Young man in a field in eastern Africa
Image: Kimberly Flowers/USAID
-
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 »
SAN FRANCISCO - To get a glimpse of the future, look to East Africa today.
The Horn of Africa is in the midst of its worst drought in 60 years: Crop failures have left up to 10 million at risk of famine; social order has broken down in Somalia, with thousands of refugees streaming into Kenya; British Aid alone is feeding 2.4 million people across the region.
That's a taste of what's to come, say scientists mapping the impact of a warming planet on agriculture and civilization.
"We think we're going to have continued dryness, at least for the next 10 or 15 years, over East Africa," said Chris Funk, a geographer at the U.S. Geological Society and founding member of the Climate Hazard Group at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Funk and other experts at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco cautioned that East Africa is just one example. Many recent events - discoveries from sediment cores in New York, drought in Australia and the western United States, data from increasingly sophisticated computer models - lead to a conclusion that the weather driving many of the globe's great breadbaskets will become hotter, drier and more unpredictable.
Even the northeastern United States - a region normally omitted from any serious talk about domestic drought - is at risk, said Dorothy Peteet, a senior research scientist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
A series of sediment cores drilled from New York marshes confirm that mega droughts can grip the region: One spanned from 850 to 1350 A.D., Peteet said. And shorter, more intense droughts have driven sea water far up the Hudson River, past towns such as Poughkeepsie that depend on the river for drinking supplies.
"We're just beginning to map the extent, but we know it was pervasive," she said. "There are hints of drought all the way up to Maine."
Of course, climate change can't be blamed for all the food shortages and social unrest, several researchers cautioned. Landscape changes such as deforestation can trigger droughts, while policy choices exacerbate impacts.
Some hard-hit African countries have the highest growth rates on the planet, and gains in agricultural productivity simply have not kept up with those extra mouths. Per capita cereal production, for instance, peaked worldwide in the mid-1980s, Funk said, and is decreasing everywhere. But no place on the globe is decreasing faster than East Africa.
Simple policy decisions can blunt a crisis. Malawi, in southeastern Africa, gave farmers bags of seed and fertilizer and saw food prices fall and the percentage of its population classified as undernourished drop by almost half over a decade, Funk added. Kenya, in contrast, saw its policies stagnate; prices and malnourishment rates both rose.
Meanwhile, researchers probing the climate in pre-Columbian Central America figure that widespread deforestation had a hand in the droughts thought to have toppled the Mayan, Toltec and Aztec civilizations.
More than 1,000 years ago, "significant deforestation" throughout Central America suppressed rainfall upwards of 20 percent and warmed the region 0.5ºC, said Benjamin Cook, a NASA climatologist.
The forest - and local moisture - rebounded with the population crash that followed European contact, he added. But today the region is even more denuded than during its pre-Colombian peak.
But with the frequency of droughts expected to triple in the next 100 years, researchers fear the resulting variability and stress to agriculture and civilization could prove destabilizing for many regions.
"We should take it seriously," Peteet said.
See what we're tweeting about
82 Comments
Add CommentIf only we had destroyed the planet AFTER we had figured out interstellar travel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLikely to, if, but. If ifs were candy & buts were nuts, what a happy Christmas it would be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo SCIAM considers the opinions of this group of AGW preachers scientific? The number of similar pronouncements during the Durban conference is so patently aimed at pushing this extremist view of the Earths climate. The more the better. As claim after claim fails to match peoples experience on the ground, the influence of such groups will wither & die. We will put that down to a lack of global warming shall we. East coast of Australia in a few more days will have experienced the coolest start to summer on record. As of today, Sydney has broken a 60 year record. The long drought, as per numerous previous droughts, has broken. Same will happen in the other areas mentioned.
I guess no amount of evidence is going to convince you. Every time something comes along that doesn't agree with your pre-existing beliefs, you stick your fingers in your ears and try to drown it out with sneseless shouting. Your closed-off worldview is impervious to the facts and you have the angry guy on the TV, talk radio and blogs to confirm what you already just KNOW to be true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing can ever change your mind, right? Your burden of proof is impossible to satisfy, whether you know it or not. You have a knee-jerk hostility towards any idea that might prove you're wrong. The only logic I see you employ is the circular kind and you sprinkle in opinion, political rheteric and unfounded attacks on anyone who doesn't agree with you.
The article said that climate change isn't the sole cause, but along with corruption and war, it isn't making things any better in Africa, right? Due to CO2-induced warming (along with other feedbacks) soils will dry out faster and rainfall patterns will be disrupted. This is playing out in East Africa as we speak and you want to just ignore the evidence and shoot the messenger.
I've said numerous times that I'd change my mind about man-made climate change if the "skeptic" community produced evidence showing a negative feedback that would save us from climate disruption, or showed that the Earths' climate sensitivity was too low with a higher degree of fidelity than the existing science.
Seriously, what would change your mind on man-made climate change? Is it even possible to satisfy your burden of proof with current technology? Would you have us wait until we're 100% sure of EVERYTHING (never going to happen, by the way) and risk making climate change worse? Are you willing to risk inflicting misery on the next 100 generations just so the fossil fuel companies of today can keep their gravy train running for another decade or so?
hint. Canada...the average woman has 1.1 children. Sub-Saharan Africa...6.8
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfricans can scream into ther wind. I don't care what they say until they get their pathetic act together. Then they will have credibility.
Nothing will shake your anti capatalism pro socialist blindness, regardless of the glaringly obvious failure of socialism you curse the system that has & continues to lift millions out of ignorance & poverty yet you lay claim to be the enlightened & open minded champion of all things good. Wake up to your own ignorance before you accuse others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't blame them poor people. They Africans mostly live in grim environment, in which a lack of water, medicine, food and basic education is prevalent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not their fault, however, we living in developed and developing countries should try our best to help them, rather to abandon them.
What the FRACK does Socialism have to do with what I was saying? I laid out EXACTLY what would change my mind. How come you haven't done the same? Could it be that this is impossible? Could it be that your denial is merely a belief, something that's a part of your core being, just like your irrational fear of COMMIES (especially in this day and age)? See, you're so eager to make this a political argument because you don't have a scientific leg to stand on. I know, Glenn Beck told you climate scientists are socialists or whatever, but how is he an authority on climate science while the world's ENTIRE scientific establishment is not? That's something I don't understand and you'll just have to fill me in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow often have you blamed the world’s woes on wealthy businessmen or 'Big Oil' or greed as you call it? No doubt the greatest philanthropist of our time sits uncomfortably with you. What do you think of Microsoft, Bill Gates & his charitable works? Enterprise & enthusiasm are the engines that drive progress, not regulation & taxation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are an ideologue. You are so convinced that you are right on every aspect relating to this subject that you will not countenance any contra evidence or even line of enquiry. There is no point in debating you. If I had put up a group of unqualified people like the authors of this nonsense article, in support of a point of view that you did not agree with, you would have heaped scorn on them. However someone who supports your ideas certainly does not require peer review do they?
Increasingly hostile, ah.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrue - global warming is running for 50 years. Earth now is hostile.
Hint - if you don't see a catastrophe around, consider this article a simple propaganda.
Talk about building a strawman...I haven't had so many words put into my mouth since I stopped eating Alphabet Soup!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, I DO think greed is a problem, so I guess Gordon Gekko and I have a difference of opinion. I think greed has caused all sorts of problems for civilization, from the Crusades to the Financial collapse of 2008 - ???? and everything in between.
The oil companies or dirty energy in general aren't evil, they're just putting short-term profit ahead of long-term sustainability. However, when these dirty energy companies are getting BILLIONS in direct government subsidies, and TRILLIONS more in indirect subsidies since they can offload their externalities on society, and then they use most of the $1 TRILLION they made in PROFIT over the last decade to buy back their own stock, how is this "Enterprise" or "enthusiasm"? I mean, I'm pretty enthusiastic about clean energy and efficiency, so now do I get to be in the Capitalist Club now?
I don't know where you're going bringing Bill Gates into this discussion unless you're trying to distract people away from the fact that your argument is just a bunch of paranoid ranting.
I outlined EXACTLY what it would take to change my mind and you have UTTERLY failed to do so. Are you hiding something? Is it even possible to change your mind? I've stated explicitly that I WILL change my mind given proper evidence. This evidence is obtainable and could be available if the "skeptics" would actually produce valid science instead of just spreading doubt about climate change. I just need to know, is it even possible for you to do the same and change your mind on climate change if given the proper evidence?
Look, the Earth is warming and it started soon after we began dumping CO2 into the air on an industrial scale. CO2 traps heat. I don't know what's so hard to understand. NOBODY knows EXACTLY how much the temperature or rainfall patterns will change, but our infrastructure, our cities and our agricultural patterns are based on certain climactic assumptions that are going out the window the more we emit carbon. Even just to reduce the risk of climate disruption, isn't saving money on fuel costs the prudent choice? Isn't lowering other pollutants in our environment a low price to pay so we don't even have to worry about climate change?
"East coast of Australia in a few more days will have experienced the coolest start to summer on record. As of today, Sydney has broken a 60 year record."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand, Greece and the eastern Mediterranean have been experiencing their warmest, driest November in more than half a century. Grain planters have been desperately waiting for some rain, so they can plant the new crop, to no avail. An agricultural co-op in my area is expecting the grain produced in the area next year to drop by more than 30%, with coresponding price changes.
Last year, on the 7th of December it was snowing here. This year, it is 17 C.
And just to be clear, I don't necessarily say that this proves global warming. This is a localised climate variance, like the one you state for Australia. You can't make global projections by using localised variations. So, I haven't proven global warming just with a dry mediterranean November, but neither have you disproved it by a cool australian summer.
