A climate tidy
Hello, web! I said HELLO, WEB!
Sorry - this is the first time I've posted since the BBC adopted this new wide blog format, and I'm just not used to all the extra room for words to echo around in.
What should we do with it? Write longer sentences, with sub-clauses, parenthetically inclined, by the dozen to embellish, decoratively, the empty white aisles? Provide more pictures and video clips and graphs to underpin and overlay the essential themes?
Or perhaps we could introduce a marking system based on variable emoticons, where the shape of a cartoon mouth would indicate in real time the prevailing character of the feedback flux from readers on various elements of the blog?
On the other hand... perhaps I'll just get on with writing the entry while those questions simmer at the back of the brain somewhere (I do like the emoticon idea, though... one for the tech boffins perhaps).
It's been a busy few days on climate science and politics. As I've suggested in previous posts, the buy-in of major developing countries is going to be crucial if negotiators from the EU and US want to achieve their self-declared aim of tying up a new global deal on climate change at the UN summit in Copenhagen in December... and the two biggest, China and India, have each just made their feelings a little clearer.
At a conference in Washington DC, China's climate negotiator Li Gao said countries importing goods from China should be responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions associated with those products.
Recent research suggests energy expended by Chinese businesses making goods for export to the US accounts for perhaps one-sixth of its greenhouse gas emissions.
China has reaped heavy criticism, not least from the US, for its rising emissions (now the largest of any country) - yet a big chunk of that rise comes from making goods to satisfy US consumers;so should they count as Chinese or US emissions?
A corollary is that "carbon leakage", as it's called - the exporting of polluting industries to developing countries that do not have emissions caps - can raise the total volume of humanity's greenhouse gas emissions, because the developing country's factories may be less regulated.
Mr Li's suggestion is a non-starter as it stands - not least because, as EU negotiator Artur Runge-Metzger pointed out, if Western nations assumed responsibility for these emissions, they would demand the tools to control them, which would clearly impinge on Chinese sovereignty and so be politically impossible.
But the wider point stands; it is pointless cutting back high-carbon production at home if all that does is stimulate more high-carbon consumption from overseas. There is some scope, perhaps, for looking at this through carbon trading.
And of course, Mr Li's comments direct the issue politically back at the developed, high-consuming world, which is politically astute.
Meanwhile in Delhi, India's climate envoy Shyam Saran was criticising Western nations for trying to tie funding for carbon cuts to the freeing of markets. "Once we start going in that direction, it means we start going for protectionism under green label," he said.
Mr Saran's words reverberated across the defile that exists between the developed and developing worlds over how much money the West should provide to help poorer nations green their economies and protect against climate impacts.
Developing countries want rich nations to cough up on on the basis that they have caused the problem - period. But some Western politicians are willing to commit sizeable funds only if developing countries agree to emissions curbs.
What should we make of these rumblings?
I think one key point is the timing. Within the next three months, a small team of officials must draft text to go into the sequence of UN meetings leading up to Copenhagen.
The first of those sessions begins in less than two weeks. I think we can expect more opening gambits to be deployed between now and then.
Organisers of last week's climate science conference in Copenhagen will be hoping that the draft text pays some attention to the main message coming out of their conference - that trends are advancing at or beyond the worst projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and therefore meaningful political action needs to come swiftly.
We've discussed this on previous posts, of course - and if you haven't seen it, I would point you to Mike Hulme's article in our Green Room series this week, where he argues that the "main message" represents the views of only a handful of people, and certainly not the broader mass of delegates.
But I concluded last time by asking if anyone would like to help scan the conference abstracts for interesting presentations. Several of you did - for which many thanks - and while I won't dwell on all the things you pointed up, there are a couple of things I wanted to comment on.
So londonjimi, you looked at cities, which are generally warmer than the surrounding region - meaning that if temperatures rise generally, city-dwellers are going to be feeling that on top of the urban heat island effect.
There are some ideas around about planning cities more thoughtfully in order to reduce the heat. Planting trees in streets, painting roofs white, rooftop gardens, smart buildings, cycling... the local possibilities are several.
But what about local funding? While in many countries you can get grants for installing renewable energy equipment, is there any city that's awarding financial incentives to plant urban trees or whiten roofs? Should there be?
If anyone has any examples they'd like to point up, please do.
simon-swede, you picked out a presentation [pdf link] on potential synergies between measures to improve human health and curb climate change, which I also thought was really interesting.
The last UN climate conference in Poland threw up the idea that improving the stoves that many of the world's poorest families use for cooking could yield significant climate and health benefits at very low cost - and that's one of the ideas that researcher Kirk Smith draws out.
The most radical, though, is improving access to contraception. Helping women in the poorest developing countries to choose their family size and the age at which they start giving birth could, he suggests, be a win-win idea, reducing population growth (and by extension, long-term carbon emissions) and improving the health of mothers and children.
I wonder whether it's yet arisen in discussions in various UN climate processes, such as the Clean Development Mechanism?
Just as I'm preparing to put this post to sleep comes news of the latest comments from Yvo de Boer, the UN's top climate official.
Put the credit crunch to one side, he warns European leaders, and stand by the financing commitments you made to developing countries at the Bali UN conference more than a year ago - otherwise there may be no deal at the end of this year.
Didn't I suggest there'd be more jockeying for position in the next few days? Now where's my smiley gone...
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.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~02~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I do wish you would stop calling CO2 emissions "pollution". CO2 is a vital and natural part of the atmosphere. It is NOT a pollutant. Without CO2 all plant and animal life would be dead.
I'm pleased that you mention the Mike Hulme article and the main message of just a handful of people. So why does the BBC have to keep pushing the message of the few in its headlines? The alarmist message "that trends are advancing at or beyond the worst projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)" is just the opinion of the fiew and is not backed by scientific evidence.
Complain about this comment
What should we do with it?
I'd just be happy with truth (supported by a bit of objective, factual accuracy), well told.
And perhaps a little less helping truths emerge, enhancing narratives and interpreting events.
Anyway, here's my smiley anyway:)
Complain about this comment
To CuckooToo:
Nice hearing from you - I like your passage.
But doesn't it say somewhere, "God helps those who help themselves"?
Another take on Copenhagen:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/03/17/a-self-fulfilling-prophecy/
To timjenvey:
There are 'inundation' maps available for the past and the present and future - they take into account tectonic and isostatic movements.
Complain about this comment
For years we had a bizarre situation where Europeans and Americans were in an eco-panic over CO2, but apparently CO2 emitted in China wasn't a propblem. Surprise, surprise..all the factories in Europe and America shut and moved to China. Same amount of CO2 for the factory, plus all the CO2 for transport, plus additional CO2 because China makes so much electricity from coal. Well done.
Is it America's CO2? or is it China's CO2? What nonsense. A molecule of CO2 is a molecule of CO2, regardless of where it comes from.
Until the eco-phobics are marginalised and we start coming up with serious alternatives to fossil fuels this sort of nonsense will continue. It doesn't matter where the factory is or where the goods go if the factory runs on electricity from nuclear power and it is heated by burning bio-mass. That will cut CO2, full stop.
Lets have some serious expenditure on alternatives to fossil fuels, not more ludicrous 'binding agreements' that everyone then ignores.
Complain about this comment
You asked about local incentives for urban tree planting. There are a number of such schemes in the US and Canada – some recent, some with a longer history. Most recognise a range of benefits, even if climate is given as a key motivator now.
A recent one is the Urban Forest Project Reporting Protocol, launched in California in August 2008. It provides guidance for developing urban tree planting and stewardship projects that can be registered with the California Climate Action Registry. The protocol establishes eligibility rules, methods to calculate reductions, performance-monitoring instructions and procedures for reporting project information. The protocol applies to tree planting projects on urban landscapes within municipalities, educational campuses and utility service areas anywhere in the U.S. Apart from the effects on carbon, they also looked at other impacts. It was determined a number of benefits could be achieved with urban forest projects, which gives the protocol tremendous value in regards to reaching California’s environmental and public health goals. Benefits include mitigating the urban heat island effect, reducing energy usage and providing storm water management.
A review of a number of US schemes can be read at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/03/AR2006090300926.html
Ontario also has a scheme:
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Newsroom/LatestNews/MNR_E004041.html
Complain about this comment
Rooftop gardens are the perfect way to help combat the rise of recorded temperatures towards the end of the last century.
They look good, freshen the air, clean up all that "nasty" CO2, attenuate rain water and help prevent flooding, encourage wildlife from birds to insects and, studies by Manchester University show, they can reduce the ambiant temperature by up to 10C, although clearly in Manchester rain attenuation is more important (asks Richard to pass a smiley emoticon)
The problem with them is the NIMBY's, the builders and the planners.
The NIMBY's don't want anything unless it is "tradional" whatever that neans.
The builders don't want anything they haven't done before (OK that's a generalisation)
The planners like them, but are concerned about approving residential schemes with flat rooms (I have personal experience of trying to get a sedum roof past the planners). It's annoying because I think sedum / green roofs are amazing.
Complain about this comment
PAWB46 @1 asks that carbon dioxide emissions not be called "pollution" as it is NOT a pollutant.
The US Supreme Court for one does not agree with you. It has ruled in 2007 that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.
The case Massachusetts v. EPA was brought by a group of 12 states (CA, CT, IL, ME, MA, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA) and a number of local governments and environmental organizations. The court was asked whether carbon dioxide was a pollutant.
The US EPA—supported by 10 states (AL, ID, KS, MI, NE, ND, OH, SD, TX, UT), four motor industry trade associations and two coalitions of utility companies—argued that under the Clean Air Act (CAA) it did not have the power to regulate carbon dioxide emissions because carbon dioxide was not deemed to be a pollutant. Furthermore, a causal link between GHGs and climate warming was not unequivocally established, according to the EPA’s position.
But the Court decided, in a split ruling, that greenhouse gases fit well into the definition of “air pollutant” under the Clean Air Act. According to the ruling, EPA’s action not to regulate GHG emissions was “arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law”. EPA must reconsider its decision, and ground its reasons for action or inaction in the CAA statute. Unless the EPA can show that carbon dioxide is not involved in the global warming seen around the world, the EPA is required to regulate it. The EPA is no longer contesting the point…
Complain about this comment
simon-swede: The US supreme court must contain idiots. If greenhouse gases are pollutants, then water vapour is also a pollutant. How can CO2 possibly be dirty. It is a colourless, odourless gas. This is political correctness gone mad.
Complain about this comment
what do you all make of this?
"History made as Jones et al 2008 paper admits huge urban warming in IPCC flagship CRUT3 gridded data over China"
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=204
Urban-related warming over China is now shown to be about 0.1 degree per decade, which equates to a degree per century
Complain about this comment
CuckooToo:
Incredible! Jones tried to slip this paper in very quietly. Not surprising as he's been saying for years UHI does not exist. Another huge hole blown in AGW. A real inconvenient truth.
Complain about this comment
- Tipping Point -
"The dangerous level of carbon dioxide... is at most 450 ppm...
Carbon dioxide has already increased from a preindustrial level
of 280 ppm to 383 ppm in 2007, and it is now increasing by about
2 ppm per year.
We must make significant changes within a decade to avoid setting
in motion unstoppable climatic change."
James Hansen, Director, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Sciences
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Hansen_1.html
Complain about this comment
This Jones et all 2008 seems to be creating quite a buzz.
From a purely layman observational standpoint I cannot get excited about 1degF/century. It just does not sound worth worrying about when we don't even know what the mean/average temperature should be in the first place.
On the other hand, if this is correct and is applied as a correction over the past 20yrs AGW pretty much disappears into oblivion. So I guess there will be a few folks worried about that.
Has anybody been following these folks trekking to the North Pole?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7897392.stm
Totally mad. I have to question if they know what they are doing. They will die in a few days unless they can be lifted off. All in the name of promoting AGW. Whatever happened to that fellow who tried to kayak to the North Pole last year? Got sent off in a blaze of headlines but I never heard anything after that.
To Cuckootoo: Looking forward to an inspirational text to start my day off tomorrow.
The worlds gone mad.
Cheers……..
Complain about this comment
Addition to #12: To start your day -
“When we remember that we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.”
Mark Twain
Complain about this comment
manysummits: What is the purpose of your quote on tipping points. An alarmist statement by a mentally deranged person ("trains of death") is senseless. There is no evidence for any of this "tipping point" garbage. Try studying the physics and you will see that there is no physics supporting the projections of climate models.
Complain about this comment
PAWB46 @14 dismisses "tipping point" garbage. A recent study suggests that expert opinion considers it to be an important consideration, even if the unceratinties are large.
Elmar Kriegler from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and the Department of Engineering and Pubclic Policy, Pittsburgh, PA, and his fellow authors have just now published a paper looking at the probabilities of major changes under global warming.
They sought subjective probability estimates from experts for a number of major changes of concern for climate policy. They looked at major changes to the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), the Greenland ice sheet (GIS), the West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS), the Amazon rainforest and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The authors chose these systems because they have been cited as candidates for harbouring large-scale discontinuities, or tipping points, where a small change in a driver, such as global mean temperature (GMT) can result in a disproportionate response of the system.
Although the expert estimates highlight large uncertainty, they allocate significant probability to some of the major events occurring.
The paper is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, see:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/03/17/0809117106.abstract
Complain about this comment
@timjenvey
thank you, but there will no others. The quote was for manysummits, who, unfortunately, seems to have stopped debating and is merely quoting what appear to be pro-AGW literature and views. It's a shame, because manysummits is clearly intelligent and passionate about this planet.
As PAWB46 points out, quoting somebody who has lost the ability to argue rationally about his scientific findings and resort to as Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with al gore put it:
DISCOVER OCTOBER 1989, Page 47 (Steven Schneider is now Editor of Climate Change Journal)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider
Complain about this comment
i don't have a problem with tipping points, because there are clear evidence for past events such as the flooding of Doggerland, the break up of the vast continent which formed europe and the americas and let in sea water to form the atlantic
but this doesn't mean tipping points are manmade ;)
Complain about this comment
CuckooTwo, I think you should finish the Steven Schneider quote. Where you end it, implies that Schenider knowingly sacrifices honesty for sensationalisim. In fact, he rejects sacrificing honesty in the name of being effective, by stating that he considers that one should be both.
In Schneider's own words:
"This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
Complain about this comment
Fair comment
however schneider is still advocating being economical with the truth
"So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have"
and that is not science
Complain about this comment
I agree that tipping points have occurred in the past; but there is no evidence for man-made global warming and thus man-made tipping points are just speculations without scientific basis.
Complain about this comment
CuckooToo, I disagree. He is saying that you should be honest.
That applies equally to science and to scientists as well!
Complain about this comment
Stephen Schneider has written in more detail about the deliberate misconstruing of the quote the CuckooToo cited earlier. So, instead of paraphrasing or interpreting, I thought I'd let Stephen Schneider "speak" for himself. He writes:
"Would you trust a scientist who advises his/her colleagues to use scary scenarios to get media attention and to shape public opinion by making intentionally dramatic, overblown statements? Would you have confidence in his or her statements if the scientist said that “each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest”? Understandably, you’d probably be suspicious and wonder what was being compromised.
I confess: those were SOME of my words, yet their meaning is completely distorted when viewed out of context like this. You will find hundreds of places — especially on the web sites of industrial or economic growth advocates opposed to global warming policies that might harm their or their clients' interests — in which I am similarly (mis)quoted alongside a declaration that my environmental cronies and I should never be trusted."
More generally he also notes:
"In the real world, we want to make a lasting impression and ensure that our ideas are heard and our suggestions are followed, yet none of us is granted unlimited time to explain the nuances of complex issues. We are forced to be selective in our disclosure of facts, or we risk being ignored. However, intentionally distorting the likelihoods of certain outcomes is just dishonest. Balancing the need to be effective in sound-bite situations with the responsibility to be “honest" (i.e., fully disclosing complexities) is what I call the “double ethical bind.""
….
"So how do we scientists deal with this bubbling cauldron of special interests, paradigmatic misunderstandings, and time-honored and entrenched professional practices? While I don’t have any simple answers, I do offer some guidelines that work for me — sometimes. First and foremost, we must drop any superiority judgments; they only stiffen the resolve of those who have been "toilet-trained" in their profession’s paradigms. Next, we should thoroughly explain how we arrive at our conclusions to those asking us for expert opinion. This explanation should include an explicit accounting of our personal value judgments, such as how much of a carbon tax we think is 'appropriate' given some estimation of climate damages from carbon emissions. I do not hesitate to give such personal judgments when asked, as I, too, am a citizen entitled to preferences, but I always preface any such offerings by saying that my personal judgment is an opinion about how to take risks — not an expert assessment of the probabilities and consequences of future events. The latter is an assessment of “what can happen and what are the odds of it happening,” and the former is a value judgment regarding what to do about those probabilities and consequences. Third, it is essential that scientists go into explicit detail on how they arrived at their risk estimates (with risk being probability times consequence). How did objective data contribute? How good was the data? What is subjective in the risk judgment? How did you arrive at the assessment?
In addition, I often try to summarize what my colleagues say and publish, keeping in mind that scientific articles that have been through multiple rounds of peer review are far different from op-eds, and which are far different from individuals' congressional testimonials. Perhaps most important, if I can put my “uncertainties cop” hat back on, I encourage scientists to explicitly state what confidence levels they assign to their risk assessments and the degree of subjectivity needed to make that confidence label."
To see the entire piece, refer to his web-site: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/MediarologyFrameset.html
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey #13:
Mark Twain is referring to 'civilized' man - and I agree.
That's why I climbed - to let the animal run - and become sane.
To CuckooToo #16: I've been word-restricted.
To PAWB46:
The evidence is not only abundant, but now prolific.
"Humanity is visiting a desolation upon the world."
- Farley Mowat, author and bilogist, and guru.
Complain about this comment
Nature reports this week that the US Environmental Protection Agency may well announce its response to the 2007 Supreme Court decision establishing the agency's authority to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. They note that EPA's administrator - Lisa Jackson - is almost certain to issue an 'endangerment' finding that would declare CO2 a pollutant that should be regulated under the 1970 Clean Air Act.
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090318/full/458266a.html
Complain about this comment
manysummits: What is this evidence and what is the theory that proves any warming is man-made and not natural, like it always has been in the past?
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede
The fact is Simon, as Schnieder shows on his web page, he did actually say "So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
20 years on and Schneider is heavily involved with the IPCC and, as a scientist, he should be reporting the facts not offering up "scary scenarios"
Complain about this comment
Anybody else get the feeling that the whole AGW thing is starting to fall apart?
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/melting-antarctic-ice-part-natural-cycle - links are there to the original papers
"ice in the Antarctic region undergoes periodic episodes of natural rapid melting"
Complain about this comment
Am I feeling that the whole AGW thing is falling apart? No, not at all really. Rather the opposite.
As has been noted here as well as elsewhere, there are many indications that there ought to be a heightened cause of concern. An example is an article published recently in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This noted:
… we describe revisions of the sensitivities of the “reasons for concern” (RFCs) to increases in global mean temperature (GMT) and a more thorough understanding of the concept of vulnerability that has evolved over the past 8 years. This is based on our expert judgment about new findings in the growing literature since the publication of the Third Assessment Report (TAR) in 2001, including literature that was assessed in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), as well as additional research published since AR4. Compared with results reported in the TAR, smaller increases in GMT are now estimated to lead to significant or substantial consequences in the framework of the 5 “reasons for concern.”
The 5 reasons for concern are:
- Risk to Unique and Threatened Systems.
- Risk of Extreme Weather Events.
- Distribution of Impacts.
- Aggregate Damages.
- Risks of Large-Scale Discontinuities.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.full?sid=9f9dc689-5071-4fd5-9695-6e49d2ca5632
Complain about this comment
Specifically on Antractic ice, Nature this week publishes several pieces on of new research. In Nature's editorial - When the ice sheet meleted - it is stated that
[In a] study focused on the past 5 million years in Antarctica, David Pollard and Robert DeConto combine ice sheet (land-supported) and ice shelf (water-supported) modelling approaches to simulate the movement of the grounding line — the border between land and sea ice. Their results show that over the past 5 million years, the West Antarctic ice sheet transitioned between full, intermediate, and collapsed states in just a few thousand years. This means that the ice sheet is likely to disintegrate if ocean temperatures in the area rise by 5 C.
And an article by Naish et al in the same issue also notes:
…a positive feedback is supported by the strong correlation between temperature and CO2 in Antarctic ice-core records and may accelerate sea-ice loss with attendant changes in albedo, further increasing oceanic and atmospheric warming.
Complain about this comment
To CuckooToo @26.
You seem to be misunderstanding that Scheinder is explaining a context in which scientists are asked to comment publicly to media. Far from the "scary scenarios" picture you are painting, Schneider clearly states that "... we should thoroughly explain how we arrive at our conclusions to those asking us for expert opinion. This explanation should include an explicit accounting of our personal value judgments..."
That is the sort of professional stance to be respected, irrespective of your own beliefs about thé subject-matter under discussion.
Complain about this comment
CuckooToo: Yes, AGW is falling apart on all fronts. The physics of greenhouse gases is being attacked as nonsense by physicists, the GCMs have been shown to be invalid, global temperatures are falling and show zero correlation to CO2 increases, the sun has gone quiet and the ocean currents have gone into their cooling mode.
The other indicator of AGW falling apart is the increasing desperation of the alarmists. There is a definite correlation between the stridency of the alarmism and the increasing scientific evidence against AGW and for natural cimate change.
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede
#29
The latest antarctic ice paper tells us the Western Antarctic Peninsular ice, which is what we are talking about here, has lost ice through natural causes, not global warming. Given the Antarctic has gained ice mass, this is pretty remarkable don't you think?
Don't take my word for it, read if for yourself
#30
What is there to misunderstand? 20 years ago Schneider stated scary scenarios are the way to make the public think AGW is genuine even if the scientists themselves have doubts. Over the last 20 years, alarmists are conjuring up scarier and scarier scenarios to frighten the public. I contend that science has no place in politics, so the scary scenarios should not be part of science. No amount of Schneiders "post-design rationalisation" will get around the fact that scientists need to scare the public to get there way.
Also, given that Schlesnger has admitted that only 20% of the IPCC have "some dealings with climate science" (whatever that means), it is clear that a very small number of true believers are having an unproportional effect on the reporting of what appears to be more and more a political belief than a scientific fact.
As PAWB46 states #31, the new consensus, supported by far more scientists than wrote the IPCC last report, is that AGW simply doesn't exist. Having said that, I still don't think consensus is the way forward for science to recover the damage to it's reputation done by the alarmist
Complain about this comment
To PAWB46 #25:
The pulse of radiogenic carbon 14 incorporated into CO2,
produced in the atmospheric nuclear testing phase
(1952-1963) has been tracked throughout the deep ocean.
In a similar manner, the fossil fuel we have been burning has been routinely monitored via its isotopic signature, as fossil fuels are virtually devoid of carbon 14, due to the relatively short half-life of C 14. (And the peer-reviewed literature)
To CuckooToo:
I have been sending links and quoting from mainstream,
conservative science, with the appeal to authority that
implies. This is only alarmist to those caught unawares,
or for other reasons - that's psychology, a big subject.
I'll give you an example of alarmist: (i.e., speculative)
- Atlantis Again !!! -
(my own idea -this afternoon on the way home)
The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is a 'maritime' ice sheet, i.e., it is grounded on soft sea sediments well below sea level. The overlying weight of the ice has depressed the crust by about a kilometer. This is isostasy at work. This is not speculative.
There must be a compensating forebulge offshore. Also isostasy at work.
Melting and ice-shelf loss continues, until a threshold is reached, possibly like the one which doomed fabled Atlantis, east of the Straights of Gibraltar, sitting on the forebulge. (This is speculative)
Huge earthquakes occur at the hinge line, and a significant portion of the entire ice sheet collapses and heads to sea. (This is realistic)
Sea level rises by a meter in a few days, perhaps a few weeks. (Also realistic)
And I haven't even tried hard.
Manysummits, B.Sc. (in alarmist mode)
Complain about this comment
To PAWB46: #25
Or try this (back to mainstream science)
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
(see "2008 Global Temperature Analysis" - it's a pdf)
The color graphs on page one are interesting, don't you think?)
Manysummits - trying to understand, trying to protect.
Complain about this comment
Addendum to "Atlantis Again!" (#33)
That should be 'west' of the Straights of Gibraltar.
No matter, we alarmists aren't taken seriously anyway!
Curiously, Plato puts Atlantis's demise at 9600 BC, within the margin of error of the date for the end of the Younger Dryas, and the Holocene began, and when Greenland, at least, warmed suddenly, and I do mean suddenly, by some nine or ten degrees Celsius.
And there is a shelf, I understand, at about the right depth, west of the coast of Gibraltar, and it is roughly where the forebulge would have been when the European ice-sheets prevailed.
\\\ High and dry in Calgary ///
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #34
For an discussion of Hansens 2008 analysis see here : http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/02/what-a-difference-20-years-makes/
I would have thought that CO2 induced runaway global warming at a rate of 0.15C per decade would have us all sweating by now, but this simpy has not come true i.e. 0.3C rise should have occurred and in realty the following has happened:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/rss_june_08.png
or here if you prefer:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/uah_june_082.png
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #33
The Western Antarctic ice sheet is just that, an ice sheet. If it melts, which is highly unlikely given the average temperature, it will not cause sea level to rise. Only ice on land can do that. Parts of the WA ice sheet is grounded, but doesn't that beg the question of which came first? Either way, even if the whole of the WA ice sheet melted, sea level would not rise 1mm, because for all intents and purposes the ice is floating. I am not saying that land based ice would not slip more easily into the sea and start to melt, I'm saying it is very unlikely.
Talking of sea rise. Do you know that 20 years ago we were being told the Maldives will have to adapt to sea level rise and again we are getting reports that the Maldivians are looking for a new home. Guess what? A study and actual observations by Nils-Axel Mörner on the Maldives paints a completely different picture
See here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/despite-popular-opinion-and-calls-to-action-the-maldives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/#more-6338
Complain about this comment
somebody claimed to have found Atlantis off the coast of West Africa using google earth, but google have said it's not
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/google/4731313/Google-Ocean-Has-Atlantis-been-found-off-Africa.html
Complain about this comment
manysummits #33: I'm not sure of the purpose of the statement about CO2. Sure, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased, but that is not evidence of AGW. The physics of convenction and radiation shows that CO2 has negligible impact on temperature.
manysummits #33: Not sure of the purpose of the link to Hansen's adjusted temperature data. Temperature has gone up and down periodically, but there is no correlation with CO2. It's just natural periodicity in the climate (ocean circulation?).
Complain about this comment
To CuckooToo #37:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
Above please find a good presentation on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
Unfortunately, there is a significant difference between a glaciologist's term 'ice sheet', and 'ice shelf'.
An ice shelf is indeed floating, and if it melts would not add one iota to sea level rise - entirely true.
But an 'ice sheet' refers to a massive glacier which is grounded on land, and much or all of its mass is available to contribute to sea level rise should it melt. This is the case with the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
If it melts in its entirety, it is estimated it would raise global sea level by some five meters. Only the perimeter of this ice sheet is floating - a relatively negligible mass of ice compared to the ice sheet proper. The link above will clarify this. In my 'alarmist' scenario, I only let one fifth of the ice sheet slide into the sea - to be realistic. The crust of the Earth is depressed below the WAIS by between half a kilometer to one kilometer. This would rebound slowly if ever the entire ice sheet were to melt, like the bottom of Hudson's Bay in Canada is doing as we speak. But there is some evidence for large seismic events at the hinge line I spoke of. These are not fabrications of my imagination, but hard science. Picture a depressed bowl under the ice sheet, and a sine wave type forebulge at its perimeter, or in front of the ice. Both the forebulge and the depressed bowl are in isostatic adjustment as long as the ice remains stable, given enough time for the adjustment to equilibrate. But if the sheet melts, and loses mass, at some point an adjustment may occur which is sudden - instantaneous effectively - a seismic event - an earthquake. Hypothetically, the bowl might adjust up, and the bulge down, simultaneously. Think about that. This might (speculative), dump one fifth of the ice sheet unceremoniously into the sea.
But on a personal note CuckooToo, I did and do appreciate your thoughts regarding my reduced presence on this blogsite - truly. Though we may never agree on the science, we all live in democracies, and the politicians are effectively powerless to act if they do not have the support of the populace. I am reminded by your kind consideration that whatever does transpire in the years ahead, being human is paramount.
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?
- Matthew 16:26
Cheers Blighty!
Complain about this comment
Would someone who is a climate shift/change/warming alarmist/believer please give a link to where Sea Levels are shown rising [above the norm for the last 200 years]?
To where CO2 is proved to be a pollutant?
To where alternative energy production will be cheaper and more efficient than coal and nuclear power? And matching in output?
To where the IPCC temperature predictions are shown to be accurate?
I have one for the IPCC predictions. As for accuracy??????
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/anomaliessince1980.jpg
Complain about this comment
Those stating absolutely that CO2 is an essential natural substance that can’t be a pollutant may be misunderstanding what is meant by the term.
Ozone, for example, is a pollutant with serious health consequences when found at street level. Ozone in the upper atmosphere is a naturally occurring substance that provides essential protection to life on earth. So is ozone a pollutant or not. The answer is that we treat ground level ozone as a pollutant, and we try reduce its presence to acceptable levels by regulating the activities that cause it. For ozone in the upper atmosphere, we try to conserve it by preventing and regulating the release of ozone depleting substances and by finding alternative products that provide the same services.
There is a technical aspect to determining whether something is a pollutant - physical or chemical characteristics, for example. It may also depend on the amounts or concentrations involved, with a low presence of a substance not been considered a problem and a higher level being regarded as pollution. But there is also a societal aspect to it, whether or not it is considered to create a nuisance may depend on where it is found and what other activities occur there, for example. It depends on decisions about what is acceptable or tolerable, and what is not. It depends upon ethical judgments and economic and political considerations too. Science can contribute to a discussion of some of these things, but it can not answer all these things on its own.
When it comes to CO2, it seems to me that if you reject anthropogenic global warming and the role played by CO2 in this, then you’ll never accept CO2 as a pollutant and that any attempts to do so seem irrational. And if you do accept that there is anthropogenic global warming and that CO2 plays a role in that, it is completely rational to treat CO2 just like any other atmospheric pollutant.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
accepted, however, we know that a body immersed in water displaces it's own volume, therefore any ice below sea level, whether or not it is resting on the sea bed, does not add to sea level rise. Any bounce back would take place over millenia as in Canada
But you assume that it will warm sufficiently to melt all of the ice. Given that even the peninsular is usually well below freezing, the chances of this happening is beyond remote. The Antarctic is so cold that even with increases of a few degrees, temperatures would generally remain below the melting point of ice. Warmer temperatures are expected to lead to more snow, which would increase the amount of ice in Antarctica, offsetting approximately one third of the expected sea level rise from thermal expansion of the oceans.
Even if the whole of the ice were to melt, we know it's natural http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/melting-antarctic-ice-part-natural-cycle
All in all, the doom and gloom merchants really need to stop their alarmism and come back down to the real earth
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede
I don't have a problem with what you have said and I agree with your explanation of ozone, but could you clarify "Those stating absolutely that CO2 is an essential natural substance that can?t be a pollutant may be misunderstanding what is meant by the term."
You've stated we may not understand what is meant, without giving an explanation of what we are meant to understand
Complain about this comment
CuckooToo, I was trying to say that whether or not something is a pollutant is a judgement that requires a range of considerations not just "what is CO2". The ozone example is a case in point.
Complain about this comment
Ok,i would contend that CO2 is not a pollutant because, except in concentrations in excess of 5%, CO2 is not a danger to life and a direct connection between rising CO2 levels and rising tempatures have only been established in computer models. (Before anybody says it, I am aware of CO2's properties in the lab)
Complain about this comment
To simon-swede:
I am really enjoying your posts and well thought out commentary.
In a very real sense, I am fighting my own nature in trying to speak logically, and coherently,in the language of science. You are much better at this than I.
Principally, I am habituated to making decisions on partial information, when the stakes are very high. My engagement in the climate discussions is because I consider the stakes to be similarly high, but the methodology of reasoned debate is a problem. It is very frustrating for a man like me to see such collossal inaction in the face of the clearest of threats, when I would already be acting in our own shared interests.
The information at hand, while partial, is enough and sufficient for immediate and comprehensive action. The details will work themselves as we act, and as the torrent of information flowing in continues to inform us.
Perhaps instead I could suggest four books on climate science - a veritable compass rose with which to inform our course for the future.
These books are non-trivial as regards the science, yet they contain historical perspective and human interest, in that they reveal the climate scientists in all their humanity.
Concerned citizens have an obligation to undertake the hard work of making themselves familiar with climate science and its practioners and specialists, as we do with our politicians.
1) The Two Mile Time Machine, 2002 (Greenland Ice Cores)
- by Richard Alley, glaciologist, Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.
2) Thin Ice, 2006 (Tropical and mountain glaciers and ice cores)
- by Mark Bowen, Ph.D., physics, MIT; about Lonnie Thompson, world expert on mountain glaciers and ice caps.
3) Censoring Science, 2008 (Atmosphere)
- also by Mark Bowen, about James Hansen, planetray atmospheric scientist and computer modelist, NASA, outspoken proponent for action.
4) Fixing Climate, 2008 (Oceans)
- by Wallace Broecker and Robert Kunzig; about Wallace Broecker's work at Lamont Doherty, fabled ocean institute on the banks of the Hudson River. Wally Broecker wrote papers with Maurice (Doc) Ewing, founder of Lamont - I myself was taking marine geology at McGill University in the late sixties, so for me this is a full-circle book. I can't say enough about this one!
All four men, Alley, Broecker, Hansen and Thompson, are genuine heroes in every sense of the word that matters. (hero, from the Greek heros, from IE. ser, to watch over, protect).
All four men are members of the United States National Academy of Sciences, and are world renowned in their respective fields. Their biographies can be accessed on Wikipedia, just type in the first and last names.
Complain about this comment
- Weather and Climate, a personal case study -
I just came in from bike riding in the tennis court outside our apartment, with my four and a half year old son and my wife. The north wind is rising, and the cold breath of winter is returning. A Winter Storm Warning was issued by Environment Canada for the Calgary area early this morning, though when I went out for my early morning coffee, it was mild and calm and clear - at first glance, a beautiful day in the making.
But a mountaineer likes his mornings clear and cold, for he is used to second glance weather.
It struck me that I should pass this on to both the climate skeptics as well perhaps as those not so skeptical, for the following reasons:
I cannot tell you how many times, when discussing the current weather forecast, I have encountered the phrase - "Oh, those weathermen, they never get it right", or words to that effect. All the while, they are talking to someone who climbed mountains full time for seven years straight, and who lived every day with current weather forecasts, and who found the weathermen to be very accurate indeed, not perfect, but enough and sufficient!
It struck me that the same is true of this climate debate. A large proportion of the public says - "Those climatologists, they don't know what they're talking about", while all the while, they do. Not to perfection, but enough and sufficient.
Time to re-engage with the natural world people. Maybe that's what is missing - most of civilized society is too far removed from the weather, except to criticize it and the weathermen, when a natural response would be to appreciate the weather, and to work with it, or around it, but not against it.
Is this not what we are all going to have to relearn with climate? Things change, even the Holocene's relative stability. This time, beyond reasonable doubt, we are tweaking the dragon's tail.
Whether you are a believer in Anthropogenic Global Warming or not, as Richard Alley and Wallace Broecker have pointed out, abrupt climate change is perhaps inevitable on our planet. The Pleistocene appears from all credible studies of the past, to be poised on hair-trigger alert to forcings which initiate positive feedback abrupt climate change.
We have injected a trillion (1 x 10 EEX 12) metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since 1751, half of that in the last twenty five years, and we are increasing that by some two to three percent per year. Background volcanic emmisions from all volcanoes, including the 60,000 kilometer mid-ocean ridge system, are on the order of 0.2 to at most 1 billion (1 x 10 EEX 9) tons per year, two orders of magnitude less than we, anthropogens all, are emitting per year.
CO2 is up 38 percent over preindustrial levels (280 to 387 ppmv), and has never been above 300 ppmv for at least 450,000 years (four glacial intergalcial cycles).
Ocean pH has dropped by some 35 percent over the same time interval, from 8.179 to the current 8.05.
The world ocean, aside from having its chemistry changed by us, is absorbing eighty per cent of the greenhouse warmth generated by our greenhouse emissions, and has been empirically measured as having warmed by four one hundredths of a degree Celcius, which may not sound like a lot at first glance. But here too, a second glance is warranted. That equates to an amount of heat, that if transferred to the atmosphere(a much smaller heat reservoir), would raise global average atmospheric temperatures by forty degrees Celcius ( That's 40 deg C !).
If you doubt these figures, it's time to investigate for yourselves, for the stakes are indeed high.
- Calgary -
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
could i ask if you read anything on climate change that challenges your view that man is responsible? There are many articles and books that refute the whole notion that man is responsible. Personally, I do read the alternative view to mine, but I keep coming back to the view that CO2 emissions are not responsible.
please consider reading other current views and then if you are still of the opinion that man is responsible, that's fine, incorrect, but fine ;)
btw the current trend cooling in the oceans, which means more CO2 will be absorbed in the sinks
Complain about this comment
To CuckooToo:
Lets look at this another way.
If anyone, I say again, anyone, could show convincing proof that the fossil fuel carbon dioxide being emitted into our atmosphere was not the principal cause of global warming, of ocean warming and acidification:
That person would be given a Nobel Prize, perhaps two, would win the admiration and thanks of the world community, and would be given a lifetime stipend to continue whatever researches that person wished.
This person, or persons, would go down in history, and would be immortalized by the very afraid, very confused, people of planet Earth.
- Manysummits, watching the predicted winter snow
filling the air in Calgary -
Complain about this comment
there is ample evidence, manysummits, you are just need to look at the alternative views, not views that reinforce your own view
to disprove the theory of CO2 being the driver of global warming we just have to wait, because the rise in CO2 continues but the rise in temperatures does not and the oceans cool, and bearing in mind that Gaving Schmidtt himself has said 20 years of flat or falling temperatures is enough to disprove AGW, we are half way there
in the meantime I can think of better things to spend trillions of dollars on than proving or solving AGW that would have greater benefit to the people who need it most
Complain about this comment
Richard Black:
China has reaped heavy criticism, not least from the US, for its rising emissions (now the largest of any country) - yet a big chunk of that rise comes from making goods to satisfy US consumers;so should they count as Chinese or US emissions?
I think that the Chinese should and may be depending on the U.S. for emissions...
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
Richard:
To answer your text
Sorry - this is the first time I've posted since the BBC adopted this new wide blog format, and I'm just not used to all the extra room for words to echo around in.
What should we do with it? Write longer sentences, with sub-clauses, parenthetically inclined, by the dozen to embellish, decoratively, the empty white aisles? Provide more pictures and video clips and graphs to underpin and overlay the essential themes?
Yes, i think that you can do....all of the things that you mentioned in the blog, to make it more interesting to read and enjoy....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
- More on West Antarctic Ice Sheet -
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090318140522.htm
"It also appears that when atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations reached 400 parts per million around four million years ago, the associated global warming amplified the effect of the Earth's axial tilt on the stability of the ice sheet," he said.
"Carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is again approaching 400 parts per million," Naish said. "Geological archives, such as the ANDRILL core, highlight the risk that a significant body of permanent Antarctic ice could be lost within the next century as Earth's climate continues to warm. Based on ANDRILL data combined with computer models of ice sheet behavior, collapse of the entire WAIS is likely to occur on the order of 1,000 years, but recent studies show that melting has already begun."
- From Calgary -
Complain about this comment
Addendum to post #54:
The more I read about climate change, the more I see the predictions of James Hansen borne out. Here is an article by Dr. Hansen from 2007 re the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. The recent findings posted in the link #54 above would seem to bear Dr. Hansen's prescience out.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2007/Hansen_2.html
Dr. Hansen:
"Summer melt on West Antarctica has
received less attention than on Greenland, but
it is more important. The West Antarctic ice
sheet, which rests on bedrock far below sea
level, is more vulnerable as it is being attacked
from below by warming ocean water, as well
as from above by a warming atmosphere.
Satellite observations reveal increasing areas
of summer melt on the West Antarctic ice
sheet, and also a longer melt season..."
The entire article by Dr. Hansen is extremely interesting.
I for one, am very appreciative of this man's work. I've always maintained that the trick in life, as in science, is knowing who to believe.
- From Calgary -
Complain about this comment
I think I will give up asking Manysummits to read alternative views. Articles from the same website he cites:
Overall Antarctic Snowfall Hasn't Changed In 50 Years
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060810210857.htm
"If the ice sheet does collapse, it is more likely to be part of a natural collapse cycle, or as a response to climatic change that occurred many thousands of years ago, rather than a response to current climatic change." - British Antarctic Survey http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040927082256.htm
Could Volcanic Activity In West Antarctic Rift Destabilize Ice Sheet?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080229183818.htm
Scientists Detect Thickening Of West Antarctic Ice Sheet
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020130074839.htm
Complain about this comment
simon-swede, thanks for your posting on incentives for urban tree planting and so on - much appreciated.
You and others have also responded to PAWB46's contention that CO2 shouldn't be referred to as a "pollutant" - but I'll throw in my five penn'orth too. I don't think anyone would argue, PAWB46, that water is one of the most essential substances around; but if you find yourself 50 metres down in the sea without a source of air, it becomes a threat to life. Likewise CO2 may be essential to life on Earth, but if you're clambering up an active volcanic crater, you may find it seeping out in such concentrations as to pose a threat to your consciousness. If it's working to raise global temperatures, that will eventually pose a risk to some societies and ecosystems. Context is everything; and it's clearly in the context of a greenhouse gas that the EPA is mulling whether to list CO2 as a "pollutant".
Complain about this comment
The first concrete, irrefutable proof that AGW is a religion not a science ;)
"An executive sacked from a giant property company can claim he was unfairly dismissed because of his "philosophical belief in climate change", a judge ruled yesterday.
In the first case of its kind, employment judge David Sneath said Tim Nicholson, a former environmental policy officer, could invoke employment law for protection from discrimination against him for his conviction that climate change was the world's most important environmental problem.
That conviction amounted to a philosophical belief under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations, 2003, the judge ruled on a point of law at a pre-hearing review of an employment tribunal in London."
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/tim-nicholson-a-green-martyr-1648388.html
Complain about this comment
"Enriching" is a better word for the effects of CO2. Here are some results of raising the level to 550ppm. And it gets even better up to 1000ppm. As the earth is now cooling we will have reduced growing seasons so some extra CO2 to keep up the yields will surely be good.
SAMPLE RESULTS FROM CO2 ENRICHMENT STUDIES
BIBB LETTUCE
By adding CO2 to the atmosphere around the plant, a 40% crop increase was achieved. Whereas previous crops averaged 22 heads per basket, lettuce grown in the increased CO2 atmosphere (550 ppm) averaged 16 heads of better quality per basket.
CARNATIONS
CO2 levels to 550 ppm produced an obvious increase in yield (over 30%), but the greatest benefits were earlier flowering (up to 2 weeks) with an increased percentage of dry matter.
ROSES
The addition of controlled carbon dioxide provided a remarkable improvement in blossom quality, number and yield. Plants consistently produced many more flowers with 24 to 30 inch stems. Average yield was increased by 39.7%.
TOMATOES
Work in experimental stations has shown that crop increases of as much as 29% have been obtained by increasing the CO2 concentration. More desirable firmness and more uniform ripening are also observed.
Complain about this comment
To the skeptics:
I have looked at the alternative views. Do you really think that I haven't?
My concise summary - rubbish!
And that's being kind. At worst - vested interests, who seek only to maintain doubt and confusion.
I've noticed an extraordinary dearth of response to my post #50, where I pointed out that anyone who could provide credible proof of the skeptics views would win a Nobel prize and the thanks and admiration of the world.
Think how glad every president and Prime Minister would be to have this information at hand.
Have the skeptics neglected to tell the world's leaders that there is nothing to worry about, that it's all a plot to get them to spend money?
The true situation is this.
By maintaining an air of 'debate', which patently does not exist, and by the use of red herrings and other tried and true public relations tactics, an air of confusion and doubt does indeed persist in the minds of the voters. The leaders cannot act until public opinion is on the side of Man-made global warming and climate change.
But here, as in climate change, there are thresholds. In the public sub-conscious, there is a vague recollection of the Larsen 'A' and 'B' ice-shelves collapsing into the sea. Hollywood has helped, with "The Day After Tomorrow." The water shortages and droughts continue and intensify, the mountain glaciers will soon all be gone.
At some point, the Emperor will be shown to have no clothes.
I can't really fault the public on this one, as angry as I sometimes get.
I was just re-reading James Hansen's 2005 "Science" paper, "Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications". Heavy going, definitely the province of the specialists. Hence Dr. Hansen's public proclamations, in popular magazines such as "Scientific American", or "New Scientist", and his testimony before Congress.
So we'll wait for the threshold to come.
The ocean fishery is already collapsing in its entirety, large parts already have.
The World Ocean's pH? How many understand that pH is an exponent to the base ten of Hydrogen activity? Or can calculate its drop? Or understand, even remotely, what that may imply?
How many have studied the deep past of Earth's history, and understand what a mass extinction of over 70% of Earth's species entails and implies? How many even believe the Earth has such a long history, or think that evolution is still a theory?
I am just a man. A man who would prefer to climb mountains with my son and wife. But you know what, this threat is real, and it is now, and I will continue to do what I can to expose this sham of controversy over man made climate change.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
Manysummits
I couldn't agree with you more!
Complain about this comment
Richard at 57:
Virtually anything will kill you if it is concentrated and eliminates oxygen. But at up to at well over 1000ppm CO2 is beneficial. It is a spurious argument you have used.
manysummits: CO2 follows temperature; it does not lead temperature.
Complain about this comment
- An angry voice -
My wife had me watching some youtube footage of the 1992 Los Angeles riots after four policemen were acquitted of any wrongdoing. She thinks this will have to happen on climate change before we act in concert, in a meaningful way. And my wife wants me to tell you this.
So I am donning my "Great Peace" Iroquois garb, and am listening to the true lovers of life on this planet - the women!
Perhaps "TVGirl" would like to comment?
PS: - To the Skeptics -
I am sure there are legitimate skeptics out there - power to you. Post #60 was not meant to discourage you. But I am just as sure there are bloggers out there who have made their pact with the devil.
Idea! Psychoanalyse the names of the bloggers. Are they trying to identify with the majority through the use of their names? Is this the case with 'manysummits' or 'simon-swede', or 'Roland Gross' etc???
- From Calgary -
Complain about this comment
manysummits @ 63:
I am a legitimate sceptic. I am a physicist. I have studied man-made global warming (AGW) and the theory is not supported by the physics of the atmosphere. I have studied the scientific evidence for AGW and that is also not there. There is plenty of evidence of natural climate change and the evidence is that we are in a period of natural global cooling.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
I respect your views, manysummits and, whilst I don't agree with your belief that man is responsible for global warming, I think you have every right to express them.
You talk of vested interests, but I have no vested interest in "denying" man made global warming, unless you count not wanting to spend my hard earned money on something that is only real in a computer.
You talk of vested interests, but forget the AGW industry has receives far greater funding and more free publicity every year than the "denial" industry receives in 10 years.
You talk of vested interests, but forget the number of scientists who would lose their jobs without the AGW industry.
You talk of vested interests, but neglect to mention that a certain climate scientist received $250,000 just before endorsing a US senator, who's wife happened to be head of a foundation supporting global warming.
Your point #50 was replied to by me.
There is no need to prove CO2 is not the driver of climate change, because that is not how science works. There is no credible proof that CO2 is the driver, merely a theory and a computer model - a computer model that cannot predict past climate and current climate, cannot predict future climate. It really doesn't matter how many times true believers tell us that the debate is closed and the (consensus) science is in, because science isn't done by consensus. Science is done by experimentation and observation, before conclusions are reached - not reach a conclusion and then make the science fit. I've said before, a lead author for the IPCC has admitted that only 20% of the IPCC had "some" knowledge of climate science. My calculations suggest this means no more than 500 people at the IPCC. The last "deniers" conference was attended by over 700 scientists, all of whom "deny" AGW. I've no idea why AGW believers, living not more than a couple of miles away didn't attend, if only to observe the proceedings, but perhaps it's the same reason why Steve McIntyre is referred to as the man who should remain nameless according to one of your hereos.
It wasn't a "denier" that said that scientists should use the media etc by feeding scary scenarios no matter how much doubt the scientist had about the causes of global warming
We know the IPCC have said of their own computer models "Models continue to have significant limitations, such as in their representation of clouds, which lead to uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details, of predicted climate change."
You have agreed that the MWP existed here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/02/highquality_climate.html#P76886843
So we know that the temperatures towards the end of the 20th century were not unprecedented as we are constantly being told by your heroes
We know that Al Gore "documentary" contained at least 9 errors according to a judicial review held in the UK and we know that Al Gores recent slideshows have had to be editted to remove (not replace) errors.
There are so many other bits of science that show that global warming is natural, from the possible break up of the Antarctic ice shelves to the oceans cooling and yet you still don't think that maybe, just maybe, it may all be natural? I'm a "denier", but even I read some reports and think maybe I'm wrong, surely you can't be so sure of what your heroes tell you that there isn't a little doubt that crosses your mind?
Sorry for the long post. One thing we all have in common on Richards blog is a love of nature and the environment. We may not all see eye to eye, but long may our ove of nature and mutual respect for each others views continue
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
please read this and tell me what you think
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
btw, my wife is studying for her PhD and rejects AGW, and is trying to leave out anything about climate change, but thinks her supervisors will advise her to include the premise that man is responsible for all climate evils to keep her funding and chances of getting her articles published.
I should add that she is not studying climate
Complain about this comment
Well said CuckooToo. You and I are wasting our time with manysummits. His mind is closed to logical science. I don't think he understands how science should be performed; as you state, "by experimentation and observation, before conclusions are reached - not reach a conclusion and then make the science fit".
Complain about this comment
I don't think we are wasting our time with manysummits, because he clearly cares deeply for this planet and it's inhabitants, as all that regular visitors to Richards blog
The fact that he is prepared to listen without attacking raises him above the level of other alarmists
I really would like to see any alrmists views on the links that i post, including Richard, although i think he would not like the term alarmist
Complain about this comment
I’m not a qualified scientist although I did major on sciences at school. My view of the AGW debate is primarily from observations.
- The scientific establishment said in the 70’s that there would be global cooling. Deniers said the ocean currents would turn positive and we would get warming until the end of the century. Who was right?
- The scientific establishment said in the later part of the 19th century we would have catastrophic global warming and surpass tipping points in the first few years of the 20th century. Deniers said that the ocean currents would turn negative and La Nina’s would prevail and we would be in global cooling. Who was right?
- The scientific establishment said that in 2011/12 the sun would be at an all time high solar radiation and satellites and power grids would be destroyed. Deniers said that the sun would continue its downward trend and likely bring on cooling. Who was right? (On the sun trend at least for now).
- I observe that the climate models that appear to be the primary source for supporting AGW have been notoriously unable to model past climate and predict future climate even within a few years. What faith does that give in the predictions for 10’s and 100’s of years into the future?
- I observe that there are prominent scientists in prominent positions who hold denier views and are not getting listened to.
- I observe alarmist rhetoric (death trains, holocaust deniers, CO2 called a pollutant etc.), suppression of alternative views and incited political activism. History tells me to be cautious in such times.
And the list goes on. I’m all for investing my time and money, as I do now, in the cleanup of our air and water from real pollutants. I’m (and I know I speak for many as I see in opinions polls and amongst friends and colleagues) not convinced and my current observations are rapidly moving me completely into the denier camp.
Complain about this comment
- Evidence, i.e., not a computer model; Greenland and West Antarctica -
"Greenland and Antarctica are also
contributing to the rise in recent years.[sea level]
Gravity measurements by the GRACE
satellites have recently shown that the ice
sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica
are each losing about 150 cubic kilometres
of ice per year. Spread over the oceans,
this is close to 1 millimetre a year, or
10 centimetres per century." (pg. 32)
"The broader picture strongly indicates that
ice sheets will respond in a non-linear fashion
to global warming – and are already beginning
to do so. There is enough information now, in
my opinion, to make it a near certainty that
business-as-usual scenarios will lead to
disastrous multi-metre sea level rise on the
century time scale." (pg. 34)
"There is not a sufficiently widespread
appreciation of the implications of putting
back into the air a large fraction of the carbon
stored in the ground over epochs of geologic
time. The climate forcing caused by these
greenhouse gases would dwarf the climate
forcing for any time in the past several
hundred thousand years – the period for
which accurate records of atmospheric
composition are available from ice cores." (pg. 32)
- Dr. James Hansen, NASA
- in New Scientist; 28 July 2007
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
(see "Other Articles" - Climate Catastrophe)
Note: This article is free on Dr. Hansen's website, and is riveting reading from the first word to the last!
To PAWB46:
This time the initial forcing is primarily man-made greenhouse gases.
In paleoclimate history, over , say, the last four glacial/interglacial cycles (~ 450,000 years), the initial forcing was probably not CO2, certainly not man-made CO2 - it was very possibly orbital forcings (Milankovitch perturbations), or solar irradiance, etc... CO2 then followed, as one of the principal amplifying feedbacks.
I'm surprised a physicist is not aware of this?
It is why Dr. Hansen points out (in the quotes above) that:
"The climate forcing caused by these
greenhouse gases would dwarf the climate
forcing for any time in the past several
hundred thousand years – the period for
which accurate records of atmospheric
composition are available from ice cores."
- James Hansen
Manysummits, Calgary
Complain about this comment
To seasambo #61:
Thank you!
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
#70 manysummits
You highlight one of my reasons for being a denier:
Dr Hansen is a political activist inciting no-brainers to close down power stations and runways. He has been labeled as "an embarrassment to NASA" by two of his previous bosses. He has used emotive language like "death trains", "factories of death” etc.
Compare this with respected prominent scientist in prominent positions like Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer and ask me again why I'm skeptical.
I'm tiring of this debate but I will keep going because I love and want the best for my environment and the future of our planet and my campfire buddies.
Cheers............
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #70
Hansen may have been right in 2007, although he doesn't consider that the "scientific reticence" he talks about may be due to science not being on board with him, but pleases consider the work “Galloping Glaciers of Greenland have Reined Themselves In” by Richard A. Kerr (Science 23 January 2009: Vol. 323. no. 5913, p. 458). Not reported by the BBC AFAIK.
As the title suggests, the article explains that a wide-ranging survey of glacier conditions across south eastern Greenland, indicates that glacier melt has slowed significantly and that it would be wrong to attribute the higher rates of melt prior to 2005 to global warming or to extrapolate the higher melt rates of a few years ago into the future.
Mr Kerr was reporting on a presentation by glaciologist Tavi Murray at the American Geophysical Union Conference in San Francisco last December. The paper by Dr Murray was co-authored by many other members of the group at Swansea University in the UK, a team often quoted by Al Gore and others.
Apologies for stealing the last couple of paragraphs from a blog, but I need to go to work
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/no-reporting-of-slowing-greenland-glaciers-shame-on-the-msm/
Complain about this comment
i've just thought of another vested interest
the chairman of a company that makes considerable sums of money by investing in green companies and technology
google "Generation Investment Management" for the answer to this one ;)
Complain about this comment
To manysummits at #70:
Oh yes I am indeed aware of the Milankovitch cycles. As a physisict I am also aware that CO2 does not know about the Milankovitch cycles or whether it (the CO2) is being degassed from warming oceans, from decaying plants, from animals or from burning of fossil fuels. The physics of the effect of greenhouse gases does not depend on the initial forcing. James Hansen is talking nonsense when he talks about climate forcing. CO2 changes follow temperature changes. James Hansen makes the totally unsubstantiated assumption about positive feedback from water vapour and ignores the negative feedback from clouds. James Hansen's wild statements are based on computer models which are designed with this positive feedback mechanism to guarantee warming following CO2 increase. It is total fabrication.
Complain about this comment
There has been some very positive developments in the US about the role of science in informing and influencing government policy (see Science, 20 March 2009):
One aspect, relevant to the climate debate featured here, is the president's Memorandum on Scientific Integrity. This was issued earlier in March and was addressed to the heads of all executive departments and agencies.
In the Memo, the President directed those officials to neither suppress nor alter scientific and technological findings solicited in the process of policy formulation. He also asked that scientific information developed or used by the government be made readily available to the public. To put these directives in place, the president requested the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop recommendations "designed to guarantee scientific integrity throughout the executive branch" and to ensure "that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda."
As Science noted - "The recommendations called for to sustain these bold ambitions would place scientific competence and integrity among the core principles of the government's science-based endeavors." For example, they should ... establish means for addressing instances in which scientific integrity may be compromised, and provide protections for those who draw attention to possible assaults on the integrity of scientific advice."
The Science article goes on to note that "The need for these measures derives, in part, from the many well-documented cases in which scientific integrity was recently breached, as when political appointees shut government scientists out of critical decisions that hinged on scientific information, prevented the transmission of scientific reports to Congress, appointed unqualified individuals to scientific panels because of their ideological or political persuasion, or censored government reports dealing with climate change and species extinction."
As noted earlier, it is widely anticipated that the US EPA will issue a finding on CO2 as a pollutant. Any such finding would need to fulfil the above-mentioned criteria and the scientific and judgement bases for any such finding would need to be made clear.
Complain about this comment
To simon-swede #76:
Have you read "Censoring Science", by Mark Bowen, about the intimidation and fund-cutting directed at, most prominently, Dr. Hansen at NASA?
Do you think the Obama team will act on climate change any time in the near future? Can they, with so large a percentage of the population effectively illiterate in this field of climate change, and pre-disposed by popular fundamentalist religious views, can they act?
To PAWB46 #75:
What a non-answer!
Your language (wild statements by James Hansen...);
and your content (based on computer models; ignores clouds; CO2 does not know about Milankovitch cycles...)
and your lack of acknowledgement of past paleoclimate evidence, which now fills libraries;
all this tells me all I need to know about you and your scientific credentials.
You do not speak as a reasonable man, nor as a physicist, not even as an amateur climate student - in my opinion.
I shall be distancing myself from you and your bretheren as this 'debate' continues.
Manysummits, Calgary
Complain about this comment
To manysummits @77
No, I haven’t read the book you mention. But I have read widely around – and participate actively in discussions of, and in decision-making based on – considerations of the role of science in regulatory decision-making. This includes recognising the essential role played by science in informing decision-making, and also the limitations to its role and the importance of other considerations also.
I do not share your opinion about the character of American society.
As to whether the Obama team will act on climate change any time in the near future, I read a good overview in Science on 18 March 2009. I can summarise the main elements of that article as follows:
- It reported that the first moves from the Obama administration might come as early as this month - March, when the US EPA could announce its response to the 2007 Supreme Court decision establishing the agency's authority to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. If, as widely expected, the EPA issues an endangerment finding declaring CO2 a pollutant that should be regulated under the 1970 Clean Air Act, then technically this would allow the Obama administration to move forward with regulating carbon on its own.
- It is also considered that Obama's main goal is to push a bill through Congress and that the first actions from lawmakers could come from the House of Representatives. The chair of the House energy and commerce committee has said his committee will produce a comprehensive energy and climate bill by the end of May. The House speaker has promised to bring such a bill out of committee and onto the full House floor for a vote this year. It is expected that the House legislation would be comprehensive and address a number of interrelated aspects of climate change policy, not just carbon or GHG cap-and-trade issues.
- It is unclear whether the Senate will take the same comprehensive approach as been attempted in the House. The Senate majority leader has said that he will bring a bill to the floor again this year, but there is still debate as to how comprehensive it might be — or not. The chair of the Senate's environment and public works committee, has said she wants her committee to produce simplified legislation – whatever that might entail. It is suggested that this could be limited to a cap-and-trade outline only, leaving other committees to handle provisions related to things such as energy, taxes and agriculture.
- It is noted that the challenge of getting the US Congress to act may become more complicated if a new international agreement is reached in Copenhagen. Such a treaty would require a two-thirds majority to pass in the Senate. One option may be to have congressional executive agreements as used for most international trade agreements. These have the same legal effect as a treaty, but require only 60 votes to pass in the Senate. In these, Congress would authorize the president to negotiate an agreement, which is then voted yes or no by Congress on its return.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide
Author: Quirk, Tom
Source: Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, January 2009 , pp. 105-121(17)
Publisher: Multi-Science Publishing Co Ltd
Abstract:
The conventional representation of the impact on the atmosphere of the use of fossil fuels is to state that the annual increases in concentration of CO2 come from fossil fuels and the balance of some 50% of fossil fuel CO2 is absorbed in the oceans or on land by physical and chemical processes. An examination of the data from:
i) measurements of the fractionation of CO2 by way of Carbon-12 and Carbon-13 isotopes,
ii) the seasonal variations of the concentration of CO2 in the Northern Hemisphere and
iii) the time delay between Northern and Southern Hemisphere variations in CO2,
raises questions about the conventional explanation of the source of increased atmospheric CO2. The results suggest that El Nino and the Southern Oscillation events produce major changes in the carbon isotope ratio in the atmosphere. This does not favour the continuous increase of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels as the source of isotope ratio changes. The constancy of seasonal variations in CO2 and the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest that fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted. This implies that natural variability of the climate is the prime cause of increasing CO2, not the emissions of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels.
Complain about this comment
To manysummits @ 76:
So, as you prefer to slur my scientific credentials, tell me yours.
Good to know you think the debate wil continue. Your fellow AGW alarmists keep telling us the debate is over and the science is settled.
Complain about this comment
To manysummits @ 76:
Having followed this interesting debate it's a shame that you now resort to ad-homien attacks, I take it then you have lost the debate and now rely on the use of soundbite. A typical pro AGW tactic, if you can't beat the science attack the person and hope enough mud sticks to destroy there credability.
Complain about this comment
Guys,
Please none of us resort to attacking anybody else, as is so prevalent on other forums. We all come here because of the air of tolerance and a mutual love of nature.
Let's keep it that way, please
Apologies to Richard if I am talkign out of turn here
Complain about this comment
To simon-swede #76 & 78:
As you say there have been some very interesting developments here in the US. The Obama Memorandum on Scientific Integrity earlier this month and the recent announcement by the EPA to recommend CO2 be classed as a pollutant.
Obama's appointees in this area are all committed to the AGW agenda; although reading their recently 'updated'/'sanitized' resumes (WEB references scrubbed clean) you would think they were the epitome of balance. Under the memo they will have unprecedented support to remove personnel who are deemed not right for the job. A very worrying aspect and shared by many from my conversations and if reports are to be believed. (Watch this space to see who goes and who stays)
So, it looks like everything is set to roll (well, it’s got to get through on the votes but I think it’s set up for a slam dunk). CO2 classed as a pollutant (under the new cloak of Memorandum on Scientific Integrity – so it must be right) will give unprecedented controls over the way "We The People" live our lives. With the bank bailouts giving control over the money supply I'd say we are pretty much sunk. Only left now to roll over and get our tummies rubbed.
So the deniers will probably go underground and as history has it they will probably lead the next revolution in years to come as the earth cools and folks rebel against the establishing Orwellian totalitarianism.
A bit of a tongue in cheek on the last comment but I could put some money on it.
Oh. And being a US citizen I also “do not share (manysummits) opinion about the character of American society”. Thanks for support.
Cheers......
Complain about this comment
To simon-swede #78:
Thank you for your reply.
I hope you are right about the American electorate.
Complain about this comment
To PAWB46 #81 & #75:
I am quite sure I have not slurred your credentials, nor would I.
Rather I challenge you to live up to the obligations implicit in any recognized degree, and to live up to the obligations of any man, or woman, who wishes to engage in serious discussion, whether he, or she, has a degree or not.
As for my credentials - a Bachelor of Science, with distinction; major field of study, geology, with significant excursions into climate science and weather. Marine geology at McGill University, Montreal, petroleum geology at the University of Regina, geophysics at the University of Calgary. A lifetime of ambitious reading, and eclectic experience in the world, both at work and at play.
I have always been a risk sport addict (pilot, sport parachutist, canoeman, mountaineer etc...), and have lived a large part of both my working life and my avocational life outdoors.
I am a generalist by inclination and experience. At fifty-nine, I believe I am still largely instinctive, and have never been tamed. My wife thinks I am an artist - who can say?
Reread your comments in your post #75. Where is your evidence? Your comments are sweeping generalizations, or statements such as :
"James Hansen is talking nonsense when he talks about climate forcing."
- PAWB46, #75
This comment deserves the epitaph - 'nonsense comment'.
By now I have read, several times, publications by James Hansen, both in the popular literature, and in the scientific literature. I find his discussions carefully reasoned, important points are fully referenced, and where applicable, caveats discussed. Implicit arguments are identified as such, hard evidence is referenced as such, error factors and uncertainties are identified, modelling is fully explained, with references, etc...
In no instance have I seen anything resembling your type of argument, which is, with some exceptions, devoid of scientific merit. Rather, your comments are inflammatory, and would appeal, I imagine, to those who do not want to know, who would prefer that it all just go away, or, failing that, to ascribe the blame to natural causes. And all the while, we inject this year some thirty billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, most of it from fossil fuel combustion - this equating to from fifty to one hundred and fifty times the emissions from all the worlds volcanoes per year.
We have become a force of nature, by our very numbers and by our barbarous exploitation of the natural world.
This cannot continue. Anyone versed in the ways of nature knows this. But we have largely divorced ourselves from nature, and we have forgotten that the real laws are not written down anywhere at all. They just exist, and must be obeyed.
I will close with this, from Reinhold Messner's "Crystal Horizon", which describes his solo climb of Mount Everest, without oxygen, alone, without radio, during the monsoon, August 20, 1980:
"Foolish are you, who in the midst of life,
do not sense the coming of death."
- From Dardo Thodol
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion
By Q.-B. Lu, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo,ON
http://icecap.us/
I was always of the opinion that it was cfc's causing the ozone hole, but it seems it's cosmic rays all along.
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey @84
I disagree with your interpretation of measures intended "...provide protections for those who draw attention to possible assaults on the integrity of scientific advice" and a requirement to develop recommendations "designed to guarantee scientific integrity throughout the executive branch" and to ensure that "scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda."
You say that this is intended to lend "unprecedented support to remove personnel who are deemed not right for the job."
I'd say it is about ensuring the protection of those who refuse to allow their scientific knowledge to be undermined by political pressures.
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede
Are you not even curious that a certain scientist, who is subject to the Hatch Act, is able to attend protests and give "expert" evidence (that was never cross examined! - ok cospiracy theory there lol), is not dismissed?
Complain about this comment
To CuckooToo @87
The icecap article you refer to states "The results provide strong evidence of the physical mechanism that the CR [cosmic ray] driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules plays the dominant role in causing the ozone hole."
Don't you think that the halogenated molecules referred to are in fact CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances ? So the cosmic ray correlation is showing an explantion of why the rate of ozone depletion is variable. But is also showing that the presence of halogenated molecules, especially CFCs, is critical to the depletion.
In the icecap article, there is a link given to the actual scientific paper, in which it is stated:
In the CR-driven mechanism, the O3-depleting reactions depend on halogen concentrations, CR intensity, and PSC ice (to hold the electrons) in the stratosphere. From 1992 up to now, the Antarctic O3 loss has shown a clearest correlation with the CR intensity. This is because the total halogen amount of the stratosphere, particularly those of CFCs, is nearly constant in that period of time; thus the regulating effect of CRs on O3 loss becomes manifest. In contrast, such a time correlation is hardly seen in the enlarging spring polar O3 loss during 1980s, since at that period of time, the halogen loading increased dramatically and thus ozone showed a drastic decreasing trend blurring the CR-O3 loss correlation. And in the pre-1980s, no significant halogen loading was found in the stratosphere, and thus no significant O3 loss was observed.
If I have misunderstood what is actually said, please explain!
Complain about this comment
manysummits @ 86
OK, if we're coming clean. I have a first class honours degree in physics and a PhD in physics. I too am a lover of the outdoors and nature, having my own fields, river bank and woodland, which I manage sustainably. I am (was) sporty, but risk averse (no head for heights) and was in my younger days mainly into fell running. I was brought up on the works of (arguably) the greatest physicist of the 2nd half of the 20th century (Richard P Feynman) and still (from time to time) read his famous lectures. I worked in the nuclear industry where absolute integrity and attention to detail was essential. My background was what caused me to have serious concerns about the work of Hansen, who you seem to think of as the hero of climate science. Hansen appears to me to misuse data (manipulates it in secret to his own agenda) and uses climate models that seem to me to be lacking quality control, completeness and validation. This is totally counter to what I was used to in nuclear models.
As a reader yourself, I suggest you take the time to read the article about Freeman Dyson at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all. He is another of the great scientists of the 20th century. I don't think anyone could say that he is in the pay of the fossil industry (in the same way that I am not).
Complain about this comment
The questions raised about the existing model of ozone depletion were reported in a Nature article in 2007. http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html
What Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, was pointing at when he challenged the existing model of ozone depletion was the rate of photolysis or light-activated splitting, of a crucial molecule in ozone depletion, dichlorine peroxide, Cl2O2. If the photolytic breakdown rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes. Something other than light needed to be providing the energy for this reaction.
The new paper suggests that cosmic rays may be the source of this energy, and looks at the correlation between cosmic rays and the rate of depletion.
Both the original Nature article and the new paper actually affirm the role of halogenated molecules, especially CFCs, in ozone depletion and nothing about the new research suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question.
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede
indeed and they have established a strong link between cosmic rays and ozone depletion, which has been observed and they have made predictions based on the observed evidence.
Complain about this comment
The US General Accounting Office, GAO, gave testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives on 25 March 2009.
The highlights of the testimony are summarised by GAO as follows.
Observations on Federal Efforts to Adapt to a Changing Climate
Changes in the climate attributable to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases may have significant environmental and economic impacts in the United States. For example, climate change could threaten coastal areas with rising sea levels, alter agricultural productivity, and increase the intensity and frequency of floods and storms.
Federal, state, and local agencies are tasked with a wide array of responsibilities that will be affected by a changing climate, such as managing natural resources. Furthermore, climate change could increase the cost of federal programs, such as crop and flood insurance, and place new stresses on infrastructure.
Greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will continue altering the climate system into the future regardless of emissions control efforts. Therefore, adaptation—defined as adjustments to natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climate change—is an important part of the response to climate change.
Today’s testimony summarizes GAO’s prior and ongoing work examining (1) actions that federal, state, local, and international authorities are taking to adapt to a changing climate, (2) the challenges that federal, state, and local officials face in their efforts to adapt, and (3) actions that the Congress and federal agencies could take to help address these challenges.
Based on preliminary observations from GAO’s ongoing adaptation work for the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, certain federal, state, local, and international government authorities are beginning to consider and implement climate change adaptation measures. Some federal programs are already helping officials make decisions in response to a changing climate. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) program supports climate change research to meet the adaptation-related information needs of decision makers and planners at the regional level. In addition, certain state, local, and international governments are developing and implementing climate change adaptation plans. For example, GAO’s recent site visit to Maryland examined the state’s comprehensive strategy for reducing vulnerability to climate change focused on sea level rise and coastal storms. As part of ongoing work for the Select Committee, GAO plans to conduct four additional site visits to learn from international, federal, and local adaptation efforts.
Several of GAO’s recent reports on climate change examined a number of challenges faced by government officials in their efforts to adapt. First, climate change is one of many priorities competing for attention and resources. Second, a lack of guidance can constrain the ability of officials to consider climate change in management and planning decisions. Third, insufficient site-specific data, including a lack of local projections of expected changes, can reduce the ability of officials to manage the effects of climate change on the resources they oversee. Fourth, officials are struggling to make decisions based on future climate scenarios that may not reflect past conditions. Our ongoing work seeks to identify other challenges warranting the attention of policymakers.
Some of GAO’s recent climate change-related reports offer clues on the types of actions federal agencies and the Congress could take to assist states and communities in their efforts to adapt. A recent GAO report on federal land management, for example, recommended that certain agencies develop guidance advising managers how to address the effects of climate change on the resources they manage. Furthermore, a recent GAO report on the economics of climate change identified actions the Congress and federal agencies could take, such as reforming insurance subsidy programs in areas vulnerable to hurricanes or flooding. GAO’s current effort for the Select Committee, which focuses more directly on adaptation, will obtain information and perspectives from diverse groups of knowledgeable federal, state, and local officials, and in particular will seek to learn from the experience of practitioners on the front lines working to adapt to a changing climate. This work will be completed by late 2009.
Complain about this comment
On 5 March 2009, the U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO, gave testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives.
Observations on the Potential Role of Carbon Offsets in Climate Change Legislation
Carbon offsets—reductions of greenhouse gas emissions from an activity in one place to compensate for emissions elsewhere—can reduce the cost of regulatory programs to limit emissions because the cost of creating an offset may be less than the cost of requiring entities to make the reductions themselves. To be credible, however, an offset must be additional—it must reduce emissions below the quantity emitted in a business-as-usual scenario—among other criteria.
In the U.S., there are no federal requirements to limit emissions and offsets may be purchased in a voluntary market. Outside the U.S., offsets may be purchased on compliance markets to meet requirements to reduce emissions. The Congress is considering adopting a market-based cap-and-trade program to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Such a program would create a price on emissions based on the supply and demand for allowances to emit. Under such a program, regulated entities could potentially substitute offsets for on-site emissions reductions, thereby lowering their compliance costs.
Today’s testimony summarizes GAO’s prior work examining (1) the challenges in ensuring the quality of carbon offsets in the voluntary market, (2) the effects of and lessons learned from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), an international offset program, and (3) matters that the Congress may wish to consider when developing regulatory programs to limit emissions.
In an August 2008 report, GAO identified four primary challenges related to the United States voluntary carbon offset market. First, the concept of a carbon offset is complicated because offsets can involve different activities, definitions, greenhouse gases, and timeframes for measurement. Second, ensuring the credibility of offsets is challenging because there are many ways to determine whether a project is additional to a business-as-usual baseline, and inherent uncertainty exists in measuring emissions reductions relative to such a baseline. Related to this, the use of multiple quality assurance mechanisms with varying requirements may raise questions about whether offsets are fully fungible—interchangeable and of comparable quality. Third, including offsets in regulatory programs to limit greenhouse gas emissions could result in environmental and economic tradeoffs. For example offsets could lower the cost of complying with an emissions reduction policy, but this may delay on-site reductions by regulated entities. Fourth, offsets could compromise the environmental certainty of a regulatory program if offsets used for compliance lack credibility.
In a November 2008 report, GAO examined the environmental and economic effects of the CDM—an international program allowing certain industrialized nations to pay for offset projects in developing countries—and identified lessons learned about the role of carbon offsets in programs to limit emissions. While the CDM has provided cost containment in a mandatory emissions reduction program, its effects on emissions are uncertain, largely because it is nearly impossible to determine the level of emissions that would have occurred in the absence of each project. Although a rigorous review process seeks to ensure the credibility of projects, available evidence from those with experience in the program suggests that some offset projects were not additional. In addition, the project approval process is lengthy and resource intensive, which significantly limits the scale and cost-effectiveness of emissions reductions.
The findings from these two reports illustrate how challenges in the voluntary offset market and the use of offsets for compliance—even in a rigorous, standardized process like the CDM—may compromise the environmental integrity of mandatory programs to limit emissions and should be carefully evaluated. As a result of these challenges, GAO suggested that, as it considers legislation that allows the use of offsets for compliance, the Congress may wish to consider, among other things, directing the establishment of clear rules about the types of projects that regulated entities can use as offsets, as well as procedures to account and compensate for the inherent uncertainty associated with offset projects. Further, GAO suggested that the Congress consider key lessons from the CDM, including the possibility that, (1) due to the tradeoffs involving cost savings and the credibility of offsets, their use in mandatory programs may be, at best, a temporary solution to achieving emissions reductions, and (2) the program’s approval process may not be a cost-effective model for achieving emission reductions.
Complain about this comment
To PAWB46 #91:
Thank you for your reply. I don't have the time this morning to read your link article, but I shall this evening, time permitting.
I have just yesterday acquired my own copy of a 'Nature' article on Antarctica:
"Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year" Nature; vol 457; Jan 22/09; pgs. 459-463.
I haven't had time to read this yet either, but it's a long bus ride to work, and I hope to have some information by this evening.
There is a Wikipedia article on global, or general circulation models:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_circulation_model
I have only glanced at this article. There are many models, whose compexities in detail are beyond me. Being a field geologist, and an outdoorsman, I have a strong belief in accurate evidence from the field. This evidence is, according to Dr. Hansen, incorporated as much as possible into his GISS model - he mentions this repeatedly in his discertations. I imagine he feels acutely the lack of field evidence in his offices, and seeks to compensate for this.
There are hundreds, probably thousands of climate scientists, and those in related fields, looking over these models. The complexities of these models is presumably not beyond all of them.
The stakes here are as high as I can imagine, and so one must bear this in mind too. Necessity produces results.
But, as Winston Churchill once remarked:
"I turn with relief from the tossing sea of cause and effect to the firm ground of result and fact."
And so, on to field evidence this evening.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #91.
I agree totally with "result and fact". There is too much data manipulation going on and too much reliance on incomplete and unvalidated computer models. To me the climate (apart from on the geological timescale)is 90+% physics (heat and mass transfer), with a little bit of chemistry and biology thrown in. Too many climate scientists are mathematical and computer modellers and don't get the physics correct.
Complain about this comment
To PAWB46 #97:
Mar. 24, 2009: Air Pollution Climate Forcings, Talk at Climate Change Congress in Copenhagen on Mar 11, 2009:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
I believe you will find this latest article extremely intersting. Dr. Hansen appears to have reduced his global energy imbalance from 0.75 Watts/square meter (GISS model) to 0.5 W/m2 (plus/minus 0.25W/m2 in both cases), based on ocean heat measurements - if I am reading this correctly?
And he is talking about aerosols and negative forcings, apparently a big source of poorly known quantity.
It seems to me this is right up your alley.
I for one would appreciate your input.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
To PAWB46 re #91:
I actually have a copy of Freeman Dyson's "Disturbing the Universe" on my bookshelves, and I've just read the article you posted a link to.
Very interesting. I'll follow up and see what he has to say.
Question - your blogging name?
46 is palladium in the periodic table - am I close?
West Antarctic Ice-Sheet:
There's a lot - too much for tonight - soon. "Fixing Climate" by Wallace Broecker and Robert Kunzig (2008) has a very good chapter on the West Antarctic Ice-Sheet (Chapter 10).
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
here is the news you won't hear at the BBC:
Climate change debunkers take stage in US Congress
A British peer and former advisor to the British PM addresses the US congress and tells them to ignore their presidents plans to "combat" climate change.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090326/sc_afp/environmentusclimatewarminglead;_ylt=AsqVyWoKP7_dWwWuVriEbbxpl88F
Complain about this comment
On 11 March 2009, the Swedish Government presented legislation to the national Parliament for what it calls A cohesive climate and energy policy for the period up to 2020. Earlier this week, an official translation of the memorandum setting out the proposals was made available in English. Some highligyts are presented for those interested:
Sweden’s climate and energy policy for a sustainable future
The Government proposes objectives and strategies that will lead to: half of Sweden’s energy coming from renewable sources in 2020; the country having a vehicle fleet that is independent of fossil fuels in 2030; and Sweden’s net emissions of greenhouse gases being equal to zero by the middle of the century. The climate target for 2020 is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent.
The Government’s proposals are being submitted in the form of two government bills. The climate policy bill specifies targets for greenhouse gas emissions and a joint action plan to achieve them. The energy policy bill contains proposals relating to the energy sector.
The action plans proposed for a fossil-independent transport sector and to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency improvements are crucial to the achievement of the climate policy goals. The Government has chosen to present the action plan for a fossil-independent vehicle fleet in the climate policy bill and the action plans for energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy in the energy policy bill.
Climate and energy targets by 2020
The government bills specify a number of targets for climate and energy policy to be achieved by 2020:
• 40 percent reduction in climate emissions. This target relates to the non-trading sector (i.e. activities not included in the EU emissions trading scheme).
• 50 percent renewable energy.
• 20 percent more efficient energy use.
• 10 percent renewable energy in the transport sector.
Three action plans for climate and energy conversion
The bills contain three action plans for climate and energy conversion and a summary of the measures for reducing emissions by 40 percent.
1. Action plan for renewable energy
The Government presents an action plan for renewable energy in order to reach the target of 50 percent renewable energy. The measures include raising the level of ambition in the electricity certificate system, continued efforts to facilitate grid connections for renewable electricity and a planning framework for wind power of 30 TWh.
2. Action plan for energy efficiency
The Government will invest SEK 300 million (ca EUR 27.3 million) per year between 2010 and 2014. A number of measures are presented to ensure Sweden reaches the proposed targets and fulfils the requirement in the EU Energy Services Directive. Efforts will focus primarily on reducing the information and knowledge gaps in order to make households and enterprises aware of the opportunities they have to save money, energy and the environment by improving their energy efficiency. The Government will revisit this in the 2010 Budget Bill and propose a more detailed allocation of funding between the various parts of the energy efficiency programme.
3. Action plan for a fossil-fuel independent vehicle fleet
The target is for Sweden to have a vehicle fleet that is independent of fossil fuels by 2030. General policy instruments that put a price on greenhouse gas emissions coupled with beneficial conditions for cars with a low environmental impact running on alternative fuels will encourage a different choice of fuel. The blend of renewable fuel in petrol and diesel will be increased and initiatives will be taken on plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles.
Measures to reduce emissions by 40 percent
A special action plan is presented to reduce Swedish emissions by 20 million tonnes by 2020. The target will be reached with a combination of measures in Sweden (2/3) and green investments in other EU Member States and in developing countries.
Complain about this comment
To simon-swede:
It sounds like congratulations are in order (your post#102, re Sweden's new climate and energy policy proposals)!!!!
May I offer mine?
I will be interested to see if these proposals are accepted.
Thank you for your clarification of the cosmic ray/CFC issue (posts #92 and previous). It sounds like this is one of your fields of interest? Were you perhaps involved in the phase out of CFC's? I don't wish to compromise your anonymity - just interested.
And may I thank you for taking the time and energy to contribute to these discussions?
I think these blog sites, though rather wild and free, are very useful, for they are open to all - true democracy at work - messy at times, but in the end - effective!
I hope that you can continue to contribute.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
Nature 271, 321 - 325 (26 January 1978); doi:10.1038/271321a0
"West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster"
- J. H. Mercer (Institute of Polar Studies, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210)
"If the global consumption of fossil fuels continues to grow at its present rate, atmospheric CO2 content will double in about 50 years. Climatic models suggest that the resultant greenhouse-warming effect will be greatly magnified in high latitudes. The computed temperature rise at lat 80° S could start rapid deglaciation of West Antarctica, leading to a 5 m rise in sea level." (1978)
- (Abstract, from article at top of page)
John Mercer was by all accounts a very interesting and unique individual, an intuitive genius if you will, and he roamed the great South for many years.
He is discussed at some length in "Fixing Climate", by Wallace Broecker and Robert Kunzig, 2008, as well as in "Thin Ice", by the physicist Mark Bowen, 2006, about professor Lonnie Thompson, the tropical and mountain glacier specialist who has cored these glaciers and published on them. If I remember correctly, Lonnie Thompson gave the eulogy at John Mercer's funeral.
For a person like me, aho does not have an advanced degree, and is at heart a generalist, I find books such as the two I have mentioned invaluable, for they give me insight into the character and integrity of the 'men who publish'. They are no longer just names, but people, whom even a generalist can understand.
Of course science is science, and facts are facts, but as revealed in this very 'climate tidy' blogsite, an issue as complex as cosmic rays and CFC's can be used to misinform and confuse, for how many of us happen to be experts on the physics and chemistry of the stratosphere over Antarctica?
My own intuition tells me the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is important. More later, but I thought I would begin with John Mercer, out of respect for him, and because I believe historical perspective is not without value in these discussions.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #96
Way off; not palladium, year of birth.
Complain about this comment
- The West Antarctic Ice Sheet, Our Achilles Heel? -
It hit me like the thunderbolt which almost killed a mountaineering partner and myself on top of Outlaw Peak a number of years ago.
This time the bolt from the sky was not threatening, but a flash of insight, a moment of personal epiphany which makes all the patient steps of learning worthwhile, and brings one to a new height, and a new view.
Two thoughts on the same page of "Fixing Climate", by Broecker and Kunzig triggered the following train of thought, which I would like to share with you, at some considerable risk of criticism. But I think it may be a learning experience no matter the outcome, as is often the way of science, which after all is said and done, is exploration.
The two ideas on the page were:
1) Heinrich events (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_events);
2) Maritime Ice Sheets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet)
Here is the argument:
- There were many maritime ice sheets during the last Ice Age, and there were many Heinrich events (~ six).
- Is a Heinrich event the sudden, non-linear, catastrophic collapse of a maritime ice sheet, following the crossing of some geophysical threshold?
- The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is a maritime ice sheet, but it is also the only remaining maritime ice sheet. ("Fixing Climate", Ch. 10)
- After a long period of relative climatic stability, the Holocene, our planet is undergoing a rapid warming, and will soon, under business as usual scenarios, reach a level of warmth which many believe has not been seen since the Pliocene, some two to three million years ago, before the onset of the Pleistocene.
- In all likelihood, this dramatic warming is man-made, and is dramatically fast compared to the forcings of the past, in fact "dwarfing them" (James Hansen).
- During the mid 1970's, this late Holocene forcing has risen above background, and is now a cacophany in the ears of some of us, as fossil fuel emmissions of CO2, totalling some one trillion metric tons since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, continue to build in our atmosphere and in our oceans (lowering its pH). Half of this total, some five hundred billion tons, has been injected into the atmosphere in the last quarter century (current year some thirty billion tons, increasing at two to three percent per year).
History:
1974: "The Wordie Ice Shelf on the west coast of the Antarctic Penninsula partially broke up, scattering six hundred square kilometers of ice, a quarter of its area, into the Bellinhausen Sea". ("Fixing Climate, ch. 10)
1978: The late John Mercer, a geographer, whom some believe to have been an intuitive genius, writes a paper in "Nature" (see post #104), about the West Anatarctic Ice Sheet. In this paper he proposed a test of his own ideas:
"One of the warning signs that a dangerous warming trend is underway in Antarctica will be the breakup of ice shelves on both coasts of the Antarctic Penninsula, starting with the northernmost and extending gradually southward." ("Fixing Climate", ch. 10).
January 1995: The Larsen "A" ice shelf shatters, with sixteen hundred square kilometers of ice explosively released into the Weddel Sea. This is on the other side of the Antarctic Penninsula, the east coast. ("Fixing Climate", ch. 10).
February, 2002: The Larsen "B" ice shelf shatters the same way as the "A" shelf, this time 3,275 square kilometers are released suddenly, twice as much as Larsen "A", which was in turn twice the size of the Wordie ice shelf breakup.
John Mercer's predictions and self-tests have now been demonstrated, as both coasts of the Antarctic Penninsula have warmed and discharged ever larger areas of ice in sudden, non-linear fashion, and chronologically, as he predicted, from north to south.
Further, and perhaps more importantly, according to Broecker and Kunzig, Mercer had also predicted that the ice shelves were themselves acting as a cork, or constraint, on the mass of ice behind their ocean contacts. Two separate groups of scientists monitoring the glaciers feeding the Larsen Ice Shelves found the same result. The glaciers behind the still intact part of the ice shelf did not change in speed, but the ones feeding the now disintegrated parts of the shelves dramatically accelerated. "... three of the glaciers were moving eight times faster than they had been in 2000, two years before the breakup" [of Larsen "B"]. ("Fixing Climate", ch 10)
- Closer to the present -
- 2006; The two GRACE satellites (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) measure the loss of ice from the Antarctic Ice Sheet.
Abstract:
"Using measurements of time-variable gravity from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites we determine mass variations of the Antarctic ice sheet during 2002-2005. We find that the ice sheet mass decreased significantly, at a rate of 152 ± 80 km3/year of ice, equivalent to 0.4 ± 0.2 mm/year of global sea level rise. Most of this mass loss came from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1123785v1
- July 28, 2007, James Hansen:
"I find it almost inconceivable that
“business as usual” climate change
will not result in a rise in sea level
measured in metres within a century. Am I
the only scientist who thinks so?"
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2007/Hansen_2.html (download pdf for complete article)
No, it appears not:
Robert Bindshadler, coordinator of a research program on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet since 1990:
"I had a higher comfort level a few years ago. Now I just don't know (ca 2007). These newer revelations of just how rapidly the ice sheets have changed in the last few years caught all the experts off guard."
Richard Alley (ca 2007) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Alley
"The IPCC said, 'We've got a hundred years before anything happens to the ice sheets'. It looks like the ice sheets are a hundred years ahead of schedule".
(both quotes from "Fixing Climate", ch. 10).
- January 2009 "Nature" letter (New evidence of warming Antarctica):
"Assessments of Antarctic temperature change have emphasized the contrast between strong warming of the Antarctic Peninsula and slight cooling of the Antarctic continental interior in recent decades1. This pattern of temperature change has been attributed to the increased strength of the circumpolar westerlies, largely in response to changes in stratospheric ozone2. This picture, however, is substantially incomplete owing to the sparseness and short duration of the observations. Here we show that significant warming extends well beyond the Antarctic Peninsula to cover most of West Antarctica, an area of warming much larger than previously reported. West Antarctic warming exceeds 0.1 °C per decade over the past 50 years, and is strongest in winter and spring. Although this is partly offset by autumn cooling in East Antarctica, the continent-wide average near-surface temperature trend is positive. Simulations using a general circulation model reproduce the essential features of the spatial pattern and the long-term trend, and we suggest that neither can be attributed directly to increases in the strength of the westerlies. Instead, regional changes in atmospheric circulation and associated changes in sea surface temperature and sea ice are required to explain the enhanced warming in West Antarctica."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/full/nature07669.html
I hope that this rather long treatise will provide 'result and fact' alongside the many theoretical considerations of climate change, previously discussed on this blogsite.
I lay no claim to a first insight into these matters. Rather, I would rate the probability at near 100 percent that legions of scientists and specialists have considered all and more, than appears in this post.
But like climbing a great mountain, or a small one, what matters most is that you do it in your own style, perhaps adding a variation or two.
I am wondering myself about isostatic equilibrium and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Quite obviously, things are further along than many of the experts thought only a few years ago. No one has experience with a maritime ice sheet break up, because they all broke up before the advent of glaciology, or even of agriculture. The physics of ice sheet movement are, we are told, still very incomplete. What if, in addition to the well documented ice-quakes of both Greenland and West Antarctica, what if isostatic adjustment proceeds in a non-linear fashion as well?
What would be the result if, amidst the constant warming and undercutting by the steadily rising sea, what would happen if a seismic event of magnitude seven or greater were to occur as the crust under the ice sheets rebounds, and the forebulge readjusts?
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS