GREENHOUSE ARREST: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today is roughly 390 parts per million, well above the 275 ppm it was before we started pumping pollution skyward during the Industrial Revolution. Climate scientists and green leaders today agree that 350 ppm would be a tolerable upper limit.
Image: http://350.org/
-
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 »
Dear EarthTalk: I read that CO2 in our atmosphere is now more than 300 parts per million. Doesn’t this mean that we’re too late to avoid the worst impacts of climate change?—Karl Bren, Richmond, Va.
Actually the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere today is roughly 390 parts per million (ppm). And that’s not good news. “Experts agree that this level cannot be sustained for many decades without potentially catastrophic consequences,” reports the Geos Institute, an Oregon-based non-profit and consulting firm that uses science to help people predict, reduce and prepare for climate change.
While we’re unlikely to get atmospheric CO2 concentrations down as low as they were (275 ppm) before we started pumping pollution skyward during the Industrial Revolution, climate scientists and green leaders agree that 350 ppm would be a tolerable upper limit. Prior to 2007 scientists weren’t sure what emissions reduction goal to shoot for, but new evidence led researchers to reach consensus on 350 ppm if we wished to have a planet, in the words of NASA climatologist James Hansen, “similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.”
The non-profit 350.org, launched in 2008 by writer and activist Bill McKibben and others to raise awareness about global warming, has circled the proverbial wagons around the cause of reducing atmospheric CO2 to 350 ppm. The group has enlisted the help of thousands of student volunteers around the world to mobilize public support for reducing humanity’s carbon footprint.
McKibben, whose 1989 book The End of Nature detailed the potential effects of climate change and remains one of the most influential environmental books of all time, believes that 350 ppm is attainable. “We’re like the patient that goes to the doctor and learns he’s overweight, or his cholesterol is too high. He doesn’t die immediately—but until he changes his lifestyle and gets back down to the safe zone, he’s at more risk for heart attack or stroke,” says McKibben. “The planet is in its danger zone because we’ve poured too much carbon into the atmosphere, and we’re starting to see signs of real trouble: melting ice caps, rapidly spreading drought. We need to scramble back as quickly as we can to safety.”
“Scrambling back” will entail nothing short of transforming our energy infrastructure, including how we transport people and goods and power our structures. According to 350.org, it means building solar arrays instead of coal plants, planting trees instead of cutting forests, increasing energy efficiency and reducing waste. “Getting to 350 means developing a thousand different solutions—all of which will become much easier if we have a global treaty grounded in the latest science and built around the principles of equity and justice,” the group reports. “To get this kind of treaty, we need a movement of people who care enough about our shared global future to get involved and make their voices heard.”
The group is working to create an international grassroots movement to influence political dynamics and implement solutions that show the benefits of moving to a clean energy economy. 350 ppm, while merely a number, represents humanity’s potential capacity to solve the most pressing problem it has faced; it also represents a target for international negotiators to aim for in forging an effective global warming treaty.
CONTACTS: Geos Institute, www.geosinstitute.org; 350.org, www.350.org.
EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.
See what we're tweeting about
45 Comments
Add CommentDear Karl: I realize that you are probably no more than another figment of the global-warming charlatans imagination, but gobal warming is a scam and this article is just another small part of this scam. The authors claim, "experts agree." Well, experts don't agree and they know that. Just check out the latest hadCRUT data. You may want to see what some recent NASA data has to say about this also. I could fill the next ten paragraphs with links but this would most likely cause this response to be deleted. Anyone may "Google" this topic and see right away that there is not expert agreement. There may be expert agreement among those "scientists" with a political or economic gain to be seen by pushing this political agenda or by now realize they were just wrong and have a need to save face, but when these reasons become the motivation are they really to be considered experts or scientists any longer? I don't think so. Have you ever wondered why the leading spokesman for this group is Al Gore? Al Gore is no more a scientist than he is the inventor of the internet. You may want to ask yourself why someone who made most of his money from selling tobacco for cigarettes that actually have been shown to be a danger and a killer is so involved with saving humanity from the dangers of global warming? You may want to ask yourself how having your money and other working people's money taken to pay for "carbon-credits" which would benefit Al Gore and make him untold billions more does anything to save anyone. You might want to also ask yourself why those that would respond to this comment do so in such an emotional way. Why is it that normally in a "scientific" article all points and alternate views are covered, but in this article, as usual when the truth is being hidden, science is reduced to the lie that "experts agree." Karl, you may ask quite a few questions, but if you want the truth you may want to try asking them of sources that do not have there very existence dependent upon the lie of "experts agree."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've read of many experts that think differently. So, how is it that experts agree? Hmmm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCAGW advocates are NOT scientists. They are advocates.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen one becomes an advocate, they set aside scientific inquiry, in order to convince others, of their agenda. They no longer are objective, an essential part of the scientific method. We usually refer to such people as politicians or perhaps ideologues. Ideologues (Hitler, Stalin, etc) have cause most the world's past grief. Don't give them any more "kicks at the can". They are only interested in converting y'all to THEIR purpose.
Does anyone really believe that a debatable 0.8 degree rise in 150 years justifies (or proves) anything?? Of all the climates the world experiences.. do people honestly believe that 70s (or the LIA) climate was the all time best, for the world and all it's inhabitants? Warmer climate IS better than cooler ones and has always been nature's demonstrated answer. GK
At the time of Columbus, there were about 500 million of us worldwide. Now we number seven billion people, each wanting more food and more stuff, and prepared to do whatever it takes to get it: cut more forests, build more dams and straighten more rivers, deplete the aquifers, wipe out more non-human species (the greatest extinction in billions of years), pave over more farmland, etc., as well as not giving a fracking or GMO damn about how we access more fuel to increase consumerism -- all of which help speed Climate Change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmmm. Seems everything is as it should be. It's called natural evolution.
Perhaps, I should have included a quote, from a very famous advocate, , who gave up his right to call himself a climate scientist, with these words:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have.
“Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.” - Stephen Schneider.
It is these people that to-day's scientists must give battle to. NOT to the very people who are properly and rightfully skeptical, of such so called experts. GK
I wonder if the author realizes that during the PETM period CO2 was at 1500 ppm. Before the PETM it was 1000 ppm and during the PETM the temps were so warm, the arctic was a balmy 75%. Guess what the planet and life survived. There is a theory that this period is what sparked the evolution of larger land mammals, including us humans eventually.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact is 7 billion people producing heat is more likely the human contribution to natural global warming which occurs during inter-glacial periods. The heat produced, not the CO2. Cook fires, heating homes, factories melting(producing heat) everything imaginable to make materials, just being alive with billions of animals kept as livestock all produce heat.
So the chances are Global warming is being caused not by evil pollution but simply the effects of the dominant species on the planet.
It is possible, global warming is actually necessary to break the pattern of ice ages, considering there have been many and they each last significantly longer than any inter-glacial warming period.
But lets also address the concept of avoiding the so called "worst" impacts of climate change. Nearly all of them are complete speculation with zero basis in any sort of fact. There will not be famine and war. Humans are very good at adapting and will keep producing food. Heat, light and land will still exist and we will make use of it. The only people who are killing others in the name of war are primarily countries full of religious fanatics running countries as theocracies, dictatorships and some communist nations. In addition to the megalomanica warlord. These people are already doing war and will continue regardless of climate change. They have holy books and tradition backing them.
Assuming climate change does have a negative effect, land use will change and we will adapt. Maybe some locations become unlivable, such as the claim about places along costs. Ok, so people move. It is not as if the ocean will rise 60 feet instantly.
In fact, nothing about global warming, should it be happening is going to cause anything we humans cant deal with. The problem we have is warmists who want political power and government money to fund their research and give them control over others. This is about the only negative effect of global warming we cant seem to mitigate.
I hate to be a pessimist but there is no doubt that we have all past the point of no return. As G.Karst pointed out, "When one becomes an advocate, they set aside scientific inquiry, in order to convince others, of their agenda." Who better would know then a most un-scientific advocate as Mr. Karst himself? This guy claimed to be an administrator in the nuclear industry that completely ignored the danger caused by a complete lack of ability of the industry to store highly radioactive waste for the time it would take to become a safe byproduct. Scientists warned him that this would be a problem and must be addressed before building any reactors. Now, most of the problems in Japan are a result of storing depleted fuel rods on site in holding ponds that could not survive the test of time even for 30 years much less the 30,000 years nuclear physicists warned us to prepare for.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisG.Karst goes on to post two quotes he cherry picked out of a right wing anti-climate change site run by a former weatherman that he supports (we all know who) which were originally taken out of context from hacked emails that have been exploited by these shills that in essence are in fact 100% correct in their assessment of the plight we humans face because of a lack of concern and a narcissistic attitude towards life itself on this planet.
People like Karst and priddseren have made it their vocation to heckle the readers of this online publication by continually berating the people who write anything on the subject of global warming and climate change simply because they don't believe it. Do they also heckle people who write articles on travel or cooking or even the local softball games? Of course they do. It's the only way they can get anyone to pay any attention to them in the first place.
The fact of the matter is, nothing will change mankind's most offensive habits until a consensus is reached on the root cause in the first place. That can't happen until the advocates who oppose science and science publications still account for half the population.
Essentially those in the know have no choice but "...to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have."
There is no other way educate half the public that already "knows" far more then the vast majority of climatologists on the planet.
There's not the slightest chance that we can make an about-face and work together to halt climate change, or at least reduce it to a tolerable amount. As anyone can see from this thread, the conservative businessmen and the multinational corporations have a well-"oiled" propaganda machine that responds instantly to any popular scientific articles. Any international treaties that are proposed will be blocked right in the formative stages.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are scientists who spend their lives studying climate, and then there are mostly American conservative businessmen who oppose their findings. Guess which has the most political sway?
G.Karst provides an example of why you can seldom trust the information given out by a climate change denier. The quote from Dr. Stephen Schneider has of course been divorced from its context and made to say precisely the opposite of Stephen Schneider's point. In the original interview, he was explaining how difficult it is to provide nuance to the discussion of climate change in a media environment which wants to reduce everything to soundbites. What resulted from such a situation, in the worst case (which he saw as a worst case, that's why he was discussing it) is what he describes in the carefully selected and edited quotes about "scary scenarios." Later on in the discussion, in a part that the climate deniers never quote, Schneider goes on to talk about how he himself maintains the integrity of the science by the use of carefully selected metaphor--instead of, the "scary scenarios."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSchneider's point? The difficulty of being scientifically honest in a sound-bit world.
The reason he made the point? Because he wants to be scientifically honest.
What he's made to sound like? That's he's always dishonest with the media.
Quote mining, the name for the propaganda technique employed by G. Karst above, is a favourite technique of the climate change deniers. Don't fall for it. It's just another way they have found of distorting the evidence to favour their outcomes.
" You may want to ask yourself how having your money and other working people's money taken to pay for "carbon-credits" which would benefit Al Gore and make him untold billions more does anything to save anyone. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarbon credits don't work that way. You are sadly mistaken. First of all, the carbon credit system was voluntary. Corporations only took part in the system when it proved profitable. The credits system proved to be very profitable when clean air credits were enacted by law. You have been grossly misinformed.
Perhaps you were delusional when you said, "...Just check out the latest hadCRUT data. You may want to see what some recent NASA data has to say about this also. I could fill the next ten paragraphs with links but this would most likely cause this response to be deleted."
Here is the latest update to data from HadCRUT:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/hadcrut-updates
You don't know what you are ranting about. They have shown the exact opposite in this link. You too have been subjected to gross misinformation and politically motivated rhetoric. Check the supporters of the sites you got this garbage from.
As for your insinuation that your post would be deleted for posting links to your nonsense, that's what we call a lame excuse in the blog-o-sphere.
Post the links or can it, (you know, like in round can).
When you wrote, "There may be expert agreement among those "scientists" with a political or economic gain to be seen by pushing this political agenda or by now realize they were just wrong and have a need to save face..." , you are openly admitting you have no clue why they arrived at their conclusions. Real scientists don't work that way. They gain respect and advance their careers by publishing peer reviewed articles. It is a system that has allowed innovation through science reach levels unimaginable even a few generations ago.
Don't berate the scientists who earned their respect. If you must berate someone, berate the greedy politicians and corporate interests that want to stifle science for the sake of profit.
1) We are 99%+ certain the planet is warming, which is about as certain as science gets.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2) We are equally certain that Carbon Dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) contribute to the warming.
3) We are in fact almost as certain (~95%) that greenhouse gases are the primary driver.
4) We have no clue about the long term impacts, could be awful and could be irrelevant. Consensus is on the bad side, but it's all probabilities.
5) From a global perspective we are unsure if we should do anything about it. Costs estimates seem to average 2% GDP (no clue about the science behind that number), and that loss of productivity is compounded at roughly 3-4% in the developed world and 7-10% in the developing world then we probably should do very little and just let it run its course. Moreover, costs would not be a flat 2% across the world, and there is an incredible incentive for one country to "cheat" (or at least be accused of cheating) to get an economic advantage over the rest of world.
6) Even if we as a planet decide to tackle the problem, nobody has any clue if it would make a difference. We know we can't drop anywhere close to 0 and the planet may simply not be able to absorb any realistic emissions target. Also the tundra is already thawing (releasing more methane) and we have less sea ice reflecting sunlight.
I am listening to both sides here and trying to make up my mind. I am not a scientist and depend on others for my information.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just found a link where Dr. Stephen Schneider will not take questions from reporters and has security throw reporters out. They also threaten to take reporters cameras. Is he afraid to answer questions?
So, the carbon credit system is for making profit. Will everyone make a profit if they volunteer and at the same time they will save the planet and all of human life? What is wrong with that? It sounds pretty good.
I have another question. I am no spring chicken unfortunately and I remember a Time magazine article from the 70's or 80's that reported on the scientists who were saying a global ice age was coming. It also offered tips on how to survive it. Won't this ice age even things out when it mixes with global warming?
Wow. Just wow. Was there a call to arms on the WUWT mailing list about this article?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I just found a link where Dr. Stephen Schneider will not take questions from reporters and has security throw reporters out. They also threaten to take reporters cameras.Is he afraid to answer questions?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPost the link and I will point out who supports the site and what their agenda is. If you really want to discover the truth, don't just post unsupported nonsense and then expect an answer.
The Internet is full of sharks, mud suckers and back-boneless invertebrate. All anyone truly interested in the truth needs to do is research a sites supporters. If it's science related and it is supported by right wing political sites or corporate interests it is most likely junk science or outright lies.
I will say it again, If you really want to discover the truth, don't just post unsupported nonsense and then expect an answer.
Read # 14. It's for you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRelax, the sky is not falling. If the urban heat island effect is taken into consideration, daily temperatures in urban areas can be adjusted downward by 2-4 degrees F. Because each human being exhales the same amount of CO2 in a year as the average automobile produces in a year, controlling human population is a must if anthropogenic CO2 output is to be reduced. Also, NASA's Dr. Hansen has advised in the strongest terms against cap and trade proposals to reduce anthropogenic CO2 output. Unfortunately, the only effect of cap and trade schemes would be the redistribution of wealth from Main Street to brokers on Wall Street. Dr. Albert Gortenbull
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe can forget about stopping global warming or even slowing it down. Humanity is incapable of that magnitude of change. WE're going to drill baby drill and slash and burn this planet into another geologic and climatic age. In the end it will be a pitiful sight as we desperately try to remove the carbon we put into the Earth's atmosphere as we cook ourselves into extinction along with most of the other living beings on the planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming. It's been documented repeatedly. Say what you want, it's true. Without references, your opinions mean little.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA 2004 paper by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position. See:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full.pdf
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming:
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html
A poll performed by scientists at the University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. The concluded: "It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." See:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and concluded that 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field believe in human-caused global warming
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html
In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, two scientists from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 489 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science. 97% agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring. Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming. See:
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/climate-change/structure-scientific-opinion-climate-change/
The list goes on...
It is tempting to point out the incorrect and misleading information put out by Prid, federalel, and others, but the simple fact is that more accurate and complete information is already out there. They will continue to deny the results of 150 years of scientific study no matter what anyone tells them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor instance, federalel doesn't appear to understand the difference between stirring a pot and adding more spice to it. Breathing is just a cycling of the carbon already in the biosphere, burning fossil fuels adds carbon to the biosphere. But, he won't admit that, maybe he just doesn't understand it. He will continue to tell you that he understands the science better than every national scientific body in the world. Really?
Or, maybe these guys think is all just a big conspiracy, one that is 150 years old and including the vast majority of those who actually do research, everywhere in the world.
In any case, back to the article, the short answer is 'no'. Unless we have already tripped over a tipping point which will lead to something like an anoxic ocean (which would bring about a P/T-like extinction event), then it is never too late to prevent things from getting worse than we are already committed to.
It would be harder to retreat back to a previous level than it would be to stop digging the hole.
Arguing with global warming deniers is like arguing with religious zealots. Forget it--you are wasting your time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are all going down together---some of us know it and can see it---others, afraid of what they see say "hey---this can't be happening." Perhaps ignorance is bliss. If there were people on the titanic who did not know the ship was sinking until the last minute were they better off for not knowing?
everything will be alright....until Dec 21.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this911Researcher, you are grossly misinformed. You would be better off asking questions with a modicum of humility at this stage of your intellectual development. You have been exposed to right-wing propaganda and inoculated against the truth. You need to be deprogrammed, then learn how science works, then learn the current state of our understanding of Earth systems. When you have done so, please come back and feel free to participate in an adult conversation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFederalel, Wrong! The Heat island effect has been accounted for in calculating global average temperatures. I just can't get over how people love to ar-chair quarterback this science
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFYI... Dr. Hansen recommends a revenue-neutral Carbon Tax, where carbon emissions are taxed and the proceeds are returned to citizens as a monthly dividend.
Yes, it's too late to avoid the worst-case scenario from GHG pollution. Around the time of Kyoto there was a chance to slow the onset, but the headsup wasn't just wasted - it was sabotaged.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe best hope for a brake on the temperature side is increased volcanic activity (short-term), and locked-in La Ninas (with some chaos downside). File that under 'be careful what you wish for'.
Outside of that, the recycled nonsense about UHI and some fictitious blithering about PETM blossoms only illustrates 'you can fool some of the people all of the time'.
The world is now witnessing natural disasters and disruptions that are large enough, and frequent enough, to have a negative impact the global economy. Check your expenses for disaster relief and your wallet for food prices. The pressures on agriculture and aquaculture are one rail and that ever-present buzzing of the overloaded summer electrical grid is another rail.
The voices of stupidity won 'the debate'. GHG emissions are running 30% over the IPCC 'non-response' scenario. You have a ringside seat to actually watch the predictions come true or not.
And those pro-pollutionist voices that cackled about arctic recovery after the 2007 record ice-loss:
(15% concentration threshold):
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
(30% concentration threshold):
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Next time someone tells you about Vikings or English grapes or ancient edens ... open the window.
The big question here is "Are the climate change skeptics contributing to this thread being paid or are they just gullible victims of their own inability to distinguish between genuine evidence and bullshit?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@911 Reseacher,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy did you feel the need to misrepresent what Hadcru and NASA has to say about climate change? From Hadcru:
"Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities are most likely the underlying cause of warming in the 20th century."
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
From the latest news from the NASA Climate site:
"The statistics show that the recent bouts of extremely warm summers, including the intense heat wave afflicting the U.S. Midwest this year, very likely are the consequence of global warming, according to lead author James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York."
Again, why did you lot feel so free to lie about easily checked facts?
Forgot to give the link for NASA:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResearch Links Extreme Summer Heat Events to Global Warming
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming-links.html
"I've read of many experts that think differently. So, how is it that experts agree? Hmmm"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause you have been duped by multi-trillion dollar fossil fuel interests.
There are two different ways to view the question "Is It Too Late to Avoid the Worst Impacts of Climate Change?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne is the hypothetical - IF we were to do an abrupt about-face in public policy tomorrow, could we save civilization and the planet as we know it?" Maybe we could.
The other is pragmatic: can the nations of the world suddenly change policy and work together to avert tragedy?" The answer to that is definitely no. The power players, the movers and shakers, have decided there is no problem worth the expense of solving.
"Is It Too Late to Avoid the Worst Impacts of Climate Change?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, lets examine some of these impacts:
Can we avoid rising seas? - No, the seas have been rising for 10,000 yrs. Get out of it's way!
Can we avoid increased desertification? Yes, but only if we continue to warm. Warming causes an increase in evaporation resulting in a 6% increase in global rainfall per degree warming, Wentz et al. Cooling will take that away and increase desertification.
Can we avoid weather extremes? Yes, but only if we continue to warm our polar regions. Warmer poles means less polar/equatorial delta T. Decreasing polar/equatorial delta T results in less polar/equatorial delta pressure (delta P).
Less polar/equatorial delta P must translate into moderating the speed and strength of global weather systems. It really is straight forward physics and thermodynamics. Of course, once again, cooling causes denser air and increased polar/equatorial delta T and voila... more equalizing weather movement ie more severe weather.
Can we avoid world starvation? - Only by warming. Warm temperatures combined with increased rainfall and enhanced by CO2 fertilization will ensure continuing food yields and stocks. Again cooling will take our surplus away and decline yields.
Are there more climate impacts that need avoiding?? - Yes, Man's attempts to control climate. Unintended consequences and all that easily ignored stuff.GK
Has anyone ever bothered to listen to Tom Davis (former NASA Apollo Mission scientist) who always claimed it is the HEAT GENERATION produced by 7+ billion people and their activities which is the real problem. CO2 levels have fluctuated wildly in the planet's history, and yes, our carbon emissions add to the problem by trapping pollutants and slowing to release of heat. Is anyone paying any attention to the immutable laws of thermodynamics, which have around since the Big Bang. If you go up a few miles it is freezing, progressing to absolute zero in outer space - as it has always been. Our warming problem is on the SURFACE, where we are trying to defy the laws of thermodynamics. Surely, it is impossible to obtain subtraction of heat faster from a reservoir (earth's surface) than it is replenished and added to (by us) Energy (heat) cannot flow from a colder body (outer space) to a hotter body (the planet's surface) We are heating up earth's surface faster than it can possibly escape into space, thanks to human activities. If we all drove electric vehicles, closed all the coal fired power stations, and generated electricity in safe nuclear power stations, we might just make it. Unfortunately, fully electric vehicles are a way off, and even safe nuclear power generation creates hysteria , thanks to failures of earlier plants in Russia and Japan. So we are in big trouble . . . . .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHuman total heat generation is 15 Tw continuously average. Solar Insolation is 173,000 Tw, Geothermal heating is 45 Tw so Human civilization heat output is trivial.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Karst:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour "examination" is mostly devoid of current research and I would go further in saying that you are an outright liar; by saying you have lied, I am giving you some credit, unless you have done no research on the subjects that you so pompously comment on.
You write:
"Can we avoid increased desertification? Yes, but only if we continue to warm."
From http://www.greenhouse-warming.org.uk/19.php:
Desertification is a problem that is expected to worsen under the stresses of greenhouse gas enhanced climate change.
You write:
"Can we avoid world starvation? - Only by warming. Warm temperatures combined with increased rainfall and enhanced by CO2 fertilization will ensure continuing food yields and stocks. Again cooling will take our surplus away and decline yields."
From:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.html
Although it is complex, it is theorized that increases in CO2 will actually reduce plant growth. Stamford recently published a similar study.
Your theory on a decreased interaction between polar and sub-polar airflow is a little naive, and simplified. What would you say about adding a collossal amount of energy into the global system, and the effects there-of?
At least do a little research before writing propagandist info.
On a sidenote, I really liked your post on the subject of Artic vs. Antarctic "sea ice". You 1) Forgot to mention Greenland as a huge variable, as it has significant glacial ice, 2) Made the assumption that a decrease in Arctic sea ice vs. Antarctic is insignificant (Antarctica has the highest average elevation of all the continents, so it would make sense that with its climate and elevation, snowfall would increase as a result of climate change.), 3) That summer Arctic sea ice extent has been zero in the recent past (It has never been, in the history of record-taking been zero, but it may reach that this September.)
@dwbd:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks; that was going to be the subject of my next rant.
"Desertification is a problem that is expected to worsen under the stresses of greenhouse gas enhanced climate change."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI refer to a paper submitted to the IPCC in 2007, by Dr. Frank Wentz, director of Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in Santa Rosa, Calif. It was an exhaustive analysis of the data from Special Sensor Microwave Imagers on Earth-observation satellites, over a 20 year period of actual warming (1986 and 2005). This is "hard science" and not the tenuous pap we receive so often. The IPCC was quite upset at the time because it contradicted the (then) current modality , of increased desertification projections. Their initial reaction was to block it's publication.
They found that over the two decades(0.4°C), both factors (precipitation and atmos. water vapor) increased by between 1.1% and 1.2% - or roughly 6.5% for each degree of warming.
Journal reference: Science (DOI: 10.1126/science.1140746).
Of course, you may ignore actual empirical measurements, or employ magical thinking like "rain will only fall in wet areas", but no one buys THAT.
"Although it is complex, it is theorized that increases in CO2 will actually reduce plant growth. Stamford recently published a similar study." He then cites an news opinion piece as evidence.
Then why didn't you cite those studies which contradict the hundreds of other studies that confirm. See:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject_p.php
They can guide you to all the referenced research papers.
Then you try to pay me a compliment with "I really liked your post on the subject of Artic vs. Antarctic "sea ice". You 1) Forgot to mention Greenland as a huge variable, as it has significant glacial ice"
The subject is about floating SUMMER sea ice not the land supported ice stades. You do understand that... right?
Btw: when I say recent 0%-100% in recent past, I of course, refer to geological recent past. You of course know that accurate human historical records started with satellite records 1978. I have a farm truck older than that. What Arctic sea ice minimum extent was during the roman optimum, or the MWP, is not known, not to mention all the other warm or rather, warmer periods.
Finally, moss boss, blurts:
"(It has never been, in the history of record-taking been zero, but it may reach that this September.)"
Please explain how 4.5 million Km2 of sea ice can disappear by September. How "may" it?! Whose pant's are on fire?? GK
Reply to dwbd: Please let us have peer reviewed references for your claims. Dr Davis was no fool. Thanks
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKarst: "The subject is about floating SUMMER sea ice..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen why are you talking about Antarctic winter ice? You do know that it is currently winter in Antarctica, correct?
"They found that over the two decades(0.4°C), both factors (precipitation and atmos. water vapor) increased by between 1.1% and 1.2% - or roughly 6.5% for each degree of warming."
OK, but what part of shifted and concentrated rain bands do you not understand? The long predicted pattern is for more precipitation in less area, and what you have pointed out in no way contradicts that.
You are spouting off about things you really don't understand.
"The long predicted pattern is for more precipitation in less area, and what you have pointed out in no way contradicts that."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI did warn y'all that there would be some who would engage in magical thinking. Chris would have us accept that a 6.5% increase in global rainfall, will be a regional event and more incredibly, that these regions will be the wet ones. Magically, the rain knows that it must not fall on areas requiring moisture, that are arid.
Most of the increase in rainfall will fall on the oceans. Some will fall on wet areas AND some will fall on deserts. This is why our deserts like the Sahara are presently greening. Here is national geographic's take:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
"Desertification, drought, and despair—that's what global warming has in store for much of Africa. Or so we hear.
Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent.
Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall.
If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged regions, reclaiming them for farming communities.
This desert-shrinking trend is supported by climate models, which predict a return to conditions that turned the Sahara into a lush savanna some 12,000 years ago."
I guess it is you, all along, who... what were the words you used... "are spouting off about things you really don't understand."
As to why I brought up Antarctic sea ice? Because the author completely ignored the rest of the story. Just like he and you always do. Magical thinkers tend to do that. GK
Sorry, I posted this graph over at the Arctic ice thread. It was meant for this thread to complete the global perspective of sea ice. This graph plots Antarctic's summer min extent (February month end avg anomaly) since the start 1979 to 2012 (entire dataset):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Feb/S_02_plot.png
Now the summer sea ice story is complete. Try to keep in mind, that all of the summer melt refreezes, during the long Arctic winter night. The appearance of open water is momentary, late summer. Arctic maximum extent indicates muted response. There will always be copious Arctic winter sea ice:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Mar/N_03_plot.png/Mar/N_03_plot.png
Why don't you become a climatologist, Karst? Then we would take you seriously. I hear Phoenix University has an opening next semester.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the corrected link to Arctic maximum extent anomaly trend:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Mar/N_03_plot.png
"Magically, the rain knows ..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo GK, there is nothing magical about it. It is just physics. There large patterns of convection, like Hadley cells, have a large influence on where and when it rains. These patterns are determined by the flux of energy in, and energy out. Changing the thermodynamic properties of the atmosphere changes the flux. The Hadley cells were predicted to shift poleward, and indeed, that shift has started.
You are assuming I'm saying things I'm not because you don't understand what I'm saying.
"...that all of the summer melt refreezes.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot at all true, a) your own link to winter max extent shows a declining trend, and b) look up thick, multiyear ice; it has declined steeply.
You are building an argument on facts which are incorrect.
Yes, but the decline of winter sea ice is not, nor is it expected to be, alarming. No one is disputing the fact that Northern hemisphere summer ice has declined. Other recent warm periods/cycles, would show similar declines. After all, they were 1 degree warmer than now. Summer sea ice comes and goes. Right now it seems to be a-go-ing. Lets not fill pages of your wailing and gnashing of teeth. There is plenty of ice in the world and none of it is biologically life giving, until it melts. GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne of the commenters pointed out that the during the PETM event CO2 levels where near 1000 ppm. Being ignorant about the PETM event, I decided to see what it was. From what I have found out, this rise in CO2 levels caused massive mammalian extinctions, raised the level of acidity in the oceans, and caused extintion of much of the animal life at the bottom of the oceans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot only that, but it is estimated that it took 20,000 years for the CO2 to rise to that level. From what I can gather, our current increase it atmospheric CO2 is at a faster pace that what occured during those 20,000 years. If and when the current warming trend cause the permafrost that blankets Siberia and northern Canada to melt therebye releasing massive amounts of methane, all bets are off.
Finally, we must consider that with 7 billion humans on the planet, there is already great stress on the delicate equilibrium that sustains our civilization. Adding drastic climate change to the equation seems like playing with the lives of hundreds of millions of lives that already hang in the balance.
If you find anything that I have said to be inaccurate, please correct me.