A green inauguration?
Before the inauguration speech, New Scientist asked whether he would use the "E-word".
In the event, he didn't - nor the C-word, although the W-word did crop up once in the speech, as a pledge to "roll back the spectre of a warming planet".
In a chill Washington DC, Barack Obama also vowed to "harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories".
Now that we are done with the ceremonials, what environmental moves can we expect as the new president's senior officials assemble their teams and grapple with the practicailties of turning campaign promises into political realities?
According to the often well-informed Yale Environment 360, we're going to see dramatic action on energy in little more than the time it takes to flick on a light, with Mr Obama launching his presidency "with a daring idea: to anchor the American economy with energy sources not derived from fossil fuels".
Fifty billion dollars will go into the "green economy", it suggests.
Campaign pledges also referred to creating five million jobs in that green economy - a vast hike from the 750,000 that exist today [pdf link], according to the US Conference of Mayors.
Another pledge mentioned setting up a greenhouse gas "cap-and-trade" scheme, a concept pioneered in the US to curb acid-rain-causing sulphur dioxide emissions.
He has spoken, too, of taking a leading role in the UN climate negotiations, which enter a critical phase later this year.
US-based observers are better placed than I to comment on what all this will mean for American citizens and how they're likely to react to the various components.
But from an international perspective, it's clear that Mr Obama's actions over the next 11 months on energy and climate - both the domestic policies and the approach to international treaties - will be absolutely vital in deciding whether the UN climate negotiations in December in Copenhagen can achieve a deal delivering major carbon cuts.
If his administration flinches in the face of its economic woes, other governments will then have an easy reason for curbing their own ambitions.
There's another aspect to the financial issue, in that developing countries are likely to ask the industrialised world for sums in the ballpark of $50bn per year to fund protection against potential climate impacts.
That is the likely price-tag of a Copenhagen deal - and they'd be expecting the US to stump up a significant proportion of that cash.
It's a point that I'm not sure is properly appreciated in western capitals, but a taste of it is emerging right now from a climate conference in Ethiopia, with Prime Minister Meles Zenawi insisting that "those who contributed more to causing the problem, who are also better positioned to assist, will contribute more to the costs of adapting and implementing climate-friendly development paths".
When the warm inauguration glow fades, spending billions on railway lines and home insulation and solar panels, built by Americans for Americans, may still make political sense for hard-pressed Congressional representatives.
But spending billions to build sea walls in the Seychelles and put schools on stilts in Nicaragua? I wonder.
Climate may be the most pressing environmental item for the new president, but there are others.
Chunks of the country are just about as low in water as they've been in living memory. Infrastructure investments, effiiciency measures and international deals to buy water are among the possible policy options.
Conservation groups have made the Endangered Species Act something of a political football in recent years, seeing protection for polar bears and corals as one of the few tools they had for putting pressure on the Bush administration on climate change.
But it remains a powerful piece of legislation that could be deployed as a way of tackling the decline in biodiversity that's affecting the US along with just about every other nation on Earth.
Internationally, Mr Obama might be considering whether to make the US a party to the UN's Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the global treaty charged with stopping the loss of species. Despite playing a leading role in drafting the convention back in the early 1990s, the US now shares "non-party" status with Andorra, Iraq and Somalia.
US ratification and renewed leadership on biodiversity would be applauded by conservationists and by many other governments - as would a decision to put the US inside the scope of other international treaties with an environmental dimension such as the UN Law of the Sea Convention.
The US has powerful domestic legislation enabling it to put trade sanctions on countries violating fisheries rules.
In the late days of Mr Bush's term there were hints that his officials were contemplating deploying these measures more vigorously, and it will be interesting to see whether Mr Obama's appointees follow through.
All that, one suspects, will be put below the climate change tasksheet in Mr Obama's in-tray.
I'd be interested to see what you make of it all, and what you would be urging his team to do, either on the C-issue or the much broader E-issue.
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~45~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I would imagine he would be extremely concerned with environmental issues, just like every other world politician.
But I doubt very much he would consider trading his Cadillac for an environmentally friendly electric powered car as an example.
Complain about this comment
As Bush term has come to an end I can't help to think that it is ironic that Smart2 and Toyota Priuses are the best selling cars in America. And that the hydrogen fuel-cell cara are available albeit in limited quantities. What is more ironic is the gas-guzzling SUVs like Hummers, and other SUVs have been shelved or 'temporarily' phased out by the Big 3 automobile giants. Thanks to high gas prices and "competition" that Big 3 are now solely focussed on small, fuel-efficient, and economical cars! Incredible! All that has been achieved without fictitious governmental regulations and at the time Kyoto protocol as we know has missed its mark completely, and is pretty much on a dead path. Will Obama revive Kyoto remains to be seen!
Complain about this comment
Seems to me $50b per annum is an awful lot of money to spend on something that has still to be proved. Please don't site the hockey stick and computer models as proof.
I would be urging his team to quit selling the AGW tripe and invest in things that we can do something about. Oh, and in 4 years time, when Hansens prediction has failed, sack him.
I really don't understand why people buy the Toyota Pious - 1 normal engine plus big batteries, which must surely mean the Pious cannot be green in any respect. Aren't fuel cells the way forward, not batteries?
Complain about this comment
Impressive was the instant flick to the new White House website complete with a Technology page under Agenda spelling out the plans for the whole world to read, copy and then hold the Obama Government to task and complete. The last item was Advance stem cell research.
