wouldn't make it up the front side of the the first mountain.
Finally, which one you who denies global warming is willing to gamble the lives of your children and their children, ad infinitum, on the CO2 experiment of which we are all now a part. The species of this third rock from the sun don't deserve to run this experiment to conclusion.
To be realistic, if we could stop all humanity's contributions to CO2 levels, how long would it take for the average global temperature to stabilize at even current levels?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I understand, even if we immediately disappeared CO2 and temperature wouldn't return to preindustrial levels for a very, very long time.
It seems to me that the only way to quickly return climatic conditions to recent levels would be to actively reduce atmospheric GHG levels.
While large scale sequestration of CO2, for example, is apparently possible, it would have to be accomplished very securely to be worthwhile. I some new condition, like an increase in regional rainfall, could possibly release vast quantities of sequestered GHGs, the effort would have been futile.
At this point I question whether electric vehicles, for example, can make any real difference at all. Trading CO2 credits may be no more effective than monopoly money. Such efforts can make us feel like we're helping, of course...
"All of this is based on really good science."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally? I thought is was based on assumptions, interpretation of proxy data & computer models (written with different sensitivities for how the climate will change with increased CO2).
In 2001 the IPCC report stated they were "66% certain that some of the warming was due to manmade CO2." In 2007 the IPCC is 90% sure of , what exactly?
I am sure we learned a lot about climate change in the last 6 years. I guess "really good science" will do that for you...
Hey Orkneygal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo as a science student you might want pay attention to the literature! Climate models of the sort run by the IPCC are discussed as a group in a very nice paper by Reto Knutti (PTRS A 2008 366,p4647). As an example of the "backcasting" see his Fig. 1. The level of uncertainty he shows forcasting is not out of the ordinary for complex models but, indeed, is it adequate for policy?
So you chose the second easiest of the 6, but if the others are substantially correct (with or without your pet anomaly the MWP) then we still have something of a problem.
Once again, I put it to you, where are the other propositions shown to fail?
Hey Pete H.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCute little cheap shot there, but indeed why would we not expect to learn more and have greater confidence over six years of effort?
"Buyer beware" applies to the internet above all. You can prove anything by selective quotation. See what Wikipedia says about www.co2science.org quoted by <b>Orkneygal</b> - but don't take my word for it, nor Wikipedia's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook around the web and judge for yourself whether the Wikipedia entry is a confirmed consensus.
There are many climate change denier websites, and most are plausible rather than credible. Many climate change deniers are scientists working in other disciplines: some are honest but incompetent in their new field, a few are dishonest but know how to present a case and do much damage. Physical scientists fall into two camps: (1) those who have a feel for biological and ecological issues, and bring great strength to climate science and to the debate from their high numeracy, and (2) those that have a total inability to understand ecology. These latter fortunately mostly steer clear of the debate and waste their time with harebrained schemes to terraform Mars for ultimate human habitation (like filling its atmosphere with BILLIONS of tons of sulfur hexafluoride - the most stable and powerful greenhouse gas known). These people scare me! What makes them think that we are anywhere near achieving this when we can't look after our home planet?
Economists punch below their weight on climate issues - or do they? (Economics has always struck me as midway between a science and astrology). Some of these scare me too: one of them, whom I dare not name for legal reasons, has written a famous book, one chapter of which is totally dishonest (I'll go public if and when I can make time to dot the i's and cross the t's on my refutation so that it could stand up in court if necessary.)
What makes a climate change denier? They seem to fall into one of three camps: (1) Those who underneath feel it their bones that things ARE as bad as they look, but cannot bring themselves to face up to it. (2) Religious fundamentalists who cannot come to terms with the fact that God put us on this Earth to make it uninhabitable if, by greed or ignorance, we choose to do so. (3) Those with very large vested interests in the fossil fuel industry – these people fund the deniers but they and those they fund try to hide the fact. These people are nearly as bad as the tobacco industry. (4) A small and diminishing band of scientists who don't think the science is quite settled yet, and it's too early to respond.