It would be interesting if you mentioned exactly what kind of data would sway your opinion. Recently, a major skeptic study was published, and it reluctantly admitted that the world is in fact warming and that the data other teams had presented was in fact correct. You see, skeptic literally means pensive, someone who thinks. They were skeptics too, but also trained scientists. And when they saw that the data held up to scrutiny, they had the guts to admit that their original ideas were wrong and that global warming is a real phaenomenon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Isn't lowering other pollutants in our environment a low price to pay so we don't even have to worry about climate change?"
Which bit of this article did you not read? The Earth has a history of vastly more significant climate changes than anything we have ever experienced. There is no such paradisal state as not having to worry about it.
I'd gladly support the reduction of pollutants for its own sake but that's not the agenda. It remains the case that the Western World has a more than vested interest in denying the Third World the opportunity to develop its industry. Dress it up however you like, I am a long way from being convinced that any preventable climate change is nearly significant enough to justify the maintenance of the highly preventable and vastly more significant economic injustice which certainly does not have 'ifs' and 'buts' attached to it!
"anti capatalism pro socialist blindness"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"[blaming] the world's woes on wealthy businessmen"
So when you don't have a scientific argument to stand on, you resort to red herrings and ad hominem attacks? Is that really the quality of arguments you have to offer?
To address the actual *science*, something you seem to have an aversion to doing, global climate change is not determined by single, small regions, like Australia, or Africa, it's an average, an average that has trended upward, without significant interruption, and no, the 2007-2008 dip does not qualify as significant, anymore than 1998 did for warming, anymore than the two years following the Pinatubo eruption did for cooling. A year or two is a fluctuation, not a trend.
The effects, like the temperature, are also global, and not determined solely by what's going on, in your country, or in any other, and on average, a drop in crop production is exactly what we've seen. Of the four largest crops produced, two (corn and wheat) have seen 3.8% and 5.5% drops, respectively (the other two, soybeans and rice) have gone neither up, nor down), just since 1980, according to a paper released in Science just this year by Lobell et al. That's in the past 30 years, over a period of what should be relatively moderate warming compared to coming decades.
Oh sure, you might kick and scream about halted warming, or "global cooling", if you belong in the yet more extreme camp, but were you to actually examine the science, you'd see that both the solar and ENSO forcings have been trending downward, the latter quite rapidly. The solar forcing you'd expect; the coolest years of this decade coincide, roughly, with the solar nadir, and ENSO fluctuates all over the place, all the time, hence why 1998 was so warm.
So here's a bit of basic logic for you: If two notable forcings have spent several years trending downward, yet at best, temperatures have, on the whole, held steady, then what would you conclude about the trend in the other forcings? If you answered "they must be trending upward", then you don't completely fail logic 101; congratulations.
The very fact that the Earth is maintaining temperature while two of the biggest impacts on climate jet downward, and warms when they remain steady, shows the very warming influence we're talking about, and it's worth nothing that the sun is hardly cooling, and ENSO can't save us by dropping down forever, ergo, the only intelligent forecast at this point is one of increased warming, and its associated effects.
"The Earth has a history of vastly more significant climate changes than anything we have ever experienced."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat depends on how you define "significant". Sure, there have been larger climatic changes than what we've experienced in the past four decades, or even since 1850 if you want to include some of the solar-induced warming, some of which have caused large-scale extinctions. The Younger-Dryas even nearly ended the human civilization that preceded it, destroying clovis culture. That we've had huge climatic swings is not in question.
With that said, an article in this very magazine from only a few short months ago shows that we're warming an order of magnitude faster than what took place in the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, which means that in terms of rate, we actually are exceeding many major past climatic shifts. As the rate is so fast, all that's needed is a bit of time, and we'll exceed past climatic changes in magnitude as well (obviously).
"I am a long way from being convinced that any preventable climate change is nearly significant enough to justify the maintenance of the highly preventable and vastly more significant economic injustice"
That's debatable, but ultimately irrelevant, I think.
You may not like a certain set of solutions, or think them justified, and I might even be inclined to agree, but that should be kept separate from the question of whether or not we have a problem worth weighing solutions to in the first place.
Don't blame the victims. It's classic cognitive dissonance to believe that all the suffering in the world is somehow the fault of those who suffer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfrica is a basketcase. Africans need to get their own act together. Until then, tough beans. They are not mentally deficient children who need to be coddled. If they want to continue their pathetic existence then that's their choice. I'm not apologizing that in my western country we have EARNED a high quality of life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think many people need to read more paleoclimatology. If I remember correctly from my archeology and paleoclimatology reading, a little over 5,000 years ago they were growing crops where the Sahara desert is now. Also in the Middle East which is why many of the great civilizations could exist back then. If some areas change and can no longer grow crops, why would anyone think that areas now unable to grow crops will remain that way? It seems perfectly plausible to me that there will be many new areas to grow crops.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're not honestly naive enough to think that your western country has had no part in the problems in Africa, are you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfricas problems have been severely exacerbate by centuries of colonial exploitation, exploitation that hasn't ended with the modern era or African independence.
Many, if not most, of the problems in recent decades in Rwanda, and more recently in Congo, are the fault of Western powers. The Interahamwe wouldn't exist if it wasn't for German and Belgian intervention.
Sudan? Who do you think is funding the Khartoum government's support of the Janjaweed? It's oil interests from all over the first world. China is more at fault than anyone there, but it is, nevertheless, exploitation of Africa from an industrialized nation.
So how about the Ivory Coast? Angola? Zimbabwe? Liberia and Sierra Leone? The Republic of Congo? The civil wars in all of these places were financed by conflict diamonds, purchased by western nations.
It's a bit hard for the governments/societies in Africa to get positive things done with our nations are constantly financing militias to run in and terrorize those nations, financing that, in many cases, arms them better than the governments of those nations.
As western nations, we represent the finest societies on Earth. We're advanced, healthy, altruistic, militarily strong, and we're industrial powerhouses. That's something to be proud of.
That does not mean, however, that you have grounds to ethnocentrically decree yourself superior to other people, especially when your own society has had a big hand in beating down those other people so that they can't reach your level of advancement.
On numerous previous posts I have agreed that the Earth is warming. Just as with other weather events, the rate varies. The Earth has been warming, on average, with significant multi decade cooling exceptions, since the ice age. The degree of contribution by human activity is what I dispute as well as targeting Co2, which despite the ranting of some, will be simply re absorbed by plant life & other processes. Let us clean up our act by all means. Progressively move away from fossil fuel to nuclear but stop wasting billions on schemes that do nothing for the environment & slow development of real solutions. What do you propose?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd yet, those 6.8 children will use up much less of the earth's resources, produce much less in waste products, and generally cost the human race much less than those 1.1 children.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs long as "conservative" (for lack of a more accurate name) orthodoxy requires swearing fealty to AGW denial, no amount of evidence will convince them. It's a waste of time to argue, since their denial is not based on individual reasoning from the preponderance of evidence, but in faith in pronouncements of their authority figures. And vice versa; their arguments in the form of ad hominem attacks on those who believe in AGW are not going to convince those who base their belief on analysis of the data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRecord snowstorms in October in the northeast US, stopping travel, leaving millions without power for days and causing enormous damage; record floods in the middle US; record windstorms on the west coast; tsunamis in southeast Asia; droughts in Australia and the US; etc. etc. whew, thank God there aren't any catastrophes around, so we can "consider this article a simple propaganda".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I outlined EXACTLY what it would take to change my mind and you have UTTERLY failed to do so." That is completely characteristic of the AGW denialist, and of course demonstrates the totally unscientific nature of their position. I have often asked people for a description of what evidence would suffice for them to "reject the null hypothesis", as scientific thinking would require this to be specified a priori, not judged after the fact; and I have never received any reasonable answer, just meaningless evasions like "good scientific data!", etc. Several people have said outright "No amount of evidence will convince me this theory is possible", which pretty much says it all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you people have a mirror?:)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBRISBANE residents yesterday shivered through the city’s coldest December day in 123 years, while Sydney has recorded its iciest start to summer in 51 years & the cold temperatures continue…
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerth recorded its wettest December day in 28 years on Tuesday'.
The alarmists were predicting a hot dry summer with Perth in danger of running dry.
Heaps of publicity about their predictions, virtually none about their failures. Australia is a huge island continent about the same size as continental USA with the Pacific Ocean off the east & the Indian Ocean off the west. This is not some small isolated pocket. The Antarctic Sea Ice is normal for this time of year & the Arctic Ice is well ahead of the record low of 2006-7 & advancing rapidly. So, what is the panic?
Plausibility means nothing to the true believers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Plausibility means nothing to the true believers."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally? Is that why you're not willing to answer the most basic questions about the science? Are you afraid of how much it would reveal the implausibility of your point of view?
Tell me, if CO2 isn't the driver of the past four decades of warming, then what is? Let me save you some trouble: It's not the sun or cosmic rays.
What is your estimation of the overall climate sensitivity to CO2? What's the basis for your assessment?
"Australia is a huge island continent about the same size as continental USA with the Pacific Ocean off the east & the Indian Ocean off the west. This is not some small isolated pocket"
Which is why when you take that large area, you see that Australia, as a whole, has been trending upward in temperature. Surely you realize that the larger the area analyzed, the more representative of the statistical whole it's going to be, and since the Earth is warming, overall, the larger the area you look at, the more you'll see that area match that overall warming trend.
"the Arctic Ice is well ahead of the record low of 2006-7 & advancing rapidly. So, what is the panic?"
Some of us don't cherry pick the two or three year period that fits our point of view. The trend in Arctic sea ice for the past 30 years has still been very clearly downward.
If I were to do the same kind of cherry pick you're doing here, I could just as easily say "Oh no! Arctic Sea Ice is lower this year than it was in 2008!", but if you knew the first thing about what a trend was, you'd realize it isn't determined by drawing a line from two years of your choosing, which is basically your approach, because if that's all we had to do, I could easily show an up, down, or level trend.
Sea ice, like global temperatures, will fluctuate wildly all over the place; it's the nature of complex systems to show ample background noise. The trend, on the other hand, has been very clearly downward.
There are plenty of people with impecable credentials who have pointed out the errors in the claims made by the IPCC. Their EXPERTS lied & hid data as amply reported in the leaked emails(though many prefer to believe the other leaked emails but not the climategate ones).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is another little clue that I have posted before:
This from the head of the IPCC. How do you explain trash science like this?
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-03-14/coimbatore/28687815_1_harmony-green-drive-renewable-energy-sources
Given that human actions are increasingly interfering with the delicate balance of nature, natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes and tsunamis will occur more frequently, said Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, director general of TERI, and the chief of the inter-governmental panel on Climate Change.
There are numerous other sites you could visit & gain a more balanced view but of course you will not. Like asking a Muslim to study Catholicism. A good place to start would be: http://wattsupwiththat.com/ but of course you will not take the trouble to actually follow the debate, rather you & your ilk will seek out the ocassional error & dismiss everything else as a consequence. Very scientific & balanced. Not.
It's funny how you never once answered a single question I posed about your claim that CO2 wasn't responsible for the past four decades of warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're eager to make claims about the science, but then amply demonstrate that you don't actually have any evidence to back it up, so you resort to red herrings and ad hominem attacks, just like before.
It's rather amusing to see you accuse me of not taking a balanced approach to a science you clearly know absolutely nothing about. Do you honestly think I'm not familiar with Anthony Watts' arguments? Would it surprise you to know that I'm also very familiar with McKitrick and Mcintyre (Climate Audit), Roy Spencer (Drroyspencer.com), and Steve Milloy (junkscience.com)?
Don't forget Henrik Svensmark, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, David Evans, and Eigel Friis-Christensen. I'm familiar with all of them, and their arguments.
Honestly, how is it that you figure that I'm ignorant of what these people have to say just because I reject their faulty reasoning and conclusions? Is it possible that you're not only completely ignorant of climate science, as demonstrated by your inability to answer the most basic questions about it, but so arrogant as to believe that anyone who doesn't agree with your entirely baseless conclusions is, themselves, arrogant? How does reasoning like that even follow? Do you just consider your point of view to be axiomal, and therefore beyond actually requiring evidence?
"Given that human actions are increasingly interfering with the delicate balance of nature, natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes and tsunamis will occur more frequently, said Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, director general of TERI, and the chief of the inter-governmental panel on Climate Change"
You DO realize that humans have caused Earthquakes, right? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one; don't make me take it back. There's no way your THAT ignorant.
So what exactly what point are you trying to make?
Even if this statement was incorrect, you're characterizing an entire scientific community based on one scientist who isn't even IN the field of climatology. How is that even remotely relevant? Have I have cited Pachauri? No? Then clearly you're just trying to bring him up to try to divert the conversation away from your own ignorance.
"Their EXPERTS lied & hid data as amply reported in the leaked emails(though many prefer to believe the other leaked emails but not the climategate ones)."
Really? Which climategate emails? Quote them.
I showed Carlyle proof that "Climategate" was a huge, distracting, Nothingburger of a story and they dodged that question too. Climate Change denial seems more like a belief system and its adherents just totally ignore anything that disproves that system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone who believes the climategate mark 1 & 2 are not proof of fradulent behaviour by climate scientists is too delusional for me or anyone else to have any influence on, regardless of the evidence we provide. For those on the side who might still be wondering, check the emails yourselves at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/ I see nothing to be gained by me going through the process of linking or republishing these emails when they are all available at the above link.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Anyone who believes the climategate mark 1 & 2 are not proof of fradulent behaviour by climate scientists is too delusional for me or anyone else to have any influence on, regardless of the evidence we provide"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo let me see if I'm getting your statement right here:
What you're saying is that anyone who doesn't except your conclusion before your provide evidence won't except the evidence?
That's almost as illogical as everything else you've said.
And why are you linking to Anthony Watts' site for the emails? Do you REALLY know so little about climategate, that you don't realize that there are actual sites dedicated to the archival of all the emails, in their entirety?
Here, here's a website actually showing ALL of the emails, in their entirety, courtesy of someone who knows more than you: http://foia2011.org/
If the point of these emails was to foster understanding and promote honest debate, they would have all be released, right away.
Instead, the hackers release a few of the emails to stir up controversy, then wait for a climate summit, and release a few more. The political agenda is so transparent it isn't even funny.
And, of course, as with the first time, the emails being cited as the most egregious examples show nothing of note.
Want an example?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnthony Watts cites the following as an example of the terrible problems with MBH98:
"not to be a trouble maker but……if we are going to really get into the paleo stuff, maybe someone(s) ought to have another look at Mann’s paper. His statistics were suspect as i remember. for instance, i seem to remember he used, say, 4 EOFs as predictors. But he prescreened them and threw one away because it was not useful. then made a model with the remaining three, ignoring the fact he had originally considered 4 predictors. He never added an artifical skill measure to account for this but based significance on 3 predictors. Might not make any difference. My memory is probably faulty on these issues, but to be completely even handed we ought to be sure we agree with his procedures. best, tim"
That's from Tim Barnett
To Watts' credit he didn't pull the "hah! Dishonesty!" card, since nothing of the sort of being suggested by Barnett, but Watts does infer something else not supported by Barnett's email.
Watts says "It’s interesting how much evidence there is now that the Hockey Stick was known to be a problem. Perhaps readers can help collate a list of emails making this point."
But hold on, if Watts means emails like this, then there's a slight problem: this email isn't anything of the sort.
Barnett is offering what he admits is an entirely uncertain suggestions that Mann MAY have treated data in a certain way that MAY have affected the result.
What Watts conveniently neglects to mention is that other papers have already examined and upheld MBH98, such as Rutherford et al 2004.
If Watts REALLY had a problem with MBH98, he's publish a paper on it, but of course he doesn't, because he doesn't.
Now, are you actually going to discuss some science here, at some point, but showing that there's actually a factual basis for your point of view, or are you just going to dance around and avoid that topic?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf your assertion that the past four decades of warming haven't been caused by human CO2 contributions is actually based on some real science, then you can answer some basic questions about that science.
So? Can you or can't you?
You never contested my proof that "Climategate" was a huge, manufactured controversy. I'm posting the links again just so everybody here can know you're an intellectual coward:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/15589450
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/14/oxburgh-uea-cleared-malpractice
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/findings-muir-russell-review
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/02/michael-mann-cleared
So, how do you like them apples? Whenever you parrot "Climategate" hysteria, you are either not looking for all (or any) of the facts really, or you are purposefully ignoring the truth. If you don't respond to my sources, your intellectual cowardice will be confirmed.
It's certainly possible that these stories, and the investigations missed some sort of huge crime outlined in the Climategate emails.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not likely, but technically, it's possible, just as it's technically possible (if still unlikely) that Carlyle has emails that we don't know about or haven't addressed that Do show what he claims.
What really shows Carlyle for what he is is that even when he's given a perfectly fair chance to make that case, and directly asked to give examples of the emails that supposedly make his point, he can't directly quote any, not a single email.
Sure, he can link to Anthony Watts' error-laden, often dishonest website, and just say "this explains it all, and it's correct because I say so!", but isn't it remarkable that he, himself, hasn't once been able to present evidence himself?
They've had 2 years to comb through the released emails and nothing was found. These investigations were WAY more extensive than the deniers' investigation method: quote mining via word search. These inquiries looked at the emails the skeptics selectively quoted ad nauseum and found nothing wrong with the way climate scientists operated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, I agree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing of note was turned up by several investigations by several different groups, as well as analysis by countless individuals. Even those who claimed to how found conspiracy to destroy or distort evidence never had anything to show for those claims.
Even the most substantial claims, namely that CRU had been a little reticent about increasing the ease of access to some of their data (which was always available to anyone willing to purchase it the same way CRU did), turned out to be overblown, as we later found out Phil Jones had been working to secure rights to release the data they used from private meteorological firms.
And even of those particular claims had been more substantial, the data is completely available now, and no one has found problems with CRU's analysis, to say nothing for the fact that it always just agreed with other analyses, including NASA's (which is built on nothing but 100% publicly available GHCN data), and the new analysis by former skeptic Richard Muller.
In short, there was never a single, solitary finding that offered evidence of a lack of accuracy in the science being done.
The POINT, however, is that when Carlyle claimed otherwise, I gave him the chance to make his case, even knowing he probably couldn't.
I gave him the chance to make his case by asking him to cite specific emails, and he came out with absolutely nothing but a link to an Anthony Watts page, and no explanation as to why we should consider it valid.
It's abundantly clear that he doesn't actually know anything about the science, because he can't discuss it directly, himself, and is only capable of linking to other places, and blindly having faith that they DO know what they're talking about, because he lacks the knowledge to check what they have to say.
So you pair of clones would prefer that everyone take your word for it that all the climategate revelations mean nothing. Look for yourselves folk. Do not believe the preachers. What is more, when you see for yourselves what a scandalous ethic is involved it will help you judge the veracity of the posters who try to whitewash the behaviour of the scientists involved. Though I am sure most of you realise this already.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust in case you missed it: http://wattsupwiththat.com/
I am not going to cherry pick samples; if you are interested you will follow the links & read the actual emails. You do not need anyone to interpret them for you. I am sure my detractors will not mind you seeking the truth.
"So you pair of clones would prefer that everyone take your word for it that all the climategate revelations mean nothing"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou know, I haven't been on these comment sections for long, so I just have to ask: Is strawmanning a new argumentative tactic for you, or do you usually resort to it?
At no point have I said anything of the sort. In fact, I have challenged people to present evidence in these emails of what you claim. Anthony Watts hasn't, and clearly you can't either.
So tell me, can you actually discuss the science at some point, or are you going to contiue dancing around with these red herrings?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not surprising that you'd continue harping on the climategate emails, if a discussion of global warming itself is simply beyond you.
The fact that you call my links Red Herrings is sufficient to tell me you have a closed mind on the subject so what is the point?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo the answer is no, you can't actually discuss climate yourself. So if you don't know enough to even discuss the subject, what use is your point of view, since it's clearly not based on an actual understanding of the topic?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd it's your argument, and your use of the climategate emails to dodge all of my questions for you about the science that's a red herring, not the link itself.
I would have thought that you'd at least be intelligent enough to gather that.
It's ironic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor all your accusations of closed-mindedness that you direct at others, it seems the only one with a closed mind here is you.
The rest of us UNDERSTAND the topic. The rest of us are willing to DISCUSS the topic.
You are not willing to discuss the topic.
How is it that you accuse others of intractability when you're not even willing to discuss the topic at hand?
You are either a new convert to the site or using a new screen name. I have previously discussed these things on numerous strings & no longer bother trying to debate the same things with new posters who show by their responses that they are only interested in shutting down contra evidence. I'll give you a clue. Google: Scientific American comments Carlyle. You might like to check http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=atlantic-hurricane-season-active-more-us-landfall
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat happened to all the storms? This is the sort of garbage I rail against. Any chance of a follow up article saying, predictions fail,again. Not likely.
Save me a lot of writing. Check enough of them & if it is important to you your re education will inevitably follow:)
My "re-education"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to tell you, what you lack in ability to discuss simple concepts, you nearly make up for in seething arrogance.
Contrary to your claims about me, the simple fact is that you have no idea how I'll react to any given argument, because you haven't once presented an argument for me to respond to, which makes this little more than a sorry excuse.
I've asked you a few simple questions. If you've already answered them, then specifically link to where. It's not my job to make your case for you. That said, I was actually gracious enough to look for your comments, finding them here
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=massive-fraud-uncovered-in-work
and here
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/11/29/are-the-durban-climate-talks-or-climate-talks-in-general-doomed/#add-comment
You didn't say a single thing of substance. In fact, you actually ignored posters who asked you for citations and specific evidence.
So can you show something of substance, or can't you?
As for the hurricane article, it's funny how you show that as some sort of great scientific aptitude on your part when you not only scarcely make an argument, but then don't even respond to the poster below you who clearly contradicts your statement with a specific fact.
But that's neither here nor there, and I wouldn't want to give you yet another tangent to focus on to avoid discussing the topic at hand.
If you're willing to show where you've actually said something intelligent, then I will give it full consideration.
In fact, had you done that already, instead of making your entire argument nothing but ad hominem attacks and red herrings, we would probably have had a nice, civil discussion.
So can you offer a shred of scientific evidence to back up the claims about the theory of global warming that you made here, or can't you?
The Earth has heated to higher temperatures than the present, long before man had an industrial influence. On numerous occasions the heating was followed by increases in CO2, not preceded. Despite dramatic increases in CO2, the past ten years have not shown an increase in temperature above the long term average. I am not disputing that man has some influence. I dispute the degree & also the consequences. Past eras of higher temperature ushered in greater extent of arable land & denser vegetation, not less, why the alarmism? Higher temperatures at the polar latitudes will result in fewer not greater numbers & less ferocity of cyclones & hurricanes. For the reason consult heat engines & the Carnot cycle. The vast majority of those who espouse the AGW theory are also adamantly apposed to nuclear energy. If the situation is so dire, why is this so? I am also in favour of progressively phasing out fossil fuelled power generation as nuclear power comes on line. Coal & gas are far too valuable to be squandered in such a way as well as adding genuinely harmful pollutants, including more radioactive elements than a comparable nuclear plant, to the atmosphere. By the way. Where are those storms? As I said in that article, sooner or later such predictions will be correct & lauded as proof of theory. All the failures are quietly forgotten.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou still haven't answered my questions, but at least this is discussion. That's all I've ever asked.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The Earth has heated to higher temperatures than the present, long before man had an industrial influence"
No argument there. Climatic changes, subtle and disastrous alike have occurred without our help. How does that preclude humans causing a climate change?
Earthquakes occur without our help, too, but we've still caused them by altering fault characteristic.
"On numerous occasions the heating was followed by increases in CO2, not preceded"
Again, no dispute there. CO2 is acting as a feedback during the interglacial periods, not a forcing.
I'm sure you understand basic chemistry, so this process shouldn't surprise you: Warming (generally believed to be caused by Milankovich cycles) is triggered, and as the oceans warm, they release CO2, as water holds less dissolved CO2 as it warms, which, in turn, causes more warming. This is why modest changes in orbit are able to cause 10C changes in temperature. No one has ever explained the interglacial periods without a strong CO2 influence in this feedback.
Would it surprise you that the very same climatologists who are at the forefront of global warming PREDICTED the CO2 lag before it was found in the ice core data?
The predicting paper was Lorious et al, 1990 (http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2003Q4/211/articles_required/Lorius90_ice-core.pdf), where they state that CO2 and methane act as a feedback to amplify a weak orbital forcing.
"I dispute the degree"
Then answer my basic questions. What do believe the CO2 forcing and sensitivity is, why, and how do you explain the past four decades of warming, if not with increased CO2?
"Despite dramatic increases in CO2, the past ten years have not shown an increase in temperature above the long term average"
Do you not realize I already addressed this, in response to you?
You should read more closely.
The reason global temperature has, on the whole, held more or less stead since 2005 is because of a combination of the ENSO forcing plummeting and because we've been at the Solar Nadir (the low point in the sun's 11-year cycle).
In fact, you're actually making my point for me, as I already said.
The very fact that the Earth's temperature held steady, on the whole (fluctuating down and up a bit), while there was a massive drop in some forcings (ENSO and solar), shows that other forcings must have been increasing to compensate.
So you tell me: If not CO2, what is this mystery forcing that's been keeping us warm?
ARE YOU BLIND? I'm not asking ANYBODY to take my word for it! I posted the results of the major inquiries into the "Climate" nontroversy and let people decide for themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is YOU who wants the readers here to take your word for it as you provide ZERO proof of your arguments. Since you don't even bother to LOOK at the evidence I post, I now know that you're a disengenuous debater, more interested in hearing yourself talk than in any actual evidence. Well, I'll still be here so that you don't get away with spreading your lies as much as I can help it.
"The vast majority of those who espouse the AGW theory are also adamantly apposed to nuclear energy."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany environmental groups fit this statement, but these arn't scientists, nor do they have a particular understanding of science.
Would it surprise you to learn that I'm wildly in favor of nuclear power?
U235 is a stop-gap in many ways, sure. Thorium fission, however, may well solve the world's energy problems, and if it doesn't, a small US Navy project called Polywell, a plasma confinement scheme for fusion, will.
None of this, however, has anything to do with what the laws of physics in question are.
"By the way. Where are those storms? As I said in that article, sooner or later such predictions will be correct & lauded as proof of theory. All the failures are quietly forgotten."
It's clear that you never actually interact with the people who do this work; I do.
Regardless of how the press treats it, which is not my concern (I'm not a journalist), SCIENTISTS treat failures very seriously, because learning why a prediction failed allows for huge advances in the science.
I don't think the science is anywhere near the level required to actually accurately predict weather; it's massively improved, but I wouldn't bet money on it.
Likewise, if some scientist tried to say how much the Earth was going to warm by year X, I'd put no stock in it.
But that's not what scientists are saying. Scientists only make predictions of how the Earth will respond to a given climatic forcing, not what the forcing will be. The latter would require the ability to tell the future, and no one can do that.
Tomorrow, an asteroid may strike, or a massive methane release might warm our planet by 20 degrees, or the Chinese economy might collapse.
No scientist has any clue what the future of climate influences will be, nor do they claim to.
The only thing they claim is that if we insert X forcing, the planet will react with Y change for temperature and hydrology (the former being much better understood than the latter).
So, in the end, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying the scientists can't predict the future, or that small-scale features are difficult, if not impossible to extrapolate in complex and emergent systems?
I'd wholly agree, but that has nothing to do with knowing the rough impact a given influence will have.
I don't have to be able to tell you what next year's hurricanes will do to be able to tell you the basic physical reaction to the planet from an increase in solar output, or aerosols, or a greenhouse gas.
"I dispute the ...consequences. Past eras of higher temperature ushered in greater extent of arable land & denser vegetation, not less, why the alarmism?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou don't know this, but my field is ecology (I'm presently finishing up my undergrad degree and preparing for graduate school).
This question is specifically within my purview.
To answer your question, it's not a matter of magnitude; it's a matter of rate.
Take the Younger Dryas; it was't the biggest climatic change ever. In fact, it was no larger than the change in a normal glacial period, but it caused MASSIVE extinctions, and nearly wiped out the human civilization that existed at the time, Clovis Culture. Rate made it deadly, not overall magnitude.
The world certainly can be warmer, and honestly, not only would no one care, but as you say, it would be great in some ways. Had Antarctica not drifted to the South Pole, cooling the Earth with a large albedo change, the world would be a much more inhospitable place, in some ways, than it is today.
The problem isn't that we're warming the planet, it's that we're warming the planet so fast, that there's no time to adapt to the change, and if that warming accelerates, it'll exacerbate that problem.
Ecologically, the results have already been notable, even with the modest nature of recent warming.
American Pikas are dying because they can't climb high enough in their mountain habitats to outrun the warming, arctic foxes are being squeezed out, 2/3 of all harlequin frogs are already extinct, believe me, this would be a long list if I went on.
Forget sea level rise (even as it costs my home state millions), or changes in hydrology for growing, or even the possibility of increased storms (we still don't know if storm frequency/intensity is or isn't linked to climate on these scales), whether out of an intrinsic respect or life, or merely concern for your own civilization, the real impact here is ecological. Global warming isn't a problem because the planet is warming; the biggest problem is that it's exacerbating what's already a massive environmental crisis, and as massive declines occur in the biodiversity that keeps serious pests at bey, and keeps stable the massive chemical processes that keep you fed (among other things), and as favorable climate for growing shifts to areas not historically ecologically suited to it, the problem will become as much ours as that of any other species.
In some ways, it already is. I'm sure you noted the paper I cited earlier showing a decrease in crop yields because of warming.
Edit: "the world would be a much more inhospitable place" should read "the world would be a much more hospitable place"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe American Pikas are more susceptible to habitat loss & the introduction of roads & grazing animals. AGW is blamed for everything. Not one of your lecturers would be a true sceptic. Someone who asks probing questions of mainstream opinion. They do you a disservice. There was a scare campaign claiming a decline in Polar Bears. They were put on the endangered list. In fact the population is increasing. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAustralia’s Great Barrier Reef continues to thrive despite years of predictions of its immanent demise. The leaked emails reveal that this is a deliberate tactic to target iconic things in different areas & predict alarming outcomes.
The extinctions that occurred during the Younger Dryas period are blamed on increased temperatures by some scientists who link everything to global warming with very little supporting evidence. So long as two events occur during the same geological time they ascribe the blame for one on the other.
There has been a worldwide decline in the amphibian population & the greatest cause has been the spread of the chytrid fungus. Humans well may have been partly responsible as the spore can be carried by footwear & clothing including on scientific expeditions.
Food production worldwide is in fact up.
These are among the highlights of the latest issue of FAO's quarterly Crop Prospects and Food Situation report published on December 8. The report confirmed a record level of world cereal production of 2 323 million tons for 2011. Although marginally lower than October's estimate, this represents a 3.5 percent increase on 2010 production. http://www.sofiaecho.com/2011/12/09/1356336_global-food-prices-steady-in-november-2011-fao
Lastly, I wish you well in your studies. You can not rock the boat by asking awkward questions as you will soon find out if you try, until you graduate & only then if you find employment somewhere not beholden to anyone for funding. I have had two of my children graduate in the last few years. They were both punnished during their studies for questioning what they were being taught. One teacher claimed that America tested nuclear weapons in the Australian desert in the 1950s killing thousands of Aboriginies. Great Britain tested nuclear weapons here but no one was killed. This was pure anti Americanism. I stepped in & demanded a retraction to be told, “Oh well, they bombed Japan.” Do not believe everything you are taught.
I have not had time to respond to your earlier posts, 48 & 50 (There was some static at 50)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am running a small business & being a one finger typist with appalling spelling, it takes me a lot of time & spell checking to respond to multiple points. Also I am posting on a number of other sites. I will make some responses in the next hour or so but as it is 9.30 PM where I live (Friday) & I am going to my wilderness property over the weekend, no phone, internet etc it will probably be at least 48 hours before I am back in front of my computer.
I am sorry I had you lumped in with the static.
Many if not all of the points you raise I have commented on previously, most recently on the lack of Cyclones & Hurricanes contrary to predictions by many. Many things I comment on are from personal knowledge & experience that I can not link to. You do gain some personal experience when you have been in the workforce for nearly seventy years working in numerous fields from farming & bee keeping. Which over that span of time you get to experience a great range of weather & notice things like when vegetation flowers & the variations observed over that time of seasons starting early or late. Also for example I was a solar researcher for seven years back in the ‘80s. As a matter of fact I was quite famous for one of my developments. I will not go into details because I value my privacy. Anyway one of the areas I conducted research on was heat engines of various kinds. Turbines, steam Stirling & Rankin cycle in particular. One of the imperatives in this research is a thorough understanding of the Carnot Cycle. May I encourage you to do a little research on this? Basically it shows the theoretical potential & limitations of any heat engine.
Storms are heat engines. They, like all other heat engines rely on temperature differentials, not the actual temperature. Witness the huge storm on frigid Jupiter. As the earth warms, it is the latitudes away from the equator that are warming most, reducing the temperature differentials & resultant power of storms. This is a simplified explanation but it in fact reinforces the notion that the earth is warming if major storms become less frequent but it does not fit the alarmist’s agenda.
There are other points you raise that I will get to. By the way, you will find I am open to discuss things but seldom prepared to take claims at face value. Question, question, question if you want to arrive at an approximation of truth.
Yes, humans have caused minor earthquakes from drilling etc in very localised areas but not catastrophic, tsunami causing marine earthquakes many kilometers deep in the earth crust. Ironically, the greatest potential danger is from fracking very deep geothermal rocks according to some reports I have read.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe CO2 argument & explanations proffered for the failure of global warming to track the increased atmospheric concentration of CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen ever the predictive models fail, arguments are put forward to try & explain the results away rather than looking seriously at the model. One of the first get out clauses was to change the title from AGW to climate change. Can’t lose with that one. I have read all sorts of incredible excuses. Carbon particles are reflecting the heat away, less heat from the sun even though the idea that perhaps some other solar force could be varying & is affecting Earth’s climate is rejected. Perhaps via cloud formation or some other as yet not understood mechanism on earth is affecting temperatures. Carbon particles at the poles are also blamed for absorbing heat & melting the ice by the way. Another each way bet. Oceans are both becoming more acidic yet yielding up more CO2 due to temperature increase. Another two way bet. So long as humans are to blame. I do not believe CO2 is the culprit. Simply because there was a brief spike in global temperature that coincided with increases in CO2 measured in parts per million does not prove anything as far as I am concerned. I have read all the arguments but remain unconvinced. Water has by far the greatest affect on our weather & I believe the answer to the temperature variations we experience will turn out to be much more to do with water in its various phases coupled with some other phenomena rather than CO2. There have been periods in the Earth’s history when CO2 levels were much higher without correspondingly high temperatures.
"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
Now I know there are counter arguments for this but again, I remain unconvinced. Do not be too quick to dismiss Plimner just because his arguments run counter to yours or your lecturers.
Well that will do me. Even old fellows need some sleep. 11.30 PM local.
Hey, aerosols and low solar activity are the ONLY things keeping us from swift and brutal global warming. Just because you don't like an explanation doesn't mean it's wrong. And carbon black particles sticking to highly-reflective ice are helping to melt glaciers, especially in Asia and the Arctic. More reason to kick the coal habit! As soon as our aerosol emissions start decreasing and the next solar cycle picks up, the climate will start changing faster than most scientists can envision.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou speculate on what MIGHT be other explanations for climate change besides CO2, but if you speculate in one hand and spit in the other, which one will fill up first? Where are the scientific papers where you find these alternate explanations? Which scientists are writing them? How do they explain the huge swings in climate in Earth's past that you like to bring up all the time without a high climate sensitivity figure? The Earth's climate doesn't care what is forcing it, only the magnitude of the forcing matters. Saying that the climate has changed dramatically in the past is highlighting the high climate sensitivity of the Earth's climate system.
You are spitting into the wind. It is all over your face:)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.ipa.org.au/publications/1964/a-history-of-scientific-alarms
Well, heavy rain most of the night with more predicted so trip to the bush is off.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, the static I was referring to was post 49 not 50.
You said: The reason global temperature has, on the whole, held more or less stead since 2005 is because of a combination of the ENSO forcing plummeting and because we've been at the Solar Nadir (the low point in the sun's 11-year cycle).
That acceptance is not widely held by most bloggers on this site whom I have previously refered to as Diodes. Only half the wave gets through. Diodes are for one way trafic. Only things that bolster their cause are admitted. Mostly, I do not bother to debate such people though I might taunt them sometimes. Yes, I am arragant sometimes too.
So, that acceptance & your position on nuclear encouraged me to enter a debate with you. Latest results show that the cooling continues by the way despite a 5% increase in CO2 emissions last year, furthering my scepticism of a link.
I am a severe critic of the IPCC. Here are some of the reasons why: http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mckitrick-ipcc_reforms.pdf
Other strings where I have engaded in a little debate recently that might interest you: http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mckitrick-ipcc_reforms.pdf
Mostly CO2 related. I made an error which I conceeded re the 5% increase last yr.
Two link rule blocked this link:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=energy-storage-role-in-electric-grid
Re energy storage.
How do you explain the BEST results from Dr. Richard Muller? Didn't Anthony Watts say he'd shut the heck up about "there's no warming" if they came back and determined that there has? Are we even looking at the same reality here?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApologies for the delay; I had finals
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"American Pikas are more susceptible to habitat loss & the introduction of roads & grazing animals. AGW is blamed for everything"
Really, what paper says that? I've read a considerable amount of the scientific literature on this species, and I have never once encountered the claim that all extirpations of them correlates solely with these factors.
As it turns out, there actually are more recent papers that have stirred up new debate on the extent of climatic impacts on this species (by the very scientists you repeatedly baselessly accuse of being incapable of challenging orthodoxy), but it's not for the reasons you cite, which means I seriously doubt you're getting this information from the scientific literature.
"Not one of your lecturers would be a true sceptic. Someone who asks probing questions of mainstream opinion. They do you a disservice"
Really? You must know a lot about my lecturers, then. Tell me, what are their names? What are their fields? What recent papers have they published?
Clearly you must know these things if you're that familiar with my professors.
"There was a scare campaign claiming a decline in Polar Bears. They were put on the endangered list. In fact the population is increasing. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html"
If you're going to post articles, you should stick to people who don't know vastly less than I do; I'll be inclined to take them more seriously.
Brooker's obvious lack of any knowledge of science, despite and his seething lack of objectivity aside, if he knew the first thing about polar bears, he'd realize the increases are due to bans on their hunting, which was devastating their numbers, and has nothing to do with whether climate is threatening their habitat or not. The "expert" he's citing, if he's anything of the sort, already knows and realizes this, but ignorant of science as ever, Brooker obviously does not, and sadly, you apparently didn't either.
And if he actually bothered to LOOK at arctic ice trends, which have steadily declined for 30 years, he'd see that his comments from Watts are little more than a class cherry pick. Like global temperature, arctic ice is subject to background fluctuations, but the trend has still been very clearly downward.
I suspect Brooker's expert probably knows this, too, but it's clearly a fact lost on Brooker.
Again, please do quote articles, but don't insult my intelligence by quoting from ignorant non-scientists.
“Australias Great Barrier Reef continues to thrive”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally? What research supports this?
Not the 2004 paper by Bellwood et al, which shows sharp increases in bleaching since 1980, moderate increases in crown of thorns starfish outbreaks since the 1960s, and decreasing coral cover, a conclusion backed by other papers (Sweatman et al 2011; Hughes et al 2011).
“leaked emails reveal that this is a deliberate tactic to target iconic things in different areas”
Of course you're going to cite the most egregious examples when outlining a problem. Can you cite a single email that suggests something dishonest?
“The extinctions that occurred during the Younger Dryas period are blamed on increased temperatures by some scientists who link everything to global warming with very little supporting evidence.”
You're actually just assuming this about the scientists, and actually have no clue about the Younger Dryas.
How do I know?
Because the Younger Dryas wasn't a warming event; it was a cooling event. Why do you presume to comment on research you've never looked at?
What am I supposed to conclude about the fact that you're willing to lob accusations at scientists over research on a topic you don't even know the first thing about? Does this not show a lack of objectivity on your part?
“There has been a worldwide decline in the amphibian population & the greatest cause has been the spread of the chytrid fungus”
If you read the scientific literature, you'd know that multiple papers have linked range increases of the fungus to increasing minimum temperatures, showing that frogs in many areas were influenced to the degree necessary for extinction in multiple independent areas, ONLY after temperatures had risen for multiple consecutive years (Laurence 2008, Pounds et al 2006), and more papers still have identified temperature as a source of stress that can exacerbate stresses such as influence of pathogens (Collins 2010, Laurence et al 2011). There's still debate on the exact nature of impacts, for example a 2010 paper by Bustamante et al shows frogs actually survive shorter periods of time after exposure in cooler environments (which is separate from the pathogen's distribution), but there isn't a single paper which rules out climatic influences. All research is up for debate, but if we took all the papers together, one would expect frogs to survive chytrid fungus slightly longer in a warmer environment, but be greatly more at risk of exposure in the first place, and be already subject to increased stress from climatic influences.
“Food production worldwide is in fact up”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhether outside factors have increased food production has nothing to do with whether climate influences production, especially when it sould be easy, at this point, to override the impacts of the very modest climatic changes observed thus far. Will that continue if warming accelerates?
No matter what we do to increase yields, and we've worked near wonders, no matter how much food we grow, it will be less than it would be without a changing climate.
I encourage you to actually read this year's paper by Lobell et al. I think you'd see that the yield response to climatic changes is quite large.
“only then if you find employment somewhere not beholden to anyone for funding“
You mean like Roy Spencer? Henrik Svensmark? Eigel Friis-Christensen? Tim Ball? Ian Plimer? Fred Singer? Richard Muller?
Every single one of these people authored skeptical work, starkly against what you imply to be some intractable, inviolable global warming dogma, on the public dime.
Why were these people publicly funded to do work questioning the theory of AGW if that's correct?
And Richard Muller, dear old Richard Muller... if people only back AGW, some faulty theory that's forced on scientists the world over by public funding, why was he a skeptic on public funding, and then had research that basically was contrary to his skepticism after his funding became largely private?
Public employees question AGW at will, and get PLENTY of funding to do so. Do you have any idea how many papers Richard Lindzen ALONE has published just in the past ten years? TWENTY THREE. Clearly Lindzen is getting *plenty* of funding.
How can he be getting plenty of funding, and be easily publishing his papers in the most prominent journals, if, according to conspiracy theorists, BOTH the public funding organizations and the “IPCC gate keepers” should be trying to stop him?
The answer is that tot only is there no evidence of this claim, but it's starkly in contrast to the facts of the matter. As as their numbers dwindle, skeptics get funded and published all the time, so where is this imaginary pressure?
“You can not rock the boat by asking awkward questions as you will soon find out if you try“
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell that's funny, because I've already done just that, on more than one occasion. Just recently, our textbook on evolutionary biology, written by a personal friend of the professor, was discussing ecology and identified mountain lions as the species “panthera concolor”. Now, feline taxonomy is presently a subject for enormous debate, and has undergone many recent changes to make the tree monophyletic, but the case was rather clear. Genetically, the species is closest to the jaguarundi, and after that, the cheetah, a distinctly different lineage. They also don't roar like the members of Panthera, don't fit the anatomical proportions (they're closer to members of felis in that regard), and are capable of purring, unlike members of the Panthera genus.
I was right, the hand-picked textbook the professor chose was wrong, and it was conceded without so much as a debate, because my case was clear. Later, I'll probably email Doug Futuyma and inform him of the error; it will be interesting to see whether he accepts the error, or presents evidence of his own, though I'm doubtful of the latter, since the species is fairly well agreed to be Puma concolor.
Regardless, I have corrected textbooks and instructors alike on numerous occasions, on big and small issues alike, and they have accepted those corrections.
“Do not believe everything you are taught”
Science isn't taught; it's demonstrated, sometimes mathematically, usually empirically.
When my evolutionary biology professor asserts that advanced cynodonts evolved from early amniotes, he doesn't simply claim it, he shows the series of fossils that demonstrates the gradation in jaw configuration, a gradation for which there's an impressively robust record, then he shows a comparison with the phylogenetic relationships to show the extent to which it agrees. Then he shows the limitations of the analyses, and the issues to be resolved in the science.
“Storms are heat engines. They, like all other heat engines rely on temperature differentials, not the actual temperature. Witness the huge storm on frigid Jupiter. As the earth warms, it is the latitudes away from the equator that are warming most, reducing the temperature differentials & resultant power of storms. This is a simplified explanation but it in fact reinforces the notion that the earth is warming if major storms become less frequent but it does not fit the alarmists agenda. ”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcept that you're absolutely grossly OVERsimplifying, if not outright misrepresenting the dynamics of hurricanes.
You're also completely ignoring the observed trends. If your hypothesis were correct, at worst, hurricanes would hold steady in intensity, and at some point would stop dropping. Instead, the number of highly intense hurricanes (category 4/5) has been on an increasing trend since 1970, and the ONLY factor that has been found to correlate are SSTs. This positive correlation has been reported in paper after paper after paper (From 2005 alone, I can find such papers by Webster et al, Trenberth, Emanual, Landsea, and Hoyos et al).
Why is this correlation positive, instead of negative, or even nonexistent?
Further, contrary to your assertion, climate scientists HAVE NOT been claiming definitive links between climate change and storm intensity, merely possible links. A few individuals, here or there, mostly if not exclusively non-scientists, have certainly made such claims, but what a few whacked out alarmists have to say has nothing to do with what the scientists themselves are saying, namely that no one knows exactly how climate does or doesn't affect storms, and certainly not with any certainty.
If you think these climate scientists themselves are being alarmist, then show me where, in their published papers, they have made such claims.
“Yes, humans have caused minor earthquakes from drilling etc in very localised areas but not catastrophic, tsunami causing marine earthquakes many kilometers deep in the earth crust”
You entirely missed the point I was making (which actually had nothing to do with Earthquakes) :(
“The CO2 argument & explanations proffered for the failure of global warming to track the increased atmospheric concentration of CO2. When ever the predictive models fail...”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhoa, whoa, whoa, now hold on.
I want you so show me a climate model, ANYWHERE, that claims that temperature will ONLY correlate to CO2. In fact, I'd settle for you finding me even a single climate scientist claiming this, and I know you can't, because NO ONE has EVER made that claim.
Temperature has varied for all sorts of reasons. In the 1920s and 30s, the sun was largely propelling higher temperatures; from the 40s to the 70s, a massive spike in aerosols caused a full thirty year cooling trend.
In 1991, Mount Pinatubo caused an enormous cooling spree for about two years.
What you are doing here is basically a desperate strawman. Temperatures have *trended* upward for about 40 years, with year-to-year fluctuations all over the place, all the way to 2005-2006. What you're doing is taking a little tiny fluctuation and screaming “Hey, the temperature didn't ALWAYS go up, and didn't ALWAYS trend ONLY with CO2! That means AGW theory must be wrong!”
Really? I mean, really? You seem intelligent enough that I surely don't have to explain why this argument is downright mind-numbingly inane.
Frankly, you're not just insulting my intelligence with this argument; you're insulting YOUR intelligence, and making yourself look a lot less educated than you obvious are. You do yourself a disservice.
Large fluctuations in temperature fit perfectly with the established models, so long as there are large fluctuations in the forcings, which is exactly what we see.
If you're claiming that the explanation scientists offer for this particular fluctuation aren't sound, then that means what you're really claiming is that the ENSO and solar forcings aren't big enough to affect climate, because they obviously dipped down heavily, and you reject that particular causation.
So tell me, if these aren't strong forcings, why do even the skeptics say they are? Roy Spencer identifies an ENSO-induced spike in temperature on the UAH graph on his very website.
And tell me, why was 1998 such a hot year if ENSO isn't a strong climatic influence?
“One of the first get out clauses was to change the title from AGW to climate change”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, that's just a classic strawman created by people looking desperately for anything to lob against scientists.
In fact, the phrase “climatic change” has been used since the 19th century, long before “global warming” and “climate change” was used since the early 1950s, 1952 as far as I can tell (“Odds on the Weather”, Time Magazine, Vol. 61 Issue 7, p60). “Global Warming” was also a phrase of the 1950s, with 1950 being the earliest reference I find in literature.
You act as if the claim “climate change” is some new phrase. Now, aside from the fact that this is a desperate and meaningless argument, as it doesn't matter what scientists call something, the simple fact is that this claim of your is completely and absolutely false.
“the idea that perhaps some other solar force could be varying & is affecting Earths climate is rejected”
So is the idea that Earth's recent climate is being affected by unicorns, or Santa Clause, and it's no wonder, since they have just as much evidence as the solar hypothesis.
Surely you know that this has been investigated to death. The sun was one of the first things examined as a possible cause to recent climate change, especially given its role in only-slightly less recent climatic changes. Some of the best-known papers in the field are on this topic (see Friis-Christensen, 1991), and when it became clear that there was no correlation (Laut, 2003), it was no longer considered a likely cause.
So what's your point? It was investigated thoroughly and no correlation exists.
Don't take my word for it, look at the TSI trends yourself: http://www.pmodwrc.ch/tsi/composite/pics/comp06_d41_62_1111.png
Can you correlate the trend in TSI to the trend in temperature since measurements began? Of course you can't. So what's your point?
“Perhaps via cloud formation”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis has also been thoroughly investigated. I suggest you read up on Henrik Svensmark's research if you aren't aware of that.
Of course, since TSI isn't increasing, one way or the other, I still don't know what correlation you expect to find with global temperature, no matter what mechanism you want to attribute it to.
You act as if scientists just assumed CO2 was the cause, and haven't looked at anything else, when that's basically entirely backwards. CO2-induced warming was fairly well established before temperatures even started going up in any meaningful sense, but when they did, all possible mechanisms were exhaustively investigated, and contrary to this gross misrepresentation of scientists that you offer, the consensus is, in fact, that CO2 is only one of many factors that have been responsible for our recent climatic history, and only since about 1970, and even since 1970, money has been given to exhaustively research even possibly alternative cause.
“Carbon particles at the poles are also blamed for absorbing heat & melting the ice by the way”
Which is entirely consistent with known science. What's your point?
“Oceans are both becoming more acidic yet yielding up more CO2 due to temperature increase”
Actually, no.
You're conflating two different processes, from two different periods on history.
In the paleoclimate record, orbital forcings caused warming that in turn caused a CO2 release from the oceans. Today, we're just injecting CO2 into the atmosphere, so oceanic CO2 is going up, not down.
Even then, there's more to the process of ocean Ph and CO2 regulation, but the detains aren't important. What's important is that the ocean doesn't have just one mode of behavior, and you can't conflate two entirely different processes. For the time being, and for the forseeable future, the ocean is taking in net CO2, not releasing it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“I do not believe CO2 is the culprit. Simply because there was a brief spike in global temperature that coincided with increases in CO2 measured in parts per million does not prove anything as far as I am concerned”
Nor does it as far as anyone else is concerned. The climate sensitivity and CO2 forcing are something that had to be worked out, first very roughly with simple models, and then more accurately as it was constrained with observations (see Annan and Hargreaves' 2006 paper on the subject for an example).
“Water has by far the greatest affect on our weather & I believe the answer to the temperature variations we experience will turn out to be much more to do with water in its various phases coupled with some other phenomena rather than CO2”
I won't debate what does and doesn't affect our weather, since this is a debate on climate. I assume you're familiar with the distinction between the two.
As for water's effect on climate, it's a very powerful feedback, and enhances warming or cooling from other influences, but is not an ultimate causation for temperature changes. Water vapor content only varies with atmospheric temperature, because its residence time (only a few days) is far too short for it to act as a forcing. There's nothing that could simply add water to the atmosphere and war the Earth, because the content would re-normalize within a week or two (orders of magnitude too small to create a long-term temperature response).
Response of water vapor to temperature was tested in a 2002 paper by Soden et al.
“If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, the CO2 levels were anywhere from 2400 to 9000 ppmv, according to Plimer's own source, and the expected values for glaciation lie within those values; you can't just pick whatever value you like from within a margin of error and decree it exactly correct.
Believe me, science would be a LOT easier if we could, but we call them margins of error for a reason.
Further, as I already stated, no one has ever claimed that CO2 is the only forcing involved. Temperature has never, and will never correlate exclusively with CO2, and bringing this up is a desperate argument and a red herring that tangents away from the point at hand, because temperature doesn't correlate with ANY single climatic forcing.
To get away from that particular tangent, and back on point, what's important is that temperature only correlates with the SUM of the forcings if a strong CO2 influence is included among them. Without that, all explanatory power over temperature evaporates into nothing, and yet, with that strong force, suddenly every single thing climate does makes perfect sense, provided you don't strawman the science by claiming anyone is saying it's the only influence involved.
In short, the Ordivician, beaten to death as it is, is no more mysterious under the current understanding of climate than it was before I began this conversation, and I don't imagine it'll become mysterious tomorrow either.
The sooner self-proclaimed skeptics drop it and find a real argument, the sooner a real discussion can be had.
“Now I know there are counter arguments for this but again, I remain unconvinced”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell that's wonderful, but I'm sure you know that's not an argument.
“I have read all the arguments but remain unconvinced”
Let me level with you for a second here. If there's one thing that's clear from talking with you, it's that you have most certainly NOT “read all the arguments”.
I'm not saying you're ignorant, clearly you have some knowledge of this subject, but you use a lot of very trite and simplistic arguments that even most of the educated skeptics really don't bother to touch, because they're just that, and tantamount to a creationist claiming there's no transitional forms in the fossils, or that snail shells don't give accurate carbon dating results.
It seems clear to me that you don't really spend a lot of time reading the scientific literature on this subject, and actually following what climate scientists have to say. That's fine; it's not a crime to not follow the scientific literature on every topic. I don't follow it on 99.999% of the topics out there, and I have better access than most (basically everything a year after publishing).
But if you're not going to even follow the scientific literature, then it makes it a bit silly to pretend to have an all-encompassing knowledge, which not even the scientists themselves have as individuals. I know many climatologists who know far more than you do, and often far more than I do, but when I study under a dendroecologist who's published climate research is in the area of paleoclimate, I know he's no expert on, say, the PDO or ENSO. If he isn't, then you CERTAINLY are not. Neither am I, but I admit that fact.
In fact, let me take that a step further: I'm pretty sure I'm more familiar with this science than you are by a fair bit, as, at the very least, I clearly read a lot more of the literature than you do, and I can safely say that if there was really some grand conspiracy to hide fraudulent science, and it was big enough to encompass the millions of points of data across many thousands of papers, over A HUNDRED AND TWENTY YEARS of science, that they could easily take the time to write the flaws into mechanics a lot deeper than I would be able to see it in. This applies no less to you. Don't fall to hubris and think that some layman knowledge, if pretty decent layman knowledge, qualifies you as an expert. You should still be skeptical, but don't think for a second that you know half as much as these people do. I know; I interact with them on a daily basis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo let me see if I can more or less synthesize everything you've said here; I think this is a fair parsing:
-You're sure the scientists are lying about the Younger Dryas, but you don't even know what the Younger Dryas is, or even what said scientists have to say about it
-You're sure something other than CO2 is driving recent climate changes, but you can't name a single plausible alternative (and what you do suggest shows a lack of basic knowledge on what's been investigated)
-You're sure CO2 isn't a strong forcing, but you can't even give an estimate for how weak it is, let alone reasoning behind the number
-You frequently accuse scientists of saying things diametrically opposite to the things they actually say in their literature they publish to the public
Look, you don't buy into the notion of anthropogenic global warming, and for the purposes of this discussion, that's fine; everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
That said, can you see why I, or anyone with a science background, would have a hard time agreeing with this point of view? It's basically a glorified way of saying “I don't agree, but don't have any contrary evidence or alternative hypotheses”.
Can you understand why I'd have trouble accepting that point of view?
Yes but I do not wish to be rude:)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for responding. Give it another 50 years & if your memory is still holding up you will be embarrassed by how you were conned. Do you know anything about The Robe?
basically it is an attempt to describe The Holy Trinity, Father, Son & Holy Ghost. One fabric but folded into three. I do not swallow that either, yet millions of highly educated people do. The same thing happens in science. People get blinded by what they perceive is the light. I do not pretend to have the answers on religion or climate but I have plenty of questions for those who claim they do. So should you.
Hopefully I have raised your curiosity though unfortunately I doubt it. I remember my own youth & the passion with which I held erroneous beliefs.
Human nature doesn't trump nature nature. No, we shouldn't dump CO2 into the atmosphere, bankers shouldn't enjoy excesses at the cost of the planet, but in the end climate will always change and humans will have little to do with the end result.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever humans chose to live, whether by exploiting others or by living eco-friendly lives, in a universe without meaning or God does it really matter when we are all long forgotten? Personal guilt, emotions, and morals determine how each individual thinks and feels, so who are we to say what is right or wrong? The fat cats saw an opportunity to be self-serving and they took it, would you not be rich if given the chance? Maybe not, but that's your personal choice. The problem with ALL of us is that we have our own beliefs and opinions and feelings, but that's nature, and maybe we should just accept it and learn to work with and against each other. We can't always see eye-to-eye but sometimes we can work on mutual interests. Other times we have to respectfully fight for opposing sides of an issue and let the best man win. Understanding that there is no RIGHT way in a godless universe is the key to being content with the universe during any unexpected change, come what may. If you believe in God, then you have at least some basis for telling other people they are wrong, because at least in your own mind there is a definite truth.
The climate WILL change eventually (excuse me, it has never ceased changing!) and whether we sped the process or not will be of little consequence. Mankind, not the earth, will be destroyed from CO2, so its really our own destruction we must avoid at some point in the future, regardless who is to blame. Life has sustained and survived through harsher environments. I have faith in life, not science. Life and nature, not your illusion of control. If man can alter the atmosphere to secure our immortality on this planet, should we? What gives us the right to SAVE the earth for our ourselves when future life-forms might rise from the changing environment.
Personally, I say do what we must until we have the technology to impose a zero footprint while seeking for uninhabited worlds to alter to our needs without causing major changes to nearby systems. But isn't that what we are doing?
Quite profound my friend. The trouble is so many think they have found God in the AGW religion & treat the non believers as heretics. As you say, nature will prevail. The Earth will continue to warm until it heads back into the next Ice Age. Perhaps by then we may indeed have the technology to stave off that far more fearsome prospect. The way humans behave will only influence how long we are here & if our stay is mostly enjoyable. There are things we can do to ensure mankind does not destroy natural beauty & other species while still prospering. Ultimately there will be a natural levelling off of population as a result of higher standards of living in those countries with the highest population growth. The greatest hindrance in those societies to their achievement of a better standard of living is corruption. Not lack of handouts. The developed world can help by dropping trade barriers & technology transfer. Especially in agriculture & the safest, cheapest & cleanest base load electricity. Building windmills is not going to power the industries they need. Modular, safe nuclear power is well within the technology capabilities of advanced countries. It will happen. Pity the new religion is hampering the transition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Give it another 50 years & if your memory is still holding up you will be embarrassed by how you were conned"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmm, perhaps, in fact, quite probably. I think I'd be quite prone to embarrassment; I would also start shouting my newfound epiphany from the rooftops.
Will it actually happen?
Well, let me just put it this way: Young Earth Creationists have been swearing the same thing to us poor biologists and the public for a heck of a lot longer than 50 years ;)
"Hopefully I have raised your curiosity though unfortunately I doubt it"
It's arrogant of you to presume that just because I don't accept your conclusion, for which you have... lacking... support, that it's due to a lack of curiosity or proper scientific skepticism.
Of course, if youth are guilty of too much enthusiasm for ideas, then intractability, and the arrogant notion that only those who share one's notions are using proper thinking are the pitfalls of age.
"The climate WILL change eventually (excuse me, it has never ceased changing!) and whether we sped the process or not will be of little consequence. Mankind, not the earth, will be destroyed from CO2, so its really our own destruction we must avoid at some point in the future, regardless who is to blame. Life has sustained and survived through harsher environments. I have faith in life, not science. Life and nature, not your illusion of control..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's a wonderful little essay there, you should submit it to James Cameron for his next Avatar installment, since you two seem to share a common, and, to be frank, completely wrong, logic.
Of course life will survive our environmental influences, and farnkly so will we; we're too adaptable not to. What won't are hundreds of thousands of other species, many of them sentient. Since when is that not worth our attention? Since when does the threshold for concern begin at the destruction of an entire planet? Is mass murder, or the future of the next few dozen generations, just not important enough?
Normal climatic changes will not, for the forseeable future, match our contributions in rate of change, and as such will not cause the sorts of extinctions we may, but regardless, some event, somewhere, possibly a climatic event, will cause another mass extinction, and many of the species alive today will likely go extinct, if mankind doesn't take a more active role, which is also an option.
So because species might eventually go extinct, that means suddenly we don't have to care about causing that sooner rather than later? So by that logic, I can go kill my neighbor's dog right now, or embark on a shooting spree through the nearest city, because, you know, they were all going to die eventually, right?
"What gives us the right to SAVE the earth for our ourselves when future life-forms might rise from the changing environment"
Were you to study your ecology, you'd know that that's the charge of every species. No species that has ever existed and attained one iota of success has done so without ensuring its own survival at the cost of potential future species who might replace it.
Were this not the case, life would not have evolved past nanometer-scale bits of RNA wrapped in lipid bubbles in primordial soup.
The argument is rather inane anyways; so because the death of a species will cause another species to radiate into its range and niche, we should seek the death of species? How on Earth does that logic follow? Does that mean we should kill the new species too for MORE new species?
You might have noticed that older people tend to have a greater aversion to waste than young people. I share that aversion & am in full support of measures to cut waste.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat includes burning coal, oil & gas for electrical generation when nuclear energy could be carrying most of the load. I am all for a cleaner environment. I am against the emphasis on renewable. Huge sums are being wasted on things that can never deliver base load. A possible exception is Geothermal but I lost heavily on an investment I made in a company called Geodynamics. You can look them up if you wish. Turns out the water in the deep granite was highly corrosive & ate through the well casings in a few months. Other problems too.
The energy density & irregularity of other alternatives makes them impractical. There are no storage methods that will ever be available that will make them viable for base load even if the energy density was not a problem.
My environmental concerns are more focused on things like destruction of good farmland for urban sprawl. Draining of swamps. Use of pesticides where GM crops could lessen the necessity, things of that nature.
Ultimately, population growth will have to reach capacity. I hope this is achieved through the natural process that follows education, the rights of women & prosperity as seen in all developed countries.
As for CO2, the rate of increase can only be reduced by increased use of nuclear power. The world’s poor are never going to settle for measures that deny them the chance of a better life. I would like to see an orderly transition to nuclear & rail at the distraction that is hindering this process.
Rightly or wrongly, I am not concerned about CO2 in the immediate future & do not believe panicky methods of curtailment will work in any case. It is the waste that produces the CO2 that troubles me. We have no right to wilfully burn the resources that future generations will need. There are many products coal, oil & gas is essential for. Burning them on a massive scale to produce heat is a criminal waste.
Carlyle, this I agree with you entirely on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt should be noted that that's with the caveat that I do see an obvious, if limited market for certain renewables. There are places where solar and wind are absurdly profitable, and the infrastructure doesn't hurt, just like there are places in transportation where light rail is both profitable and useful...
but I also recognize that trying to power the entire planet on these power sources is like trying to satisfy every single person's transportation needs with light rail systems: infeasible and downright silly.
We also can't realistically expect reduced per-capity energy consumption. As society gets more advanced, that's going to go up, not down. We can become more efficient, but economic rebound effects will just see us suck up all that saved energy by consuming it elsewhere, and GREAT, that's GREAT, because it's like getting free energy for each of us to do more, but we're not going to use efficiency or energy savings to protect the environment.
So that leaves only one option: We need something very clean, which liberates orders of magnitude more energy for society. That pretty much means nuclear power. Present nuclear technologies have severe limitations and inherent difficulties (they should still be expanded for now; we just need to start looking past them at the same time), but many technologies in nuclear power, some of them as old as U-235 fission, like thorium power generation, should be the focus of our research dollars.
At the same time, projects like Polywell should be given far more funding. The Navy has a sustained interest for a reason, and so should the rest of us.
And you're also right about population. Every solution on pollution and energy is moot if we don't stop growing, and you're also right that that can largely, if not completely, be achieved through better rights for women and better education. Prosperity is also integral, provided we avoid the pitfalls of demographic transition that struck China and India, pitfalls we can easily avoid.
I pretty much agree with everything you've outlined here, and I agree, that real progress is often hindered by well-meaning but unrealistic efforts of often-ignorant environmental activists and politicians, like the one's responsible for these fool-hardy climate talks, that, again, are well-meaning, but don't seek the solutions that would ACTUALLY reduce GHG consumption, in ways that would help the economy rather than hinder it, and that would actually be implemented, such as expansion of nuclear power.
At the same time though, you shouldn't characterize everyone who supports things like combating climate change with these destructive groups.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey may yell the loudest, but they don't represent the majority of us, who are simply pragmatic people who want pragmatic solutions.
There's a book you might like, by Roger Pielke Jr, called The Climate Fix (http://theclimatefix.com/); I think it might represent a perspective on the issue you might find to be a little different than what you seem to assign to people calling for action on this issue.
You might find there's a lot more simple pragmatism and science than you're giving credit for.
I agree with all your points. Thanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this