Never seen this amount of commitment, ideals and aims on a .gov website before.
Also think new site is much, much better than the previous one and, yes, was sat with site on screen awaiting the change (a twitter challenge had been made) but forgot to mention this on Rory's new or old media blog comment.
Complain about this comment
Obama already pledged 80% emissions reductions by 2050, but the most important act he could take would be to lead the world in actually implementing something like the Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) scheme to guarantee that these targets are *actually achieved*.
Complain about this comment
Nor did President Obama mention the M word. That would be - returning explorers to the Moon.
I once attended an environmental seminar, given by an astrophysicist. As I remember it (this was many years ago), he had travelled the world gathering information on our longterm prospects on this planet. His finding, as I remember, was that no matter what you did, i.e., recycle, reuse, cut back, use solar etc..., nothing would more than delay the inevitable decline in our fortunes, except for one thing. And that was the exploration and the eventual exploitation of space.
NASA has a plan in the works to build and man a base on the Moon, possibly at the south pole, on the rim of the Shackleton Crater. (see Wikipedia or NASA)
Exploration is in keeping with our oldest extincts, probably for good reason. President Obama's admonition, to "put childish things aside", struck a chord with me.
Isn't it time to put the calculator away, and be audacious again, not just in hope, but in practice, and for real? To literally aim high.
Of course there is housekeeping to do here, and we will do it. But lets not forget who we are - scatterlings of Africa, and born to move.
Complain about this comment
In staying with this article being posted under "Science and Environment" I believe we have seen the death nail of science as we know it.
Science was the observation, conceptualizing and theory generation that has led us through centuries of technological progress. It is now on the verge of being a political tool for manipulation.
A sad day for progress and a good day for control.
And a question to readers: I see the BBC grouping of “Science and Environment” to be confusing and in ways an oxymoron. The study of the environment use science just as any study on any subject for that matter. I can understand “Environment and Nature” and “Science and Technology” being grouped if needed. Does anybody agree with me?
Complain about this comment
@timjenvey
"Science was the observation, conceptualizing and theory generation that has led us through centuries of technological progress. It is now on the verge of being a political tool for manipulation.
A sad day for progress and a good day for control."
Absolutely Tim, well said.
Complain about this comment
Well said Timjenvey and CuckooToo. And we've just had the BBC promote another pseudo-scientific load of manipulated data about Antarctic warming. No science, no evidence that we are to blame. Pure propaganda to scare everybody for political purposes. And as usual the BBC toes the party line and says it's another example of AGW.
Complain about this comment
Once again, Richard Black uses the BBC as a bully pulpit to promote controversial scientific papers that have yet to be published, let alone have their data and methodology examined and replicated.
Once again, dubious statistical analysis by the extremely controversial Michael Mann is promoted as yet more "evidence" of man-made climate change.
Yes, Obama used the phrase "roll back the spectre of a warming planet", but that's a far cry from the global warming conquering saviour that Black and his friends in Greenpeace would have us believe. Obama's primary responsibility is to right the capsized American economy, which will require, as a bare minimum, access to cheap energy. So there's no cap-and-trade on the horizon, because Obama knows that he'll get it voted down by a large majority.
And all of these "green jobs" in a so-called "green economy" will disappear as Americans feel the pinch and the overpriced green energy bubble will finally burst like all the other bubbles before them.
Already T. Boone Pickens is trying hard for federal subsidies to allow his expensive wind power to compete with fossil fuels whose price has declined by 70% since last year - but you'll never read that on the BBC. See http://www.newsweek.com/id/174063/
Already mega-wind farms are being reevaluated and maybe shelved in the UK as their owners realise that their investment won't be competitive - but you won't read that on the BBC either. See http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article5549223.ece
Where are those green jobs coming from, Richard?
Time to give it up Richard, because the Earth is cooling, and the insignificant temperature anomaly might frighten the easily fooled but those of us with scientific ability know that the actual temperatures of those ice sheets remain far, far below zero and won't be melting any time in the next few thousand years.
But it sounds scary even if the modelling is a conspicuous exercise in fake accounting that fools fewer and fewer every day.
Oh yes, and the breakoff of ice sheets in the middle of the Antarctic summer is nothing new either. Its a yearly event. Its compounded by the fact that there are submarine volcanoes all around the Antarctic Peninsula warming the water.
Complain about this comment
Further to my comment 9 about the Antarctic melting, here is a comment from WUWT. Why can't the BBC do a bit of investigation before it puts out the propaganda?
"Well I read that Paper by Professor Eric Steig of WU. Strangely, although I am a paid up member of AAAS, I was not able to log in and download that “embargoed” paper, so I had to get it from somebody with a top secret clearance.
So I already e-mailed Prof Steig; and first I asked him, given that the West antarctic is warming at over 0.1 deg C per decade; when does he prdict it will reach the melting point and start the global flooding by raising the sea.
He replied that he doesn’t make such predictions; but that it would be “many many decades before melting started” My guessw as 3000 years.
So then I aksed him how deep down in the ice do the satellite measurements observe the temperature, and how deep in the ice does his 0.1 deg C per decade propagate. He replied that the satellites only measure the very surface temperature; that ice is a very good insulator so the rise doesn’t go very deep. He said that the major heat source of that 6000 feet of ice is warmth from the earth underneath.
In other words, a storm in a teacup. The Prof and his team used 25 years of satellite data, which can roughly cover the whole of Antarctica, and they used ground based but coastal weather station sites that date from OGY in 1957/58 to calibrate the satellite data, so they then extrapolated the coastal measured data over the whole continent.
East Antarctica is still cooling; so no problem there, but west is warming more than East is cooling, so net warm.
Please note that cooling is bounded by 0K or -273.15 C, while warming has no known upper limit.
Also note that EM radiation cooling from Antarctica goes as T^4, so a net increase overall, means that Antarctica increases its pitiful contribution to the cooling of planet earth.
So let’s hear it For a warming Antarctica.
By the Way Prof Steig was very polite, and forthright and sounds like an OK chap to me.
But it still sounds to me like a report that somebody found that a sheet of toilet tissue now absorbs water faster and will sink a little sooner."
So there we have it. The report is a load of alarmist nothing and the BBC makes a big propaganda issue of it.
Complain about this comment
timjenvey wrote:
- And a question to readers: I see the BBC grouping of Science and Environment to be confusing....I can understand Environment and Nature and Science and Technology being grouped if needed. Does anybody agree with me?
Yes I for one agree!
manysummits wrote:
- NASA has a plan in the works to build and man a base on the Moon, possibly at the south pole, on the rim of the Shackleton Crater. (see Wikipedia or NASA)
Exploration is in keeping with our oldest extincts, probably for good reason.
Interesting freudian(?) slip on the last line :-)
Complain about this comment
Re: Science and the Environment:
I have always liked best a definition of science as follow- 'the search for new knowledge'. This is not exact, but it captures, at least for me (B.Sc.), its essence. And that essence is exploration.
Just now, the Environment has been 'discovered' by the tools of science to be changing, and in an alarming way. We are in the midst of a 'sixth extinction event', and rapid global warming is well underway. In comparing these discoveries with past discoveries by science, i.e., with past evidence of climate change over the last few glacial cycles, and with the 'big five' mass extinction events of the last 500 million years, we are justified in using the word alarming. In fact, the case is, I think, understated.
As for my freudian slip (see comment # 12), I must agree. Since Freud was mentioned, here's something he once said:
"When the highest stake in the game of life cannot be risked, life is impoverished." (or words to that effect)
Complain about this comment
At risk of going more off topic, but just to be clear....
In agreeing with timjenvey, I meant that the grouping of Science and Environment is misleading. A cynical view would be that the title is being used to give scientific credibility to all that appears there, including the reports concerning the Environment.
Adding Science to Technology is probably on safer ground; I can’t think of any practical examples of non-scientific Technology.
On the one hand there are Sciences and on the other there are areas of interest like the Environment, Nature, Transport, etc. Whether Scientific principles are applied correctly in those areas of interest is often a matter of debate (hence the comments on these pages).
Complain about this comment
First, an apology - in my list of countries that along with the US are non-parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, I named Iran rather than Iraq. For posterity's sake, I've gone back to change the original post - Iraq it is. Thanks to David Miller for alerting me to the mistake.
Now, in a week which has seen one of the most striking changes of government in living memory in the most powerful nation on Earth, I'm flattered - I think - that so many comments here have dealt with BBC reporting rather than what the Obama years may mean for the environment.
PAWB46, I don't think there's any alarmism on sea level rise in my article on the new analysis of Antarctic temperatures. I quote Drew Shindell as saying scientists still lack understanding of the processes involved in ice sheet melting, so making projections is difficult - I don't see how that can be interpreted as "alarmist". Whereas you state "East Antarctica is still cooling; so no problem there", the new analysis concludes it is warming, albeit slower than the west (0.1C per decade versus 0.17C per decade).
But I think your approach of engaging directly with the science is dead right. As you'll probably guess, I've spent a lot of my time down the years dealing with issues relating to climate "scepticism" and climate "alarmism", and just about the only advice I would ever give anybody is to get as close as you can to the science itself rather than relying on others to interpret it for you.
BritinAussie, the paper is published, as the article clearly says. The article also clearly says the break-up of ice shelves is not necessarily linked to climatic change.
timjenvey, you're not the first person to raise the point about how and why science and environment come together in the same BBC website index, and I don't think you'll be the last. If you look around various news organisations you'll see they all differ somewhat in how they divide up the news agenda. There are regular discussions inside the BBC (and I guess inside other organisations) about the best way to do it, and periodically changes take place - for example, the BBC created specialist security correspondent posts when al-Qaeda became a major ingredient in the news agenda.
Many news stories span several subject areas - for example, a story on the UK government's approach to the EU emissions trading scheme could fit four of our existing indices, UK Politics, Europe, Business, and Science and Environment. The reality is that the divisions betwen the subject areas are a bit arbitrary, and are made partly on the basis of resources and partly on the organisation's history and remit. Steve Herrmann, editor of the BBC News website, blogged on this recently.
manysummits, my colleague Jonathan Amos, who covers space issues regularly, tells me it's not entirely clear what Mr Obama intends to do with the manned Moon programme, but he certainly hasn't spoken of cancelling it.
Complain about this comment
Guys, in fairness to Richard, I think he is trying his best to present the articles as evenly as he can given the articles that are presented to him. I used to think that he was one-sided, but he pointed me in the direction of other articles he has written in praise of scepticism, so I apologised - I genuinely think he is trying to understand what is going on, as are the rest of us.
On Antarctica, given that most of the ice is floating and the average temperature is -50C, I really can't see sea levels rising due to melt from Antarctica. What is happening to the ice shelves is the sea currents around the area are generally unique to the continent and are responsible for what melt has occurred. Ice shelves breaking off are a natural consequence of this and in no way can they contribute to seal levels falling or rising
Complain about this comment
Also on Antarctica:
""This looks like a pretty good analysis, but I have to say I remain somewhat skeptical," Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said in an e-mail. "It is hard to make data where none exist.""
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090121/ap_on_sc/sci_antarctica
Trenberth is lead author of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_E._Trenberth
Complain about this comment
Anthony Watts has an interesting explanation for Antarctica (as inferred by Britinaussie) at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/21/antarctica-warming-an-evolution-of-viewpoint/#more-5224
Complain about this comment
manysummits wrote:
- I once attended an environmental seminar, given by an astrophysicist. As I remember it (this was many years ago), he had travelled the world gathering information on our long term prospects on this planet. His finding, as I remember, was that no matter what you did, i.e., recycle, reuse, cut back, use solar etc..., nothing would more than delay the inevitable decline in our fortunes, except for one thing. And that was the exploration and the eventual exploitation of space.
I suspect that an Astrophysicist could be just the tiniest bit impartial when it comes to interest in space travel and exploration. But nevertheless it’s a great idea. We all pack ourselves into enormous space ships and head of to the stars in search of other planets to exploit, pollute and ruin; oops sorry, I mean Colonise.
But just a minute: huge self contained space ships travelling on journeys lasting hundreds of years. That means the occupant population carefully maintained at optimum levels; stable economic activity with no senseless striving for expansion and growth; all waste products meticulously re-cycled; all energy usage carefully monitored and managed… Now if we could just solve those problems… Hmm; but then we wouldn’t need to go anyway! Long live Spaceship-Earth.
Complain about this comment
I welcome a US that is fully engaged with UN climate negotiations, but hope that they adopt a negotiating position that will force China in particular to do likewise. China’s ever increasing contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is such that we are now past the point where they can be exempt on grounds of being a developing nation. Maybe a smart move would be for the US to open bi-lateral negotiations with China, hopefully leading to both nations agreeing cuts. It will be interesting to see what US know-how can come up with on technological front. I think there could be some exciting technological leaps in years to come now the US is fully engaged and if the necessary finding and business incentives are in place.
Complain about this comment
I'd like to start by saying that global environmental betterment would be a high agenda item should I ever venture into the world of politics. Becoming more vocal in the world of e-political statement making, such as we are able, thanks to blogs like this, may be the beginning of such a venture, but we will see. For the moment, we must trust those elected to do the bartering for us.
16. At 1:13pm on 22 Jan 2009, CuckooToo wrote:
"On Antarctica, given that most of the ice is floating and the average temperature is -50C, I really can't see sea levels rising due to melt from Antarctica. What is happening to the ice shelves is the sea currents around the area are generally unique to the continent and are responsible for what melt has occurred. Ice shelves breaking off are a natural consequence of this and in no way can they contribute to seal levels falling or rising"
I see things slightly different here - you are not wholly incorrect - but looking beyond the first step reveals something much more significant. The melting sea ice, as you correctly say, is not so critical, although I wouldn't go so far as to say unimportant, as far as the climate is concerned, as say the melting ice shelf, but it is not simply a matter of whether the ice is on land or water that is the issue.
Icebergs, as is commonly known, have something in order of 4/5ths of their mass under water, and so, the melting of these bergs will displace that mass with the water produced, and the tip of the iceberg is inconsequential. But that IS just the tip of the iceberg, and the fact is that millions of gallons of fresh water would be emptied into all of that salt water.
A distinction must be drawn between fresh and salt water - rather than lumbering it all together as just water.
Fresh water has a lower salt density to sea water - we float easier in salt water - but fresh water, combined with the temperature of the two water bodies, will generally sink to the bottom. In the oceans, the effect could be truly devastating. Nature can handle a certain amount of this discharge all by itself, but with the amount that the warming climate is dumping into the oceans, it is soon to become overwhelmed.
People speak of the delicate balance of nature, but it is never really explained.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. We know that. Every action has a consequence too, you could say.
Our earth goes through shifting cycles of change over various cycle lengths, some are theoretical, some are scientifically proven. There are the Milankovich cycles, for instance, that measure the deviation in Obliquity (the angle of the Earth's axis with regard to the Sun), Eccentricity (the orbital shape around the Sun) and Precession (the change in direction of the axis) that all put forces on the planet that affect our climate. Each cycle type has a different cycle time range, from 20,000 years thru to around 100,000 years - but each combined have varying 'delivery' times if you like. The convergence of the cycles produce different effects, and we have Ice Ages popping up throughout our planets history to illustrate one of these points. Conversely, warmer periods are also evident at the opposite end of those ranges.
We need to be very careful in our calculations of what is needed, so that we are not just mistaking normal planetary climatic fluctuations with those of mad-made origin. Saying all this, there is no doubt that something does need to be done.
Our oceans are at a low point - not the lowest they have been, but they are low. They've been higher too, and will no doubt get higher again. All just blah blah - but that is the problem scientists and environmentalists have - agreeing on which way we are going. Are we correctly heading to a warmer climate because nature is swinging that way, or have we caused it, or at least contributed?
OK back to the ice situation.
Polar ice caps, whether on land or floating, are vital to the climate 'as we know it'. The oceans help too, they are interlinked.
Warm areas of the world are as temperate as they are because of the polar caps. Cold areas are warmer than they should be because of the polar caps.
As fresh water ice is released into the ocean, from the polar caps, it sinks to the Ocean Floor. In doing so, water at the surface is drawn toward the point of entry, in turn sending the cold water below moving along the ocean floor away from that point. As that water traverses large areas of the planet, it displaces the warmer water above it, which in turn travels in the opposite direction back toward the pole. This is known as the ocean conveyor, and takes place in all the oceans all the time, constantly and always moving, putting warm water in cold places and cooler water in warm places. The currents are measured and are very strong.
This in turn affects climate, winds, precipitation and so on it goes.
The melting polar ice caps are potentially catastrophic for our planet, the whole planet and everyone on it. The UK would cease to exist, the US and Canada would cease to exist. Norway, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Greenland, Russia, France, Germany, the Benelux countries, Southern Europe, North Africa, right across the Middle East, Asia, Indian Ocean islands in fact almost the entire northern hemisphere would cease as a populated part of the planet - it would be impossible to live pretty much anywhere north of the equator without massive investment in infrastructure. Farming, for instance, would be devastated, so where would food come from. The southern hemisphere does not have the landmass to support the millions of displaced people, and grow the food to feed us all too.
If the polar ice caps are lost, the ocean conveyor is lost. If the ocean conveyor is lost, the northern hemisphere will freeze quickly. Ice will bear down, meters, then kilometers thick over time. Forget going home to put on the central heating, those lagged pipes will be no more. Houses will be no more. The very existence of our civilisation will be no more.
Saving the ice caps is probably one of the most important items our environmental police need to deal with.
I hope this is sobering
When I found all this out, it changed my opinion, quickly.
Complain about this comment
Duke University's environment blog reviews the environmental records of various presidents here - some interesting comparisons.
Complain about this comment
Richard and others ,
Perhaps this is one of the most telling comments , bearing in mind it written by a NASA employee.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
@SHLA2UK
Very interesting post– I’d be interested to know where your source is because I would like to read more about this.
In the meantime, are you saying that I am wrong that it will take a considerable amount of warming to melt Antarctica given that the average temperature is -50C? Of course I am aware that the ice caps are very important and I know about the conveyor, but dilution of salinity caused by melting ice? The oceans are vast compared with the ice caps and, if they were to melt, would melt gradually, not all at once. The fresh water would be spread far and wide before more than localised dilution would occur. Please provide any links you are aware of to correct me on this assumption.
What is the time period of these projections or is this just alarmism, because the timescale is beyond comprehension?
What effect does the moon moving away from the earth have on the oceans and the tides? (For those that don’t know the moon is moving away from the earth at 38 mm per year). Is it cyclical or is something else going on here? These are just questions because I don’t know the answer.
Complain about this comment
Re 23:
I have sent the link direct to Richard, perhaps he can get it past the global warming biased moderators !!!!
Complain about this comment
@toughNeilHyde
Was it this one, which basically tells us how they corrected ocean temperatures because the data was "wrong"?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/
Complain about this comment
Hi CuckooToo
Thanks for your response - and I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I felt you were wrong - that was not my intention. I thought you had a similar outlook to mine, and wanted to explore taking that idea a step further, which I think between us, we have achieved.
Many theories are open to various interpretations, and theories are just that. Time will tell, and history has told us that some theories were incorrect, but I consider myself a balanced person, and consider lots of variables before I make up my mind.
Wikipedia, although not something I would rely on for the continuation of civiliisation, does give a very good insight into the Thermhaline Circulation theory - the full name for the Ocean Conveybelt system - copied from the Nasa website I feel.
Search for Thermohaline Circulation and also the Shutdown of Thermohaline Circulation. Much of the theory is speculative - as is the way of theory - after it is proven, I guess it becomes Scientific Fact. There are tangible arguments on both sides, for both cooling and warming, and in some cases both.
The problem with this theory is that we cannot wait for it to become fact before we act - that will be too later for us all.
That was what I meant when I said we need to be careful about how we fix or intend to fix this. We could end up interfering in a natural process and really screw things up.
I don't wholly subscribe to global warming, or global cooling, but try to have a balanced outlook based on reading and learning from the perspective of being on the outside looking in - trying to see the big picture, which can be very difficult as a little person on this big planet trying to weigh everything up.
Have a look at the Milankovich Cycle theory - that is a real eye-opener if you don't know about it. Natural cycles way way way outside of our realm of understanding. It would be like trying to ask a gnat to grasp the idea of flying to the moon over a two year trip - it's just inconceivable.
For us, we are talking about 20,000 to 100,000 year cycles, with converging times within that period. The last convergence was around 20,000 years ago and that was the one fact that gave me pause for thought.
The one I can just about get my head around, for the here and now, is Obliquity - the angle of tilt of our planet at the North Pole toward the Sun. Obliquity ranges from around 22.1 to 24.5 degrees of tilt at the Nth pole. It follows a 41,000 year cycle. I think we are currently sitting at around the 23.5 degree mark.
When this is mixed with the Precession Theory and Eccentricity Theory, which are subject to other forces such as Jupiter and Saturns gravitational effect on the Earth, (and to answer your earlier one about the moon, yes, there is a Lunar effect to consider too - this is the big picture now), it get's too big for my head to comprehend yet - but I'm working on that one.
When we are at full tilt - the full 24.5 degrees of Obliquity, the top of the earth, the pole, will be exposed to the Sun for the longest period possible since the last time, 41,000 years ago. It is thought that by then, the ice cap will have completely disappeared in the summer months and by degree, will get less each winter.
That does not sound like the beginning of an ice age.
That does not sound like something to be alarmed about to me.
There are other forces to consider too. These are the natural order of things, but then we have the unquestionable fact that there is less ice at both poles than there was, and that is where we need to know "did we do that, or contribute to that or is this natural".
Unfortunately, we have no measurement of this - humans were not around and certainly no records other than investigative evidence and applied theory tell us when and how it happened last time. That is how big this is. Forget cataclysmic asteroids hurtling toward earth, this is possibly a naturally driven event and we could be accelerating it.
But, you need to take it further.
This is where the conveyor system and it's possible failure is a scary prospect, because it is the conveyor, as you know, that delivers warm air and water currents to the poles. Without that, and the effect it has, not only the poles would cool again, but it would venture further south. It is the mechanics of our planet.
In that sense, I feel that we, as the human race, have endangered, but not beyond repair, the state of this planet. We have caused damage on a large scale and we are trying to micromanage the fixes. That is the wrong approach in my opinion.
We need to fix it from the top down. Don't play around with fine tuning until we've got the engine working properly on it's own. Does that work as an analogy?
I appreciate that the ice caps will melt, they have to on a continuous basis if the Ocean Conveyor System is to work - but it also has to refreeze. The process, over the year, is that winter sees the Arctic Cap freeze, the sea freezes, and the cap expands to it's farthest reaches until spring when the thaw arrives, ice melts, keeping the ocean conveyor going through the summer months until winter again sees the freeze arrive.
At the moment, the arctic thaw is not complete - some of the ice remains each summer. The remaining summer ice helps support the wildlife there (polar bears) and contributes to the reforming of the ice sheet once the cold of winter returns. It is predicted that in 30 - 50 years, the summer ice melt may be complete, which in turn changes the ground temperature, which in turn allows biological changes to occur, which in turn may affect the polar bears, in turn allowing an environmental change, and finally, that may (see how this theory thing works) just may prevent the ice from returning the following winter, or subsequent winters, each winter getting less and less returning ice formation, meaning summers become dryer causing environmental changes again and so it goes on.
Sorry mate, I know you originally started talking about Antarctica, but the principle is the same. Actually, Antarctica is more important than the Arctic, I think, mainly because of the sheer amount of water trapped in the ice sheets. I cannot remember the numbers right now, but I could look it up, but from what I do remember, the volume was truly staggering.
Much of what I have read is also relevant, stored for me in my head, but I would like to research more and get something down in writing someday. Like I say, I don't stick to simply one side of a story, and am always open to other ideas, suggestions, much I feel like you may be, considering your response to my post.
Michael Crichton (the late author of Jurassic Park, among other titles) wrote a book, fictional though it was, called State of Fear. The book as been discredited as much as it has been praised, and he did a considerable amount of research into the writing of it. Worth a read - it was probably the one single thing that drew me into this subject more than a few years ago now. Since then, I read as much as I can from National Geographic publications, web sources such as NOAA and NASA.
Of course, there is much more to the Ocean Conveyor than water currents - the wind has an equally important effect on the system, but again, it has been suggested that the system itself lends to the wind in certain areas of the world. The Gulf Stream is one such area when the theory contends that the loss of either could result in depletion or change to the other.
I don't feel that global warming or cooling will adversely affect me, necessarily, but looking at generations to come, maybe 3 generations to begin with, further ahead, our legacy will be the cause of the situation that our future generations will need to fix, and they will find it harder because we didn't care enough to stem it in the 21st Century.
I want to write more, but I think that's enough for now - I need to think about eating something. I think I've gone on enough now. As you can gather, hopefully, this is a subject I'm passionate about.
Thanks and until next time. SH
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
To Richard Black:
It seems your original question has been bypassed. But I'd like to take a crack at it.
Is President Obama green enough?
Yes, I think so. As I see him, he is highly intelligent. He has a good heart. And he is quite obviously a political genius. A potent combination.
And he has working with him, a Nobel prize winning physicist, formerly head of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and a top-flight climatologist. And of course, Al Gore.
A good start. He will do what is possible.
To address some other comments:
I am pleased to see so much discussion, and I think, such a genuine desire to learn, as regards climate and environmental issues.
At first I thought people were just being obtuse or argumentative, but I am beginning to see that this may only occassionally be the case.
If the Greenland Ice Cap melts, sea level should go up roughly twenty meters. If the Antarctic Cap melts, something like sixty meters - ball park. Only the shelves around Antarctica are floating, the rest of the ice, the majority, is most definitely on land, enveloping some very substantial mountain ranges. In fact, a friend of mine from Mexico just finished climbing Mount Vinson a few days ago.
If any commenters would like a bit more information as to Milankovith cycles and the deep past, and Earth's historical record of past climate and atmospheric changes, I would recommend Dr. Peter Ward's recent book, "Under A Green Sky." Peter Ward is currently at the University of Washington, I believe. His bio is available from Wikipedia or internet search engines.
Just to finish off - ice ages are not the norm on planet Earth. The last two million years or so is something of an anomaly. The planet has been cooling steadily, with dropping CO2 levels, for some fifty million years. No geologist or paleoclimatolgist would argue that enormous climate changes have not occurred naturally in the past. But please don't miss the point. Human beings, all six billion of us, are just as natural as any other of the lifeforms of
the planet. There was a time, very long ago, when there was virtually no free oxygen on Earth. But to say that change is natural is to say little.
How it will affect us is the point!
Complain about this comment
Come on Richard, admit it, you've fallen for the media hype. All the climate models predict that AGW causes cooling of the Antarctic. So if this story of Steig et al were true, then all the climate models would be proved useless and all the alarmist stories of global warming would be wrong. No, the Antarctic warming paper is just a political, head-line grabbing story for AGW. Once everyone is convinced that the whole world is warming, then the stroy will be quietly dropped and it will be business as usual with the climate models predicting more disasters.
Still, you weren't the only one to fall for it. Most of the world's media also immediately fell for it and printed the story as if it had a grain of scientific truth in it.
Complain about this comment
@SHLA2UK
Thanks
I have been reading about and trying to understand the AGW hype for quite a few years now, so much of what you have written was familiar to me. I thought in your previous post you could have pointed me in the direction of some new evidence and I was prepared to do a little more reading.
Notwithstanding a complete disaster, the Antarctic will not melt nor will it melt enough to cause excessive salinity in our oceans beyond localised or severe sea level rise - it's simply too cold down there. Even if the western peninsular were to break off, it wouldn't cause sea level rise.
That sort in dis-information is simple alarmism that has no basis in fact.
Complain about this comment
After seeing various quotes from the inauguration speech, like Richard-s at the start of this report; I came across other comments about quotes begin taken out of context. So I took a look at the whole text of the speech; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/obama_inauguration/7840646.stm
I found one reference to -the planet- I had not seen mentioned before...
-- Our healthcare is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
A threat to the planet, but mixed in with healthcare, schools, and adversaries. Maybe that sets the priorities.
Then the one that has been mentioned a lot, but in fuller context...
-- With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the spectre of a warming planet. We will not apologise for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defence, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
So as I see it, (a) the reference to warming planet comes diluted with nuclear threat (b) the action will be to –roll back-, which to me is a very dismissive term to use, sounding like it would be so easy, (c) it is a spectre of a warming planet; spectre meaning ghost, (and no-one believe in ghosts) (d) it is immediately followed by the appeasement (to the US) of supporting their way of life which is then (e) driven home by reference to others who slaughter innocents for their own aims.
Overall I don’t see much positive in that for the green movement.
Complain about this comment
The models predict warming of the antarctic, although less warming than in the arctic due to the larger water mass around the continent. It's also very geographically different than the arctic in other ways.
As for the speech, it's just a general speech addressing a whole bunch of issues briefly, we will have to wait for something more specific on the subject really.
Complain about this comment
According to David Bromich of Ohio State University, Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php
According to Ross Hays, NASA Columbia the recent report showing Antarctica is warming is "absolutely wrong":
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
@davblo2
"Our healthcare is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
A threat to the planet, but mixed in with healthcare, schools, and adversaries. Maybe that sets the priorities."
Let's hope that Obama and the UK gets priorities right and sort out health and schools before wasting any more money on this fallacy called man-made global warming.
Complain about this comment
@SHLA2UK and anybody else who is interested:
A couple of good books to read:
The Chilling Stars by Svensmark & Calder (sceptical of MMGW)
Global Warming by Drake (believer in MMGW)
First, The Chilling Stars as some of you may know, suggests the recent recorded warming may be a product of cosmic rays interaction with clouds. The idea, currently the subject of a massive experiment by CERN, suggests that climate is influenced by the sun being able to deflect more or less cosmic rays from the earth, which in turn influences the amount of cloud cover over the earth. Clouds have a big influence on the climate, but are little understood. The book itself is quite readable.
Global Warming gives an explanation of MMGW including the CO2 story etc. It's an interesting book, although quite technical at times, and describes things like ocean currents, ENSO etc. The book also describes the limitations of the computer models, such as the inability of the models to describe clouds properly with the models using a parameter for clouds instead of actually modelling clouds. Overall, I thought the book was good and whilst the author was clearly convinced of MMGW, I was still not convinced, because I believe the Hockey Stick is broke (subject to TBombadil's link) and because the book itself leaves a lot of doubt in the reliability of the computer models ability to predict climate.
To climate alarmists, I would say read The Chilling Stars with an open mind
To climate sceptics, I would say read Global Warming with an open mind
Complain about this comment
hmmmm, I think I know which link toughneilhyde was talking about because I think my comment in #34 is about to receive the same treatment - in fairness, it could be the email address that was in the link.
NASA employee, Ross Hays, NASA Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility, has this to say about the Antartic warming
"From: Ross Hays
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 10:35 AM
To: ************
Subject: New data show much of Antarctica is warming
Eric,
Let me first say that this is my own opinion and does not represent the agency I work for. I feel your study is absolutely wrong."
Complain about this comment
@ l4dbill …it's just a general speech…
Well; Richard at the start of this report quotes from the inauguration speech saying that Obama –pledges... and –vows... So I imagined people took it seriously.
Complain about this comment
Re 36 :
Thats the link that the police deleted , so here is another one for them which accuses the BBC of doctoring Obamas speech for Newsnight . Surely the BBC would not cut and paste from para 16 and 22 .
Oh yes they can !!
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=147
Complain about this comment
@toughneilhyde
Neil, it was probably the email address in the link, which breaks house rules and is fair enough
If anybody wants to find the link, they just need to google what i have written in #36
Complain about this comment
@toughNeilHyde
WOW! That is pretty serious, I am seriously shocked that somebody at the BBC would actually change Obama's speech to give a whole new meaning! Looks like a job for the watchdog.
Heads gonna roll.
Complain about this comment
The alledged Susan Watts report is already being discussed on her blog.
See #21, #23, #26 on...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/susanwatts/2009/01/restoring_science_to_its_right.html
As yet no clarification.
Complain about this comment
Here is the link to the actual Susan Watts report. The edited speech is used right at the start.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7841946.stm
Shocking!
Complain about this comment
To be honest, it is really not that surprising, given the Orwellian methods of the alarmists.
Ministry of Truth anyone ?
Thats me destined for Room 101 then !
Complain about this comment
Richard,
Just reread your front page article about "Antarctic warming"
Can you please explain how the scientists have reached their findings based on 50 years of satellite records , when the sats have only been up there 30 years ?
Complain about this comment
Richard: I appreciate your candid response way back in #15. It's been a busy blog in the last few days since my last visit. I guess you must be pleased.
I'm not a scientist but I'm deeply concerned about the future of science. It's been abused by big business and has now become a political tool. Whenever I hear the phrases 'the science is in' or 'consensus' it reinforces my belief.
Science has a brilliant history of generating concepts and theories from which the human race has benefitted. Theories about light, gravity, mass, evolution, electricity etc. are still all theories and concepts. This is the strength of science. True science keeps the doors open for the enrichment of new observations to developing theories. Unfortunately this is now not to be the case as we move to the 'certainty' of science as a cover for political/business actions and agendas. I believe with Obama's team we will see the final death nail of a once noble discipline.
Complain about this comment
timjenvey:
I agree with you. Big science is now funded and directed by governments to produce the results that the governments want. There is very little pure science done for increasing scientific knowledge.
It sickens me to hear politicians say "the science is settled" (three successive ministers have said that about climate science) or "the consensus of scientists agree". As a scientist I am deeply concerned at the way science (and many of the scientists involved in government-funded science) is now almost totally politicised and any scientist who does not agree with the "consensus" is branded a "denier". What would the giants of science of the past have thought of the current situation where scientists are not allowed to disagree with the "consensus"? I fear for the future of science.
Richard: Any comments on the way science is now being corrupted as a tool for government?
Complain about this comment
Big science!
What planet do you live on?
In my experience, it would be hard to spend less on protecting and understanding the planet we rely upon.
Hopefully, President Obama will decide that it is worth being honest about the environmental problems we face and spending a fraction of the money we make using the environment on protecting it... and ourselves.
Complain about this comment
drmattprescott:
I live on a planet on which taxpayers have spent tens of billions of $ on research into man-made climate change, and on which very little has gone into natural climate change.
I agree with you that we should spend money on protecting and understanding the environment. But that should be honest and open research, not politically biased research of the kind that goes on today. It is very difficult to get scientific funding in climate research unless it is directed at man-made climate change.
It would good if some honesty were brought back into the debate. We appear to be wasting billions on researching and mitigating against a non-problem, when the planet has started a severe and prolonged natural cooling. Where will the money then be when we face food shortages and increased energy demands?
Complain about this comment
BrittinAusie:
"might frighten the easily fooled but those of us with scientific ability know"
might I ask what your scientific credentials are?
Complain about this comment
@toughneilhyde #45
"Our paper — by itself — does not address whether Antarctica's recent warming is part of a longer term trend. There is separate evidence from ice cores that Antarctica has been warming for most of the 20th century, but this is complicated by the strong influence of El Niño events in West Antarctica. In our own published work to date (Schneider and Steig, PNAS), we find that the 1940s [edit for clarity: the 1935-1945 decade] were the warmest decade of the 20th century in West Antarctica, due to an exceptionally large warming of the tropical Pacific at that time."
The author was Michael Mann on his blog at Real Climate, who seems to be saying that El Nino has an big influence and the 1940's were hotter, although then concludes that Antartica ha still been warming rapidly for the last 50 years, presumably to keep the AGW scam going.
Complain about this comment
Interesting that Obama has announced $140m for climate modellers on the same day that 50,000 people are being told they are being laid off at Caterpiller etc.
I hope he doesn't continue this way, throwing good money after bad.
Complain about this comment
A analysis of the propoganda coming out of another government organ , showig the spin put on it for the gullible.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Complain about this comment
ok it's the Daily Mail, so what do you expect, but this AGW madness really has to stop, they are going too far:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1116088/Woman-91-dies-stressed-16-000-council-make-home-eco-friendly.html
Complain about this comment
An excellent analysis of propoganda , and examples of one of it's chief proponents, James Hansen.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS