A whale of a week for climate
Two of my five picks of environment stories to watch this year may have significant new chapters written this week - and the new US administration of Barack Obama is a key player in both.
In Copenhagen, climate scientists, economists and policy makers will be meeting for a three-day conference that will share some of the latest thinking on the likely impacts of climate change, how the natural world is already being influenced, the costs and benefits of various types of action to mitigate it and adapt to it, and so on.
About 1,000 miles due south, in Rome, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) holds discussions that may indicate whether the latest initiative to reform the fractured organisation, and to bring some more order and oversight to whaling and whale conservation, will end in harmony or discord.
The Copenhagen meeting is an important one. It will be the final major global attempt to weave the various strands of climate research together before the annual UN summit, in the same city, in December, which is supposed to formulate a new global climate treaty - bigger, longer-lasting and more profound than the Kyoto Protocol.
The proper global body for this, of course, is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but that produces major assessments only every five years or so, and they are by definition somewhat out of date because of the organisation's lengthy collation and review processes.
So the Danish government thinks there's a need for something a bit sharper off the mark, yet still authoritative - hence this week's meeting.
Prominent on the agenda are some of the big unknowns. By how much are sea levels likely to rise (an issue on which the IPCC was, by its own admission, cautious in its 2007 assessment)? Are natural "sinks" such as forests and oceans absorbing less carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as some recent studies suggest? Can practices in agriculture or forestry be modified so more CO2 is absorbed?
On the economics side, there will be discussion of what various plans for curbing emissions might cost the global economy, and which economic tools would be the best ones to deploy.
The scientific conclusions will all still be couched in the language of probabilities, but the political dignitaries, such as Denmark's Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, are likely to use more concrete terms when they outline the implications.
Whatever the demands are for "action now", the conference is unlikely to change the underlying political realities.
Many Kyoto adherents are some way off meeting even their protocol targets [174Kb PDF] for reducing emissions and in difficult economic times, it will be hard for industrialised countries to make the financial contributions that the developing world is likely to demand as the price of a new global agreement.
So many eyes will again turn to Barack Obama and his pledge to lead the world anew on climate change.
But given that US emissions have risen by about one-sixth since 1990 - the baseline year for all these calculations - his administration will struggle to pledge carbon cuts by 2020 that look huge in the context of scientists' and activists' demands for immediate and drastic reductions.
There was talk a couple of months ago that one of Mr Obama's senior energy or environment people - or even the president himself - might pitch up in Copenhagen, though that now seems to be off the agenda, which will presumably save them being asked lots of questions about a US climate policy that has not yet been formulated.
Where the Obama administration has acted decisively is on whaling.
More than a year ago, the US chair of the IWC, Bill Hogarth, opened a process of dialogue aimed at finding some kind of compromise "package" that both the whaling nations and anti-whaling campaigners could live with.
One of the big unknowns was how the incoming Obama administration would view the issue. Heavily lobbied as it has been by conservation and animal welfare groups, would it endorse the process, or would it despatch Dr Hogarth summarily from its payroll and bring in someone who would maintain a "no whaling at any price (except for indigenous peoples)" line?
On Friday, the White House revealed its hand in what is, to my mind, an intriguing and constructive statement.
The most significant sentence is that "failure to resolve these issues is not an acceptable outcome to the United States". That places fresh weight behind the Hogarth initiative.
However, the US remains opposed to commercial whaling, thinks that lethal scientific catches (the regulation under which Japan now hunts) are "unnecessary", and has "significant concerns" over moves by Icelandic and Norwegian companies to re-open the international whalemeat trade.
Accordingly, for any eventual deal to be acceptable to the US, it "must result in a significant improvement in the conservation status of whales".
The statement is so close to the thinking of some of the less radical conservation groups that it could almost have been written by them, although it remains the case that some campaign organisations will be implacably opposed to any deal.
What the statement does not say explicitly, but implies heavily, is that even if no deal results by the forthcoming IWC annual meeting in June, Washington will remain committed to achieving reform - which is important, because the original timeline was beginning to look impossibly tight.
As to what will transpire this week, we must wait and see. The Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun has twice in the last few months reported that Japan will reduce the size of its Antarctic catch next season; and although this has been denied by Fisheries Agency officials, it would be an obvious next step for Japanese negotiators to take, offering something as a token of a desire to progress, but not something so significant as to indicate a desire to progress at any cost.
(As one long-term observer of whaling issues observed to me recently, this is to a large extent a game of chess - although perhaps poker would be a better analogy).
Whatever the outcome of the week's deliberations, the importance of the intervention from Mr Obama's administration cannot be exaggerated. Its attitude is vital on this issue - as it will be in achieving a workable climate treaty at the end of the year, which is, on the face of it, a far more complex undertaking than sorting out how many whales are killed each year.
What both whaling and climate negotiators will strive to avoid is the fate of one of my other five picks of the year, Nasa's Orbiting Climate Observatory satellite, which crashed on take-off last month. No BBC blog is certified as 100% jinx-free, but here's hoping this one is.
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~46~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Richard: How about including the ICCC in your list of events?:
http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/agenda.html
The agenda and quality of presenters looks quite a worthy affair to report on.
Encouraging news on the whaling front. We certainly need some cool heads on this one.
Cheers...
Complain about this comment
Tim,
Don't hold your breath waiting for the BBC to report on this conference.
For those that are interested, could I suggest that you go here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Anthony Watts has already reported on the speeches by President Klaus and Lindzen. Lindzen speech in particular is very interesting:
http://www.heartland.org/full/24841/Climate_Alarm_What_We_Are_Up_Against_and_What_to_Do.html
All the best
Complain about this comment
I agree with timjenvey and cuckootoo. Wouldn't it be good for the BBC to report on the ICCC? It would show that the BBC wasn't totally biased in favour of AGW (if it were to report it fairly). You would have thought that perhaps the BBC would at least report on what the EU President had to say.
I certainly won't be holding my breath.
Complain about this comment
Everyone else beat me to it with the obvious question.
Richard, did you not know about the ICCC meeting, or did you know about it but decide not to mention it?
Complain about this comment
PAWB46
But it's official BBC policy that global warming is true. There was a seminar of "scientific experts" (environmentalists to you and me) who told them so.
Were you at it Richard?
Complain about this comment
What is even stranger , is that the pro EU BBC , is not reporting on what the EU President is saying ...................now that is a real "Inconvenient truth" !!!!!
Richard will say that it is beyond his "editorial control" as to what the BBC cover.
Just BBC bias again, why let facts get in the way of headlines and keeping the "Liberati" happy, surprised they have not invited Monbiot back to the BBC , to keep everyone on the straight and narrow !!
Complain about this comment
I'm sure even the BBC will not question the credentials of an MIT professor , who just happens to be someone , who according to the recent UWE conference, suffers a mental illness.
http://www.heartland.org/full/24841/Climate_Alarm_What_We_Are_Up_Against_and_What_to_Do.html
Complain about this comment
My Lord BishopHill:
Of course, I remember now, I read it on your blog! Secret meetings of like-minded folk.
Complain about this comment
Not a lot about whales here but I learn that the EU President has addressed the ICCC. Now if that isn’t worthy of at least a mention and more appropriately headline news then I don’t know what is. And folks question bias and suppression. I'd say that this proves it.
BTW. Read the talk by the MIT professor, Richard Lindzen. Nice well balanced piece I thought. Definitely worthy of a mention.
Are you up for this Richard?
Cheers....
Complain about this comment
I am looking forward to the results of the Copenhagen conference on climate change, as reported by the BBC.
I, who am a Canadian, chose the BBC as my morning news website because I consider it one of the finest in the world.
Three books on climate and ocean change are in my immediate future:
Alanna Mitchell's hot off the press "Sea Sick - The Global Ocean in Crisis" (2009)
Wallace Broecker's "Fixing Climate", (2008)
and coming in April, Peter D. Ward's "The Medea Hypothesis"
I have noted the almost universally 'skeptical comments' which precede this one, and it still puzzles and disturbs me.
I devoted myself full-time to the climbing of mountains and the exploring of deserts for seven years, from 1998 through 2004, at my own expense, forsaking conventional work and much else.
In my devotion, I found - "something worthy" (Robert Louis Stevenson). I think it might have been a sort of purification ritual, whereby I became a part of nature, and not separate from it.
Lately, I have been devoting much of my spare time to research on climate and ocean change. The three books above are the easy part, written for the public, like me.
The peer-reviewed research publications are hard work, written in the careful language of science.
In the end, belief comes into play, as I am not an expert in the fields of research I am reading.
The men and women who are, have devoted the better part of their lives to their particular pursuits, but everything has a price, including specialization.
So I'm trying to relate through something I do understand and love, climbing and exploring in the physical world.
Much of climbing is regarded by many as 'slogging', or as 'the grunt'. Often, this is viewed as a part to be gotten over, in order to claim the objective, a sort of prize.
But if you climb as a devotion, week after week, year after year, with the seasons following each other so naturally, you soon realize that the slog or the grunt is more than just, 'something to be gotten over'.
Each footfall, carefully placed, can become a small work of art. You live in the moment, enjoying all. A rest stop, also carefully chosen, allows relaxation, a bite of food, a sweet drink of water, perhaps from a clear running spring, maybe a leisurely conversation, an appreciation of one's surroundings. In the desert, you crush a Creosote leaf between your fingers, and the smell of the desert after a light rain is yours whenever you want it.
This research is like the grunt on a big climb, a large part of it, enjoyable in itself, but a prelude to more serious action.
We are losing the natural world I have lived in, been a part of - I can feel it.
According to the experts, we have perhaps ten years to change our ways - I think less.
I see the skeptics dissecting bits and pieces, and missing the canaries falling at their feet.
The mountain glaciers are disappearing, and quickly. The coral reefs are dying, almost everywhere. The CO2 monitors around the world are all recording the constant rise of CO2, to levels that haven't been seen for hundreds of thousands of years, and at rates of increase which are staggering.
Why should we be surprised? We have unsequestered a good part of of the carbon patiently tucked away by Gaia, or is it Medea, for the last fifty million years. The pH of the world ocean is twenty to thirty percent less than it has been in recorded memory, and this reduction at an an almost unbelievable rate. The background extinction rate is two or three orders of magnitude above background!
If we can't agree on the details, lets look at the larger picture, for I hope we are all, in the end, lovers of nature, and of life - including our own.
As the 72 year old Canadian voyageur said:
"Huzza huzza por le pays sauvage!" (for the wild country)
- From Calgary -
Complain about this comment
To manysummits #10:
I was just thinking of bed when your post popped up.
I feel so much in common with you. I have roamed for many days over the Sierra Nevada mountains and the southern deserts of California. I really understand where you stand.
However, we do not agree on a fundamental. In my analysis nature is in total control and we are but pawns.
Life as we know it can, and will at some point, end and the whole earth will be renewed. It's how it always has been and how, I believe, it always will be until the end of time.
Sleep tight and enjoy and caress the moment.
Cheers……….
Complain about this comment
The BBC, as usual, prefers to report speculation "More bad news on climate change is expected as more than 2,000 climate scientists gather in Copenhagen" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7934046.stm), rather than the real news from the ICCC.
Don't try and tell me there is no bias in the BBC.
Where do these 2,000 climate scientists come from? I doubt there are 2,000 genuine climate scientists in the world. And these climate scientists risk losing their jobs and careers if they speak out against the political consensus.
The carbon footprint and financial footprint of this jamboree in Copenhagen must be enormous. Can the world afford this nonsense?
Complain about this comment
Sorry, Richard, you have to agree with PAWB46, the BBC is clearly showing bias here by reporting events that are going to happen rather than events that are happening.
This is bad, Richard, not a peep out of the BBC about the alternative view of climate change. How are people to decide on this issue, if the BBC and others don't play fair?
Presumably somebody from Copenhagen has handed the BBC a press release for publication rather than the BBC reporter predicting the future.
The BBC is spending my money - I expect to here the full story
Complain about this comment
manysummits
"I, who am a Canadian, chose the BBC as my morning news website because I consider it one of the finest in the world."
You really should look elsewhere for your news and not rely on the BBC. For example, it looks like the BBC are unable to report on the event that is happening right now in New York.
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.html
You really need to open yourself up to the possibility that AGW could be false and begin to read alternative views. Reading just one side of the story is very narrow minded and will never provide the challenge to your beliefs that I feel your intellect would welcome.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Are all of the posters who criticse the blog attending the ICCC and trying to get some publicity for the event? I have found it extremely surprising that it has received so much criticim as you must realise that a blog has a limited word count and that it wont cover everything about the issue.
The author is building up towards what will be the most important international environmental agreement of our time, when the successor to the Kyoto Protocol is discussed in Copenhagen this December - Personally, I really enjoy reading the updates as we move along the road to Copenhagen.
PAWB46 - I suggest that you do your own research before making comments like you have done above, for example look at how many pieces of research went into the last IPCC report and then back your comments up, alternatively why not go and read a blog that covers the ICCC and ignores Copenhagen.
Complain about this comment
@15
Typical , ad hominems and wiki , outstanding science and debate !!!
Complain about this comment
Correct me if I am wrong but isnt the IPCC an international body made up of leading climate scientists and government advisors from around the world? As a result its reports must reflect the consensus view of all its many contributors, therefore it has a reputation for being conservative...I would tend to follow their reports because they are the definitive authority on climate change whether you like it or not.
Complain about this comment
@16
You entirely miss the point dammit_chris.
This is the BBC, supposedly a source of unbiased reporting . The BBC is not serving the licence payers by the way the climate change debate is reported.
I would think that very few of the climate change deniers or sceptics, are actually that , most including myself fully accept that climate change is happening. What is didsputed is the role that CO2 or AGW plays in that.
Complain about this comment
dammit_chris:
I do my own research (I am a physicist) and don't state something that I cannot back up; I have always worked that way. And as a physicist I do not accept the "consensus view", since that is a political concept, not a scientific one. Appeals to authority (UN IPCC, government advisers) also have no meaning to a scientist. Show me the theory for CO2 causing AGW and show me the evidence - it is not there in the IPCC reports. AGW only appears in unvalidated climate models, and that is evidence of nothing.
Complain about this comment
toughNeilHyde, the blog is focussed on the UN's move to reaching an agreement on a new international agreement to succeed Kyoto. It provides us with an update on that and follows on nicely from one of the authors earlier posts. As such, why is there a need to discuss the ICCC event?
I have spent this morning reading ICCC material and I find a lot of what they write incredibly dismissive, much like a number of those who criticise this blog.
Surely you can see that this blog is highlighting the Copenhagen event, if you are so against the BBC why spend the time reading the blog in the first place and then finding the time to make numerous comments about it too!
I enjoy reading the author's blogs, he has a good writing style and unlike some bloggers he writes in a style that can be enjoyed by expert and layman alike.
Complain about this comment
To: timjenvey #11
Enjoyed your post, glad you liked mine. Perhaps there is less disagreement than you think. The natural world is in charge, but aren't we a part of the natural world? Truly! - have we really forgotten that?
To bikepete #15:
Thanks for that - it gets a little lonely here on the AGW side sometimes.
Poet:
"The food of hope is meditated action; robbed of this her sole supprt, she languishes and dies. We perish also; for we live by hope and by desire; we see by the glad light and breathe the sweet air of futurity; and so we live, or else we have no life."
- William Wordsworth, 1770 - 1850
I think the environmental crisis is a study in human psychology.
It is my hope that our psychology has, in the agricultural, and then in the industrial world, been perverted - by special interests, and is not our true nature.
I quote Noam Chomsky, in "Hegemony or Survival":
"What remains of democracy is largely the right to choose among commodities. Business leaders have long explained the need to impose on the population a "philosophy of futility" and "lack of purpose in life," to "concentrate human attention on the more superficial things that comprise much of fashionable consumption."
At some point in a climb, perhaps at the crux, a mountaineer must decide and commit:
Whether to proceed - if so, how to proceed and with what tools. It is a test of judgement, immediate, and with consequences.
One learns that we were designed to make such judgements routinely, on a daily basis, and we are very good at it.
A few thoughts, as we stand, we homo sapiens sapiens, if not at the crux, very near indeed:
1) Our world population is clearly out of control, probably already way too high, and it is increasing exponentially.
- This must change
2) The modern corporation was conceived to make profit for its shareholders, and is legally mandated to do so - in practical terms, at the expense of virtually all else.
- This must change
3) Industrial Man has romped roughshod over the face of our planet and its many and myriad inhabitants for over two hundred years, like a scourge upon the land and sea.
- This must change
4) We, the people, have lost our way.
- This too must change
5) How to regain our true path - the path of life, and of the future.
- That is our quest -
"To understand and protect our home planet"
- From Calgary -
Complain about this comment
PAWB46 it is difficult to say for certain that humans are causing global warming due to their CO2 emissions and the IPCC do not go and say it is 100% certain because we just dont know, instead they say the warming of the past few decades is "unequivocal" and that there is a 90% chance it is caused by humans and the way we live our lives.
Do you know how many people contributed to the last IPCC report and how many pieces of research went into it? I think you would find your 2,000 scientists there quite easily...
Obviously there has been global warming and global cooling before humans and this will always continue, but research does strongly suggest that it hasnt happened like it is currently before and that there is a strong link with human activities. It does make sense as we continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, destroy carbon sinks etc. As we change the quantities of greenhouse gases in the atmopshere, you'd expect Earth to warm up and that is what is happening. I think we are causing human induced global warming, the question is to what extent we are contributing to the problem and I would find it hard to rely on research from anyone on this because we simply do not know yet and we do not know what is going to happen exactly as a result.
Complain about this comment
I had a little bet with myself when I posted this entry that the first comment would ask why I hadn't mentioned the Heartland Institute conference (ICCC). So thanks, timjenvey, for helping me win that bet... although as it was only with myself, I suppose I lost too. Oh well
Now, there are several ways we could play this thread. One would be for me to write something about all the scientific evidence assembled by the IPCC. Then someone would say there's lots of evidence in the "other direction", someone would point to The Chilling Stars and the hockey stick and ClimateAudit, and a third would add that the IPCC is politically motivated and run by a small cabal of self-interested scientists. I could write a draft of the whole dialogue now, based on thousands upon thousands of similar thread in blogs already out there on the net.
So I hope you'll understand if I don't go down that road; I don't think it will add much to the sum of human wisdom.
Simply: the Copenhagen conference is important because of its political significance. It is certain that what is discussed there will reach the ears of many governments, including the US administration that is pivotal on the issue. It is likely, in my view, that science presented in Copenhagen will influence those government's positions and the negotiating text that will shortly be drafted for the UN process.
In my judgement, it is unlikely that the Heartland Institute conference will have anything like the same political impact, and therefore simply does not merit anything like the same level of news coverage. If anyone has good reasons to believe that it will have a major political impact, then please expound your argument - I for one would be glad to read it.
Having said that, I agree with PAWB46 and others that the comments of Vaclav Klaus would have been worth reporting, as The Guardian among others did, given that the Czech Republic holds the EU presidency. But... whenever something you would like to see reported isn't, please do not assume there's a conspiracy. As I've written to several people in emails previously, the list of stories we or any other news organisation could have covered every week but didn't is vast and disparate.
It's important also to note that Mr Klaus's views do not reflect those of the Czech government. Nevertheless, as Martin Livermore of the Scientific Alliance points out in this week's Green Room article, there is a case for arguing that some governments are keener on carbon cuts in public than they are in private; and you could argue therefore that Mr Klaus's comments are indicative of a wider scepticism than is aired in public.
A few specifics now. BishopHill, if "it is official BBC policy that global warming is true", could you reference the policy document please? It's something I've never seen. toughNeilHyde, you're right, I certainly wouldn't question Richard Lintzen's scientific credentials. PAWB46, there are certainly more than 2,000 scientists around the world working on climate change. As to who's attending the Copenhagen conference - if you're curious, why not email the organisers and ask? Contact details are on their website. CuckooToo, I'm sure lots of people in Copenhagen have handed our reporters press releases - when you cover any of these conferences you are bombarded with them - but if you're suggesting that press releases are copied and pasted into BBC stories - absolutely not, as I've said before.
Finally, as I've said before, you're free to write what comments you like, and as long as they don't break the house rules they'll be posted. But here we are, in the middle of all these important issues, discussing BBC coverage of climate change - again. There's a huge world out there - it's changing fast in many ways - and I have to wonder whether focussing back on the relatively tiny speck marked "BBC reporting" is really the most interesting aspect of it all.
Complain about this comment
Richard
You are of course correct and I apologise.
I do find it frustrating when the media doesn't report on issues concerning AGW sceptism (unless in an unfavourable light), but seem to report on every crackpot idea that scientists come up with to solve a problem that may not exist.
Complain about this comment
About the number of climate scientists.
John McLean has done an extensive analysis of the IPCC. Some results are at:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/09/climate-case-built-on-thin-foundation-john-mclean/
There is a pdf paper byJohn Mclean entitled "The IPCC can't count its expert scientists" which can be found by googling McLean Climate Scientist (no pdf links allowed here).
The bottom line is that there are many scientists studying the impacts of, adaptations to and mitigations of AGW (assuming it is occurring), and there are many mathematical modellers and others on the fringe, but very few actual climate scientists (such as Bill Kininmonth, see http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/redefining-the-limits-of-global-warming/#more-4417)
Complain about this comment
Richard, are you aware of the BBC's impartiality guidelines?
You appear not to be, so may I remind you:
"we seek to provide a properly balanced service consisting of a wide range of subject matter and views broadcast over an appropriate time scale across all our output. We take particular care when dealing with political or industrial controversy or major matters relating to current public policy."
"we strive to reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a range and conflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under represented."
"we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects."
You and the rest of the BBC's environment team repeatedly break these rules, and this issue is a very clear example. While you continue to behave in this way, people will quite rightly continue to complain. If you want people to stop going on about this, the solution is simple!
Your statement that the Heartland conference has less political impact (when it has an EU country's president speaking!) is just absurd.
You have now admitted that "the comments of Vaclav Klaus would have been worth reporting". So when is the BBC going to do this?
This is not a 'tiny speck' - it's a central issue. For example, the reason Copenhagen will have more impact than Heartland is precisely because of the BBC news blackout on anything that doesnt fit the BBC agenda.
Complain about this comment
Richard,
More reporting by the BBC and other media , of the "sceptical" position , will influence the public and thereby the politicians.
It is this role which the BBC is not fulfilling .
Complain about this comment
Haven't some of you got better things to be doing then complaining about this blog? When there are so many issues out there that are highlighted in this piece alone why is the main focus on the BBC's reporting, it does unfortunately come across as very narrow minded, particularly as the author was making some very good points.
SamuelPickwick - I am sure the BBC alone are not responsible for the so called 'media blackout' of the Heartland conference that you allude to.
PAWB46 - I am pretty sure that the scientists involved with the IPCC would disagree with the research that you came across through a Google search. My main point is that the IPCC has a reputation for being conservative, a body that underestimates the problems associated with climate change etc.
Perhaps you should also mention the organisations who sponsor climate change sceptics. Wouldn't be oil and energy utility companies by chance and those most effected if their industries were seen as a climate change villain?
Complain about this comment
And here's a second alarmist speculation (projection) today on the BBC. No mention of the "no need to panic, the calculations are grossly exagerrated" by Bill Kininmonth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7935159.stm
So much for the impartiality guidelines Samuel Pickwick quoted above.
Complain about this comment
dammit_chris: Where is the evidence that the IPCC underestimates the so-called problem? Sea levels are rising no more rapidly than they have for thousands of years. The earth is currently cooling.
Nobody sponsors an AGW sceptic like me (I'm not a climate change sceptic). In fact I sponsor the AGW alarmists via my taxes. They have in total consumed about $50bn of taxpayer's money and produced zero useful evidence of AGW.
Complain about this comment
@dammit_chris
"Do you know how many people contributed to the last IPCC report and how many pieces of research went into it? I think you would find your 2,000 scientists there quite easily..."
but the IPCC’s William Schlesinger tell us only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate during a debate with John Christy:
http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/02/only-20-of-ipcc-scientists-deal-with-climate/
Quote from Stephen Schneider in interview in Discover Magazine 1989
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. 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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider
Another quote from the same page, which is telling:
In 1976 Schneider wrote The Genesis Strategy: Climate and Global Survival in which he said:
"One form of such pollution that affects the entire atmosphere is the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) gas.... Human activities have already raised the CO2 content in the atmosphere by 10 percent and are estimated to raise it some 25 percent by the year 2000. In later chapters, I will show how this increase could lead to a 1° Celsius (1.8° Fahrenheit) average warming of the earth's surface... Another form of atmospheric pollution results from... atmospheric aerosols... there is some evidence that atmospheric aerosols may have already affected the climate. A consensus among scientists today would hold that a global increase in atmospheric aerosols would probably result in a cooling of the climate; however, a smaller but growing fraction of the current evidence suggests that it may have a warming effect."
Complain about this comment
Richard #24:
LOL. I guess the odds were pretty much 50:50 on your bet with yourself. Had a quick look at the Guardian site you posted and they have quite a debate going on in the comments section. I'd say 50:50 on that one to.
Which begs the question, in my mind, as to why we have all this questioning public attention? If I understand the BBC mandate, listed in an earlier post, this topic would be ranking at the top of the list for full coverage from all sides.
And all we get is a ridiculous (I'm finding it hard to find a word other than ‘'pathetic") article on sea level rise. And the BBC seem to be dripping this type of article out on a regular basis these days.
Add to this all the wild predictions over the last 10yrs which have come to naught and all of this just re-enforces my opinions that the science is in no way 'in' on global warming. And it appears that there are a lot of folk out there who feel the same. I think more attention is required to the public who pay for you (I actualIy was a UK citizen for 50yrs and paid the fee’s so feel I have some skin in the game).
Manysummits #22:
I agree we are part of the natural world and as I said "I cherish every minute".
Cheers......
Complain about this comment
The thing I find interesting about the current claims about see rise etc is the AGW alarmists are effectively saying the IPCC's climate models are wrong.
Complain about this comment
Cuckootoo:
Very true, but we knew that anyway. Choose any sea level rise projection you like and it's just as likely to be wrong as any other. None of the projections has any validity.
Complain about this comment
A short post, for a change:
Sea level rise, and other key indicators, according to NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California:
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
I think ocean pH, carbonate ion and bicorbonate will soon be among our key indicators - I'm working up a list of my own.
- To understand and protect - from Calgary
PS: To timjenvey
" Our problems are manmade -- therefore, they can be solved by man."
- John F. Kennedy, 1963
PS #2: To the BBC - Please keep up the good work. I know the media is supposed to be 'hard-nosed', but I think not. Everyone needs to be recognized for their work.
Complain about this comment
To an Oceanographer, ocean chemist, etc...
Open Ocean pH: (?)
Year 1751: ph = 8.179
1994: pH = 8.104 (-19% since 1751)
~ 2008: pH = 8.05 (-35% since 1751)
Note: 1751 and 1994 from Wikipedia, "ocean acidification"; 2008 number from "Sea Sick", by Alanna Mitchell; percent calculations from me.
CO2 preindustrial ~ 280 ppmv
CO2 2009: 387 ppmv (plus 38%)
Arctic Sea Ice down 38% 1979 to 2000 (NASA JPL/climate)
It would be nice if a professional scientist would look over this data and comment, perhaps bring it right up to date, and check my calculations.
It seems open ocean acidification is proceeding at roughly the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere, and coincidentally or not, arctic sea ice is declining at roughly the same rate, i.e., all three at roughly 35 %.
But I'm not sure about the pH numbers - is it open ocean, and if so, how are these sampled etc... I understand coastal pH is often less alkaline than open ocean, especially off of large rivers?
In his book, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", Robert Pirsig spoke of the "eternal smugness of the professional academician."
From what I can see, we probably have an imminent catastrophe of first rate proportions brewing in the sea, and one which may well make its way onto land.
Get your hands dirty, more than a few of us would like to hear from you out there.
- From Calgary -
Complain about this comment
Many summits #36 & 37:
If you want a good read on the topic try:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/co2_coral_warming.html
Download the pdf. Put some time aside as it's quite a hefty document. Interested to know your views.
Just wrapping up the day around my stove and thinking about your cyber campfire idea. Thinking that there are a lot of folks on these blogs, and also according to opinion polls, that just do not go along with this AGW theory.
What I'm seeing is that folks are not getting their questions heard, let alone discussed and answered. With the alarmist presentation of the stories, the perceived drip drip of media bias and selective suppression makes us suspicious and we are trying every way we can to draw attention and have our voice heard. We are a democracy and this is allowed.
Richard does a great job. However, he works for the BBC who is funded directly by the UK tax payer of which I was one (we have to endure adverts now, but that's ok it's great value). So with between 40-50% of folks questioning AGW the BBC has an obligation to listen and deliver their needs and not those of their controllers.
If you pay for a service and it's not delivering you would be well within your rights to complain and change. Problem is that UK folks can't change and are voicing their discontent in the only ways that are open to them. So do not be surprised or disheartened. There are other BBC blogs, The Telegraph, The Guardian etc. etc. who all are getting the same treatment from their readers. It’s not just Richard by a long chalk.
Well, time to switch out the lights on this day. Unless we have folks in Hawaii and I’ll leave them on for a while longer. Sleep tight, “cherish and caress the moment”.
Cheers……….
Complain about this comment
To Manysummits #36.
Me again and wanted to add a comment about:
“Our problems are manmade -- therefore, they can be solved by man."
- John F. Kennedy, 1963
I do not think Mother Nature is concerned with folks beating each other up and sorting out their differences. After all that’s how she designed us. Survival of the fittest I think was the process she used.
That really is enough for today. Cheers.......
Complain about this comment
hi,I come frome hong kong ,I wonder why many people still haven't raise the environmental awareness.
And I know that the government have a implement on the recycle metal can.......
but it dosen't work,,,,,,
i'm very worried about that we can't survive at the end of the century
Complain about this comment
perhaps a completely anonymous poll should be carried out by MORI amongst climate scientists, physicists etc to find out just how big the so-called consensus on AGW actually is?
I'm suggesting this because only anonymity would guarantee an honest answer.
Complain about this comment
A good idea CuckooToo. Who would you include in the poll?
Richard - could the BBC promote this?
One problem, of course, is that the process by which science advances knowledge is messy, riven with personal antipathies and constantly tested by claims, couterclaims and new discoveries. Our knowledge of climate change, its causes and effects is likewise messy. There would be somthing seriously wrong if scientists agreed about the details of a fast-moving, emerging body of knowledge such as this. But from the mess emerges concensus which is strengthened by the painful process by which it forms. So, by all means let us have a poll but let's not imagine that the messiness of science is a fundamental reason to doubt the process, the emerging consensus or the integrity of the scientists involved.
To SamuelPickwick, ToughNeilHyde and others: I marvel, reading these blogs, at the patience of Richard and his colleagues in the face of your claims of bias. In contrast to your view I find the BBCs reporting of Climate Change issues balanced and reasonable. I am seriously concerned that, in the face of such attacks the BBC and its journalists might indeed be tempted to bias their reporting in your direction. So long as Richards reporting is promting such contemptuous comments I will feel he is getting it about right.
Complain about this comment
@bryan_hill
The BBC's own report has concluded bais within the BBC on certain issues including climate change:
"THE BBC is institutionally biased, an official report will conclude this week. The year-long investigation, commissioned by the BBC, has found the corporation particularly partial in its treatment of single-issue politics such as climate change, poverty, race and religion"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece
"A lawyer has won the backing of the House of Lords in his campaign to force the BBC to disclose an internal report on perceived bias in its coverage of the Middle East. "
"Commissioned last year by the BBC managers and board of governors, the report concludes that political events and daily news are covered fairly. The Daily Telegraph reports, however, that the agency has given a heavily biased portrayal of issues such as poverty, climate change and religion."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jun/07061802.html
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article5712217.ece
After one year's investigation, an official BBC report reveals that the BBC shows a strong liberal bias through its disproportionately large coverage of certain "single-issue" concerns.
Complain about this comment
@bryan_hill
And in answer to your question addressed to me, I would include all scientists working in relevant fields, including physics, biology, geology etc and cast the net as wide as possible, including developed and undeveloped nations.
The more answers the better the consensus would be, but the survey must be carried out impartially by somebody like MORI not by anybody with a vested interest on either side of the fence
Complain about this comment
CuckooToo
That the BBC is imperfect is perhaps not news. Would that any of us were - let alone a vast corporation.
Would you be kind enough to quote where in the BBC document it concludes that climate change reporting specifically is biased. Apologies. I can't find it although I haven't had time for a detailed search. I do see that the BBC Trust is keen not to limit the debate (page 40) which strikes me a blow for balance rather than bias.
Here is the link to the document itself (if the moderators will allow a link to a pdf?), rather than to discussions of the document in the press.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
My impression is that the BBC has been both sensitive and responsive to critisisms of bias and perceived bias. Hence its robust response to recent public outrage over its refusal to show the Gaza appeal. And in contrast to the pieces in the Telegraph and Times, and to bloggers here, I find recent Climate Change reporting by Richard and others to be fair.
For the poll, I largely agree with your list and, for the sake of credibility, the need for a neutral organiser. Perhaps those polled should have a recognised BSc at least?
Complain about this comment
cuckootoo you seem to base your argument on documents that are in 1976 and 1989. Science has come a long way since then and with regards to your use of the 1976 we did not have the data or the methodology to fully understand the effects that humans have on the environment.
Man made/induced global warming can come in more forms than just pumping GHG into the atmosphere from factories and transport. What about deforestation, what about land use change at the foot of mountains, which affect local rain patterns, what about increased agriculture and release of methane as a result? You cannot say that human activities are not having a negative impact upon our climate?
I have said that we cannot know for certain that our actions are the main cause for global warming, but you would be extremely naive to purely brush that idea under the carpet and deny that humans have anything to do with it. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than at any time in the last 600,000 years, CO2 has been shown to have heating qualities, as has methane - human activities have pumped millions of tonnes into the atmosphere - and yet people believe that this wont cause harm to the planet?
It wasnt that long ago where people denied we had anything to do with the hole in the ozone layer, a CFC link was made, CFCs were largely banned and what do you know the hole in the ozone layer is recovering. The same principle needs to come in for CO2 reductions before we do cross the point of no return.
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey #38:
Sorry timjenvey - I read the abstract of the link you posted - it does not jive with what I personally know of science, in particular the past (I am a geologist, with a particular interest in mass extinction events)
In short, I smell a rat.
I don't know where a lot of the skeptics are coming from anymore, I guess I never did.
I usually bend over backwards to see other's point of view, assuming the best in people.
But times are changing.
True, the consequences of ocean acidification are unknown in the narrow scientific sense - we are literally in unknown waters. The human release of carbon into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution is not however in debate, nor is the quantity, in practical terms, nor is the physics of the response so complicated that no conclusions are possible.
If you are legitimately interested, I would recommend the book I am now reading, Alanna Mitchell's "Sea Sick - The Global Ocean in Crisis" (2009).
Aside from her summations, which I find excellent, most of the book is first hand reporting from all over the world oceans, with interviews and discussions with the scientists doing the work in the field.
There is no substitute for this, nor any real point in debate, as it is first hand information presented as seen.
She has the highest of environmental reporting credentials, the publisher is first rate, and what I am reading there DOES JIVE with what I personally know of both past life on Earth and the current science of climatology and paleoclimatology.
The BBC is reporting this morning on ocean acidification, and the numbers jive with my own calculations, in post #37.
I note with dismay that no scientist with true expertise has taken me up on my request - perhaps Robert Pirsig was right?
That will leave the public, as represented by this website blogging venue, to thrash it out on our own.
Fair enough!
In common sense terms, you can't get away with living as we moderns have, of multiplying our numbers like we have, or raping the planet like we have, of treating the public like we have, as a bunch of consumers to aid business interests.
Enough is enough. Get with the program people. You, we, need to send a message to our, I repeat OUR politicians.
This will happen when WE DO SOMETHING.
Your choice, but do something, and as kengkeng_0904 wrote in post #40, recycling cans isn't going to cut the mustard.
I have wathched in awe as the yuppies in my community drive their gas guzzling SUV's to the recycling bins with their loads of trash, most of it unnecessary in the first place, and think they are doing some good.
Wake up people!!!
"To understand and protect our home planet" is the only mantra most of us will need in the ensuing years, and the only one which will mean anything.
Those who dismiss the IPCC, or the scientific organizations around the world - who are they to DISMISS these international and national assemblages of talent and science?
I'll tell you who they are - vested interests or delusional individuals, neither of which we can any longer pander to.
These are the western democracies, in our part of the world anyway, and we all have one vote. That in the end will determine our fate, for better or for worse.
Don't be expecting words of comfort to emanate from our political or scientific organizations, as you look for a father figure to tell you everything is going to be allright.
Everything is most definitely not allright, and it is spiralling out of control.
I am a pilot too - a spiral dive requires fairly quick action, unlike a spin.
If you exceed the red line, your wings may come off.
The red line, we are being told in no uncertain terms, is 450 ppmv of CO2.
If you can't fly - LEARN.
- From Calgary -
Complain about this comment
Addendum to post #47:
The red line is often referred to as the 'NE' line, or 'never exceed' line. An even more appropriate term.
Complain about this comment
Dear Richard, An interesting blog - thank you! Keep 'em coming! Simon
Complain about this comment
@dammit_chris
the whole idea that co2 will cause runaway global warming is based on a 100 year old theory and takes no notice of current research on climate sensitivity, so I guess I am entitled to refer to older documents. Perhaps you could cite papers that refute these documents
besides which, you are reading isolated comments. try reading my other posts relating to up to date works
Complain about this comment
@Bryn_hill
it's here -the report is a pdf on the right hand side
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6763205.stm
I quote from page 40:
"The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space. ‘Bias by elimination’ is even more offensive today than it was in 1926. The BBC has many public purposes of both ambition and merit – but joining campaigns to save the planet is not one of them."
Complain about this comment
I know of two attempts to survey the views of climate scientists. James Annan, Roger Pielke Sr and Fergus Brown polled authors of papers published in five climate journals and presenting at a couple of big science meetings. Their paper is here - the top one in 2007.
In a nutshell, they asked whether the scientists broadly agreed with the 2007 IPCC Working Group 1 report, or whether they thought it had over- or under-played the likely consequences of elevated greenhouse gas levels. You'll have to read the full paper for the nuances; but in essence, roughly half of respondents thought the IPCC had got it about right, with the remainder equally split on whether it had exaggerated or under-played the situation. The response rate was quite low (140 out of 1807 approached). No-one said that MMGW is a fabrication. (The results have not yet been out in a journal, I believe).
Hans von Storch and Dennis Bray have twice performed surveys, in 1996 and 2003, asking climate scientists whether "climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes". There was a clear upturn in the numbers adhering to this view, and in the 2003 survey the ratio is about 56 to 30 in favour. However, there are some caveats with this survey too, which is why I'm linking to a Nature blog entry from Bray and von Storch, in which they discuss the caveats, rather than directly to their paper (which is accessible from the blog).
I'd be glad to know of any other surveys among working scientists.
Complain about this comment
Hi Richard,
I was aware of the surveys, but thank you.
Without trying to come down on one side or the other, I think there may be interests in the result from both surveys (both Storch and Bray, and Brown Pielke and Annan chose recipients), which is why I suggest a completely impartial survey by MORI.
I think MORI would be able to devise a survey that could guarantee anonymity and phrasing of questions to eliminate any bias on either side
I did note Storch and Bray say they were planning a new survey, which will be interesting given the flattening of the temperature rise and new evidence from the sceptical scientific community
Complain about this comment
Richard #52: The most interesting part of this survey are the individual answers which can be found in Appendix B of the full report: [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
It brings up some big questions on the ability of model’s to predict the future (fig 17 onwards) and I thought shows a bit of a disconnect between scientist and media/policy makers. I was surprised by the spread of responses on all the questions. Bit like this blog! But a very good read. Thanks.
The other factor here is which scientist have got it right:
In the 70's there were those who said catastrophic cooling and those that said ocean currents would turn positive and we would get warming until end of century -who was right?
Around the turn of the century there were those saying catastrophic global warming by CO2 in 10 yrs and those that said ocean currents would turn negative with a predominance of La Nina and we would have cooling - who was right?
A few years ago there were those that said the solar activity would increase and in 2012 all the satellites would be destroyed and those that said solar activity will diminish with the possibility of cooling - who was right?
The list goes on. As you can tell I'm not a scientist but I hope you get my drift as an observer and allow me a little skepticism.
Cheers……
Complain about this comment
In April 2008 the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University in the United States released a survey of scientists with the headline “Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change”.
So I guess that gives something for just about everyone to react against?
The researchers reported that over eight out of ten American climate scientists believe that human activity contributes to global warming. They also report that belief in human-induced warming has more than doubled since the last major survey of American climate scientists in 1991. However, the survey finds that scientists are still debating the dynamics and dangers of global warming, and only three percent trust newspaper or television coverage of climate change.
Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.
The poll was conducted between 19 March 19 and 28 May 2007 by Harris Interactive through a mail survey of a random sample of 489 self-identified members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union who are listed in the current edition of American Men and Women of Science.
A detailed description may be found at the following page:
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html
Complain about this comment
Some posters , and Richard have questioned why I keep on about the impartiality of the BBC . In an earlier post I commented about the influence that the media can have on both the public, and politicians.
The BBC regularly fall foul of the Aarhaus convention , along with many other media outlets , and governments see here:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=154#more-154
This coupled with the BBC using obscure clauses of the FOI Act , to avoid disclosing information they know internally , but do not agree with ( Along the same lines as HADCRUT , and Mr. Mann and his UK acolytes) , is not as some allude to a "conspiracy theory" , just someone who wants facts for his licence fee, and when he does not get them via the media , is prepared to look for himself, and voice an opinion.
Complain about this comment
Richard,
The only thing the BBC News picked out of the University of Copenhagen conference was a view from a small minority of scientists that sea level rise would be much higher than the IPCC consensus.
The News piece by David Shukman was Alarmist, and only contained one established fact, that being that sea levels were rising by 2-3mm per year.
The rest of the "News" piece was just opinion and prediction, and the basis for these opinons and predictions reamained unstated.
The follow on illustrative pictures of the Train at Dawlish, Devon being "nearly washed away" was bizzare, as Brunel built that bit of the railway in the sea below normal high tide level, which was a great civil engineering feat, but one that he soon came to regret.
Also any picture of coastal flooding in East Anglia should be put in its correct context, that being the coast is only dry because we made it that way by draining the marshes, as large parts of the land are below "normal" sea levels.
Complain about this comment
Cuckootoo
Thank you for the guidance but I don't see any reference to Climate issues on the page you link to and I take from your quote a desire to ensure the balance which I believe the BBC is indeed achieving.
Richard
These two polls are not very satisfactory are they? Annan et al is a small sample, as you say, of a rather limited range of potential respondants, albeit well placed. It is interesting that the proportion of respondants dissenting from the WG1 view is so small and so equally distributed about the mean view, given the complexity of the evidence and issues. As the comments on the Nature website make clear the Storch and Bray methodology is rather weak.
Thus CuckooToo and I agree that another poll might be interesting.
Complain about this comment
Richard #52: Try again without pdf. Link
The most interesting parts of this survey for me are the individual answers which can be found in Appendix B of the full report: (Link from Richards’s post. pdf not allowed here I think). It brings up some big questions on the ability of model’s to predict the future (fig 17 onwards) and I thought shows a bit of a disconnect between scientist and media/policy makers in later questions. I was surprised by the spread of responses on all the questions. Bit like this blog! But a very good read. Thanks.
The other factor here is which scientists have got it right:
In the 70's there were those who said catastrophic cooling and those that said ocean currents would turn positive and we would get warming until end of century -who was right?
Around the turn of the century there were those saying we would reach tipping points of catastrophic global warming by CO2 in 10 yrs and those that said ocean currents would turn negative with a predominance of La Nina and we would have cooling - who was right?
A few years ago there were those that said the solar activity would increase and in 2012 all the satellites would be destroyed and those that said solar activity will diminish with a possibility of cooling - who was right (on the ‘activity’ for now)?
There are those that believe climate is driven by positive forcing (as used by IPCC computer models) and those that say a negative forcing is more likely – who do I believe now???
The list goes on. As you can tell I'm not a scientist! But I hope you get my drift as an observer and allow me a little skepticism.
Cheers……
Complain about this comment
While the Copenhagen conference proceeds, I think it significant that two of the stories as reported by the BBC are on our acidifying oceans!
There is little doubt in my mind that the breaking news from our world ocean will only increase in the near and foreseeable future.
- From Calgary -
Complain about this comment
Richard:
Just did a quick 'Find' on this page.
I'm the only person in this posting to comment on the "Whales" part of your posting.
Now what odds would you have put on that being mentioned in the first comment as well as the ICCC?
LOL
I hope you appreciate the balance in my comments!!!
Cheers......
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey, re my post #47:
Please don't take that personally. I was referring to the link you sent me. I can understand the confusion in many people's minds, but there are vested interests at work here, and too much at stake. But perhaps not enough to inadvertently hurt someone.
Here is an article from George Monbiot, which illustrates one cause of the confusion, and is also a revealing portrait of human nature.
"Junk Science", by George Monbiot, May 10, 2005:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/05/10/junk-science/
Question?
Do you really think NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and their climate website, is wrong, in any significant way at all?
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
You know, the Celts of Great Britain and elsewhere have as one of their central images the profile of a human head, but with two faces, looking in opposite directions.
I've always thought of that as so very human, to contemplate both past and future, while standing on the high ground of the present.
At least, that's the way I look at it.
And it's the way we are dealing with this climate and ocean change issue.
Cheers!
Complain about this comment
To Manysummits #60:
We will have much in common with our concerns for the oceans. I'm a supporter of the San Francisco Bay Area Conservation Committee and they do a brilliant job. I'm a boater and see the devastating results of mans pollution through run offs of every kind. Just like the pollutants that are put out by the refineries, factories and power stations into the air.
I agree that the oceans will come into focus over the coming months but I do not think for the same reason:
I do risk management and mitigation methods for clients who are doing business transformation programs. What I'm seeing is a classic scenario unfolding.
1/. We start by saying we must fight 'global cooling' but it gets warmer.
2/. So we then conveniently 'discover' that CO2 is the culprit and we are causing the global warming.
3/. It's starting to look dodgy so we retract a bit and call it 'climate change' .
4/. Now it looks like we are in for a prolonged cooling so how do we mitigate?
5/. Hey, those folks looking at oceans seem to have a story. Let’s push the funding and focus on them.
It may sound cynical but that's what happens in the real world.
I love my surroundings and I want my hard earned taxes to work. I do not want it to end up in the pockets of 'cap and trade' junkies and unaccountable government coffers with the power that they will wield with the proceeds.
That's my two cent's worth.
Cheers.....
Complain about this comment
To Manysummits #62:
No need for apology. I'm not a scientist so I asked for your view and you gave it. So I thank you.
Your first link took me to David Bellamy. My kids grew up with his TV shows and he was greatly loved and respected. Not sure of the circumstances, but he got removed by the BBC. Richard should be able to fill in the gaps.
On the second link I do not feel qualified to answer. My only comment would be that temperature precedes CO2 rise and that prior to the last interglacial (not shown) CO2 showed multiple times greater concentrations. But please everybody, don't beat me up on this.
Time to put out the lights.
Cheers......
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede
Thank you Simon, I wasn't aware of this survey. Toi cherry pick a few statements not mentioned in your post:
And yet the IPCC and climate scientists tell us there is a consensus!
And yet the IPCC and more vocal climate scientists predict worse based on computer models
No consensus there then
Climate change as difficult to manage Ahhh, now we have a near consensus and one that I agree with. All the "solutions" will not manage the climate and may even cause us real man-made problems
Complain about this comment
@Brynn_Hill
"I don't see any reference to Climate issues on the page you link to"
If you read the full article you will find it
My quote from the document tells all concerned that the BBC should for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space. By not reporting on the conference in New York, but by reporting on far fetched predictions of future "news", this is clearly not happening.
As mrgrump says, the rate of increase of sea level hasn't changed - it is still 2-3mm per year. There is no rising trend in exactly the same way that we cannot say that current falling temperatures is a trend in global cooling (at least not yet)
Complain about this comment
manysummits
"There is little doubt in my mind that the breaking news from our world ocean will only increase in the near and foreseeable future."
This is not breaking news, we debated this on these very pages not long ago and the theory was postulated a long time ago
Complain about this comment
@manysummits and timjenvey
"We will have much in common with our concerns for the oceans."
I think the majority of people who visit Richards blog car deeply not just about the oceans, but the whole of our planet. We just don't see eye to eye on one particular "problem" - AGW
Complain about this comment
CuckooToo, I just find the whole idea that humans are not contributing to global warming as incredibly dismissive - our role might be overplayed, it might be underplayed - but why take the risk and dismiss the notion that we are contributing to climate change?
I run a large not-for-profit environmental organisation and I have spent the last 18 months building relationships with universities, academics and advisors on climate change and other environmental issues, and I have not come across one who does not believe that we are contributing to our changing climate. Of course no one can say how much we are contributing, or what could happen for certain because there is a lot about the Earth we simply do not understand.
I've read reports that say we have been in a 'mini-ice age' which has stopped our planet warming as much as it should have done due to GHG emissions. I for one endorse the precautionary principle in anything that could have a negative impact upon each person living on this planet, particularly when there will be 9billion of us by 2050!
Complain about this comment
Another survey of scientists about climate
In January 2009, Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago) reported the results of a study to “assess the scientific consensus on climate change through an unbiased survey of a large and broad group of Earth scientists”. (My apologies, I have only a link to a pdf article, but those interested should be able to find it from the information given here, I think.) Other references mentioned below are given at the end of this note.
Their starting point is that attempts to quantify the scientific consensus on anthropogenic warming have met with criticism. For example, a paper by Oreskes [2004] reviewed 928 abstracts from peer-reviewed research papers and found that more than 75% either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities. Doran and Zimmerman note that Oreskes’s approach has been criticized for overstating the level of consensus acceptance within the examined abstracts [Peiser, 2005] and for not capturing the full diversity of scientific opinion [Pielke, 2005].
To reach a “large and broad group of Earth scientists” an invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; and so forth).
The authors report that 3146 individuals completed the survey, and so the participant response rate was 30.7% which they consider typical for Web-based surveys. They state that 90% of the survey participants were from U.S. institutions and 6% were from Canadian institutions; the remaining 4% were from institutions in 21 other nations.
The authors report that over 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Participants were also asked to identify a single category of expertise. The most common areas of expertise reported were geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), and oceanography (10.5%). General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and palaeontology each accounted for 5–7% of the total respondents. Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change.
The Doran and Zimmerman article addresses the two primary questions of a more detailed survey concerning attitudes amongst scientists about climate change (details of the full survey are given in Kendall Zimmerman[2008]). The two questions were:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
The results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions. In the survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.
Doran and Zimmerman note that their results indicate a higher level of agreement amongst scientists that human activity is a significant contributing factor to climate change than amongst the general public, noting that a recent Gallup poll (link given below) suggests that only 58% of the general public would answer yes to their question 2. The two areas of expertise in the survey with the smallest percentage of participants answering yes to question 2 were economic geology with 47% (48 of 103) and meteorology with 64% (23 of 36) .
Doran and Zimmerman conclude that “seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.”
REFERENCES:
Doran, P. T. and Kendall Zimmerman (2009), M., Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, EOS, v 90 no 3, 20 January.
Keane, C. M., and C. M. Martinez (Eds.) (2007), Directory of Geoscience Departments, 45th ed., Am. Geol. Inst., Alexandria, Va..
Kendall Zimmerman, M. (2008), The consensus on the consensus: An opinion survey of Earth scientists on global climate change, 250 pp., Univ. of Illinois at Chicago.
Oreskes, N. (2004), Beyond the ivory tower: The scientific consensus on climate change, Science, 306, 1686–1686.
Peiser, B. J. (2005), The dangers of consensus science, Can. Natl. Post, 17 May.
Pielke, R. A. (2005), Consensus about climate change?, Science, 308, 952–953.
The link to the Gallup poll referred to by Doran and Zimmerman: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1615/Environment.aspx)
Complain about this comment
One of the more interesting parts of the STATS survey I referred to earlier (see # 55, where the link is given), is how the attitudes have evolved between a 1991 Gallup poll and their new survey. Both surveys used the identical questions. The STATS survey notes:
In 1991 the Gallup organization conducted a telephone survey on global climate change among 400 scientists drawn from membership lists of the American Meteorological Association and the American Geophysical Union. We repeated several of their questions verbatim, in order to measure changes in scientific opinion over time. On a variety of questions, opinion has consistently shifted toward increased belief in and concern about global warming. Among the changes:
- In 1991 only 60% of climate scientists believed that average global temperatures were up, compared to 97% today.
- In 1991 only a minority (41%) of climate scientists agreed that then-current scientific evidence “substantiates the occurrence of human-induced warming,” compared to three out of four (74%) today.
- The proportion of those who see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius has increased from 47% to 56% since 1991.
- The proportion of scientists who have a great deal of confidence in our understanding of the human-induced sources of global climate change rose from 22% in 1991 to 29% in 2007. Similarly, the proportion voicing confidence in our understanding of the archeological climate evidence rose from 20% to 32%.
- Despite these expressions of uncertainty, however, the proportion which rating the chances at 50-50 or better that the role of human behavior will be settled in the near future rose from 47% in 1991 to 69% in 2007.
Complain about this comment
Many thanks, simon-swede, for the link to this interesting study. You've already picked out a few key numbers but I'd like to point up a couple more.
Firstly, lots has been written down the years about scientists being pressured either to inflate or downplay evidence of climate change. Personally, I've always thought that the shrillness of some of these claims (on both sides) has been out of all proportion to the problem - and according to this survey, that's right. The way the article's worded can be interpreted as either 8% or 17% saying they had been pressured in either direction - but either way, that's a substantial majority of scientists saying they're able to report what they find without political pressure. (And this is those saying they felt pressure - the proportion bowing to it must therefore be even lower).
Secondly, another possible take on the numbers you pick out, CuckoToo (and I offer this, of course, not as a personal view but in the best traditions of BBC balance...) - if 85% of respondents say climate change is either moderately or very dangerous, 70% say it'll be difficult to manage, and only 5% believe humans are not affecting the temperature rise, isn't it rather obvious why the notion that emissions need to be constrained is being taken so seriously at the political level, in the media and among the general public?
Tim (#61) - I certainly assumed there'd be more comments about the climate aspect of my entry than about whaling! I'll try to post a quick resume of both meetings at the end of the week, btw.
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey (#64)
CO2 precedes warming.
I'm not a climate scientist, but my understanding is this. In the past, i.e., the Pleistocene epoch, read the last two million years (the Ice Age), the initial forcing mechanism which caused the planet to warm was probably orbital forcings, as proposed most famously by the Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovitch. (see Wikipedia)
More solar heat at 65 degrees north equals initial warming.
The positve and negative feedbacks then take hold, and evidently the positive feedbacks win, as where I'm writing there was, eighteen thousand years ago, a mile of ice.
The most famous (these days) feedback is CO2, termed by James Hansen an "amplifying feedback." Thus CO2 does precede initial warming. CO2 diffuses quickly throughout the troposphere and into the stratosphere. (the high blanket)
Then, or simultaneously, the other, less famous, but perhaps just as important feedbacks kick in - water vapor (warmer world equals more water vapor in the lower troposphere). This is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. This is the low blanket - it stays close to the ground.
Also CH4, methane - for example, as we warm now, in particular the Arctic and its tundra, the permafrost melts, releasing part of its vast store of sequestered methane. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, though short lived in the atmosphere.
Etc, etc...
It is a complex subject in the details timjenvey, and I've just touched the surface. Luckily, there are professionals who have made it their life's work to understand, but, as human as we are, there are anomalies to look out for, such as Bellamy. I would like to hear from Richard on this, but I wonder if this is too sensitive a legal subject to comment on?
On the JPL graph, (the NASA link I sent you)there are actually several interglacials shown shown. Just look again, or try Wikipedia, and blow up their graphs. Look under Milankovitch cycles, ot ice ages, or the like.
- Cheers -
Complain about this comment
Many thanks again, simon-swede, for the posting on this second study. Very interesting.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@dammit_chris
I don’t think I have ever said that I don’t believe that man does not contribute to climate change – clearly population growth, clearing forests and pollution etc will have an effect on both our climate and our environment. I do not, however, accept CO2 is the problem here. Of course CO2 has a greenhouse effect, but this effect is grossly exaggerated by the climate models and the assumption that climate sensitivity is positive. My understanding is CO2 does raise the temperature, but there is a limiting factor where once the upper limit is reached, no more can be added. My understanding on climate sensitivity is we simply don’t know enough to assume that a it is positive when there are studies which show water vapour and clouds have a negative effect on climate sensitivity. The climate models are sheer fantasy, as recognised by the IPCC themselves. The only people who seem convinced that climate models are capable of predicting a future climate are the modellers.
I do not accept the Precautionary Principle which some people seem to advocate, because I really don’t see the point in spending $trillions on something we don’t really understand, when there are people dying now for the sake of clean water and sanitation – a problem that could be eradicated at a fraction of the cost if only we had the political will
@Richard
Do I detect a note of sarcasm in your voice? ;)
Complain about this comment
Richard
"isn't it rather obvious why the notion that emissions need to be constrained is being taken so seriously at the political level"
I am sure that the type of climate change predicted by the models would be dangerous.
But the survey doesn't say AGW caused temperature rises, it states, based on current temeprature trends, 85% think it will be dangerous to some extent, without actually attribute global warming to man and only 54% believe that the temperature rise was not within natural temperature fluctuations.
So, no, it's not obvious.
Complain about this comment
CuckooToo: CO2 makes up less than 0.04% of the air, and methane even less, but they both punch above their weight when it comes to global warming for 2 important reasons...
1. there is already so much water vapour in the atmosphere that human activities hardly make a difference to the total e.g. its like throwing a few bucketfuls of water into the ocean. But because there is relatively little CO2 and methane you do not need to add a lot to make a big proportional difference. Its more like putting a bucketful of water into a bath! Thus, humans have already managed to double the amount of greenhouse gases in the air...
2. Second, by trapping extra heat themselves, these GHGs have an indirect effect on the amount of water vapour in the air. Warmer air can soak up more water&warmer rivers, lakes and seas can evaporate more easily into the atmosphere.
Upshot of these two effects is that if you heat up the air a little by adding extra CO2 and methane, then it will also take up more water vapour, which acts as a GHG in its own right and heats up the air even more.
Perfect example of positive feedback, as GHGs amplifies the original effect rather than diminishing it.
Therefore, I would strongly argue that GHGs are a major cause of global warming and that we should look to reduce emissions.
I understand people saying that we should concentrate our financial resources on desalinisation plants and helping the worlds poor etc, but when our planet heats up by 2oC, 3oC, 4oC and then 5-6oC if we let CO2 emissions go unabated then there is no amount of money in the world that will allow us to help the 9billion population that will be on our planet in less than 50 years. The better approach would be to encourage investment in both, tackle CO2 emissions and help put in place measures to limit the impact on those most at risk.
Complain about this comment
Manysummits #73.
Very quick as I'm off to work:
Thanks for explaining. If you have a mo please check out what the MIT Professor Richard Lindzen says:
http://www.heartland.org/full/24841/Climate_Alarm_What_We_Are_Up_Against_and_What_to_Do.html
He seems to be saying something different. He has a good track history on the subject.
Who do I believe?
More later.
Cheers.........
Complain about this comment
Amazing how the majority of scientific opinions apparently favour CO2 as a poison/pollutant/climate tipper and do so without a shred of data to back it up? Apparently the concensus is based on the possibility that in the years ahead climate models indicate everything from a bit of extra warmth to total disaster. And yet as we progress nothing actually recorded matches the computer models.
Hansen blatantly politicizes his remarks [US Government approval?] Massages his algorithms
to suit his own agenda.
Mann does likewise, is caught out - cold turkey - massages another set of figures and is shot down again and the Media does - nothing.
Al Gore blunders on lying and gets huge coverage and no recriminations.
And a bunch of really smart scientists [Oh yes they are!] meet in NY [ICCC] to pass on serious information that kicks all the Man Made Global Alarmists into touch and the 24 Hour "Breaking News" Journos do absolutely diddley squat to at least offer the alternative, [skeptics]view. Scientific predictions that at best match in blind ignorance the anti Copernican/Galilean/Brunean lobby that pilloried those heliocentrics so many centuries before. And who won that battle? The myopic majority, or the tiny fraction of unblinkered lateral thinkers and their growing band of believers?
Hansen, Mann, Gore, Monbiot, BBC and so many others really are the blind leading the blind. In the Country of the Blind, the one eyed man is King and I see many 20/20 visioned skeptics that will eventually prove the point.
Complain about this comment
A couple of people have asked here whether I know anything about why David Bellamy doesn't present for the BBC anymore. Apologies, but I don't - I've never worked for the relevant department, and have never done a job that involved hiring or firing TV presenters.
CuckooToo, just to pick up your points on climate sensitivity. It's not correct to say that "CO2 does raise the temperature, but there is a limiting factor where once the upper limit is reached, no more can be added". Rather, the radiative forcing increases with the logarithm of the concentration; if you double the concentration, you get twice the forcing, and that's the case whether you go from 200 to 400ppm, or from 400 to 800ppm. Just like doubling the frequency of a musical note puts it up one octave, no matter where you start from. So every extra CO2 molecule added has less impact than the previous one - but that doesn't mean it has no impact.
Climate sensitivity is defined in terms of a doubling of CO2 precisely because of this logarithmic relationship - it would make no sense, for example, to look for the change in radiative forcing from adding 10ppm, because the answer would depend on where you started.
The logarithmic relationship doesn't apply to some other greenhouse gases, by the way, where the initial concentration is much lower.
As to the value of climate sensitivity; I'm certainly not aware of anything in the peer-reviewed literature suggesting that a negative value is feasible. What you'd have to have is some consequence of the CO2 rise - known from simple physics to have a warming effect - that overcomes this warming somehow and produces a cooling. If anyone knows of such a study, perhaps they could post a link - I'd be interested to see what mechanism was postulated.
A number of studies - notably those looking back at the Earth's history - have converged on about 3C; and although it's not universally accepted, the IPCC's conclusion is: "Analysis of models together with constraints from observations suggest that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range 2C to 4.5C, with a best estimate value of about 3C. It is very unlikely to be less than 1.5C. Values substantially higher than 4.5C cannot be excluded, but agreement with observations is not as good for those values." (AR4 WG1 Technical Summary, p65)
I'm not sure of your basis, either, for saying that "climate models are sheer fantasy, as recognised by the IPCC themselves" - I've never seen anything suggesting this is the IPCC view, in fact if you read the Working Group One report (Chapters 9 and 10 are probably the most relevant) I think you'd draw a very different conclusion.
Re BBC balance: I'm often told at home that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit - so no, definitely not "sarcastic" - I'll take "ironic", though, with pleasure!
Complain about this comment
Richard # 81 & Cuckatoo:
Very quick again-
Richard Lindzen says in the link I sent Manysummits:
"The satellite records of outgoing heat radiation show that the climate is dominated by negative feedbacks and that the response to doubled and even quadrupled CO2 would be minimal."
Who do I believe? He has excellent credentials and successful accomplishments.
Complain about this comment
Tim #82, negative feedback isn't the same thing as negative climate sensitivity...
Complain about this comment
Richard
Wrong choice of words on my part - apologies. However, Chapter 8 Climate Models and Evaluation does state:
I've included the whole statement (so I can't be accused of cherry picking), but I really can't understand how they can state the models show a robust and unambiguous picture, when they concede the models have significant limitations leading to uncertainties in the magnitude of their predictions.
I will try to pick on other points later
Complain about this comment
Richard, what about former science correspondent Dr David Whitehouse? What happened to him? He is now a sceptic, and like Dr David Bellamy, is no longer heard of.
I suspect that Bellamy and Whitehouse have more science degrees between them than the current team of Science/environment reporters Palab Ghosh, David Shukman, Roger Harrabin and Richard Black?
Richard, I am afraid your statement about logarithmic forcing "if you double the concentration, you get twice the forcing" is just wrong. It should be "if you double the concentration you add a constant to the forcing".
On the subject of surveys, there is a new one out from Gallup, see http://www.gallup.com/poll/116590/Increased-Number-Think-Global-Warming-Exaggerated.aspx,
also discussed at the Watts Up blog.
This finds increasing levels of scepticism among the US public. (Cue knee-jerk anti-Americanism!)
Complain about this comment
Richard #83.
Now I'm confussed. Not an uncommon occurrence!
What was said:
"The satellite records of outgoing heat radiation show that the climate is dominated by negative feedbacks and that the response to doubled and even quadrupled CO2 would be minimal."
Can also read with out changing any meaning:
"The satellite records of outgoing heat radiation show xxxx that the response to doubled and even quadrupled CO2 would be minimal."
The xxxx is the removed text.
This site has hooked me rotten today. All your fault Richard:) Do you think we will make 100 comments!!
Cheers.......
Complain about this comment
Why isn't the BBC reporting on the Discovery Insititutes Creationism Conference this month?
And why is it not reporting on the Heartland Insititutes Climate Conference?
Does the BBC not cover propaganda "conferences" created by think tanks as if they are on-par with actual scientific conferences?
No? I suppose perhaps that's a good thing then.
Complain about this comment
- Overfishing -
I am three quarters of the way through Alanna Mitchells book, "Sea Sick - The Global Ocean in Crisis", (2009), and I can hardly believe what I am reading - but I do believe it.
Alanna is visiting the marine scientists at Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada, and she is talking to Boris Worm and Heike Lotze, man and wife. She is discussing two papers, both of which I now own, having just printed off copies:
1) "Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities", Ransom A. Myers and Boris Worm; Nature, May 15, 2003; 423, pp. 280-283. (the 90% paper)
2) Impacts of Boidiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services", Boris Worm et al; Science, 3 November 2006, vol 314, pp. 787-790.
I quote from Alanna's book, p.135:
"In all, Worm and Meyers calculate that the populations of every single large predatory fish across the global ocean fell by 90 [ninety] per cent in the fifty years after industrialised fishing began [in the 1950's].
As fishing became more difficult, other studies show that fisherman began spending both more time and more money to catch fewer fish, using sophisticated, expensive sonar and satellite equipment to target their catch. As well, they began to go yet deeper into the ocean and lower on the food chain. It's a recipe for trying to catch the very last fish."
[Boris Worm, p. 137] "We don't realize how absolutely exceptional this time is. We are reaching the carrying capacity of the planet's
natural resources... We are at the stage of losing the ability of things to come back on their own... That would represent a threshold."
To Richard Black:
You seem to have a special interest in the oceans? Does this jive with your own perspective??
- From a landlubber in Calgary -
Complain about this comment
As a geologist who has spent quite a large amount of time in my past studying paleo-climates I am certain that there is no such thing as dominant positive feedback in the Earth's climatic systems.
Some things may cause warming, and cause others to cause greater warming but these will be balanced out by others causing cooling to such an extent that the earth's systems stay pretty much the same.
The way this can be shown is that the Earth has managed to survive for a few billion years while bever reaching a "tipping point" causing catastrophic and runaway climate change. With the huge changes in atmospheric composition, oceanic circulation and wind patterns throughout these billions of years, if a tipping point was going to be reached then it would have been already.
There are only a few things that can have a dramatic effect on the Earth's climate, the sun and our position relative to it, the amount of radiation (of all varieties) coming from the sun, and the position of the continents on the Earth's surface.
Having said all of this many people would believe me to be anti-green as, for some reason, AGW alarmists can't understand that someone can be both an AGW realist and concerned about the state of the planet. My view is that the amount of time, energy and money spent on trying to solve a problem that can't physically exist would be far better spent on protecting environments that desperately need it.
The precautionary principle is rubbish as well as it will often lead to "unforeseen" consequences (that is unforeseen in the instigators - even if it is blindingly obvious to everyone else). Following the precautionary principle we are stopping the third world, and Africa in particular, from getting access to cheap sauces of energy. Cheap energy leads to development, development leads to wealth and wealth leads to a concern about the environment.
I think that it can also be demonstrated tha the precautionary principle is also responsible for the deaths of millions of people following the banning of DDT for what turned out to be no demonstrable reason (at the time there was a theory that led to DDT thinning egg shells but subsequent research showed this to be false).
Complain about this comment
I4dbill
And you don't think that the current Copenhagen conference which is being covered in great detail by the BBC is propaganda?
Complain about this comment
To l4dbill #87 and Manysummits question on David Bellamy.
My kids grew up with the BBC TV series that David Bellamy presented. He was like my science teacher back in the 50's/60's. Exuding genuine passion for his subject and totally engaging his audience. He just presented his experiences and observations and gave every side to every story with great respect of individuals and organizations. What he did was to sow the seeds of a love for the subject and allow the individual to develop their own thoughts. A true teacher of real science in my opinion.
He would call a spade a spade and never mind the consequences (which probably were his down fall). He was greatly loved and respected and his kind are, in my opinion, being cruelly suppressed and exterminated.
So to #87 I would answer: Yes to presenting all sides of the argument in a humble and respectful fashion and passionately engagng and encouraging folks to progress their own learning and formulate their own ideas. This is true science. What we have now is science high jacked by politics.
My two cents worth
Complain about this comment
Richard at 81: What is this "radiative forcing"? As a lifelong physicist, it's not a term I ever saw in physics text books. I only heard of it when I started to look at "climate science", whatever branch of science that is. I think that "radiative forcing" is a term invented by non-physicists to try and show that GHGs can heat the surface of the planet. Complete nonsense of course. The earth is surrounded by a vacuum, so the only way it can lose the energy it receives from the sun and remain in long term balance, is by IR radiation to space. And apart from the surface of the earth, what else can radiate IR? Why GHGs of course. So you see GHGs such as CO2 actually are responsible for cooling the earth. Oh no, have I just discovered man-made global cooling? Something for you non-physicists to think about.
Complain about this comment
PAWB46
Could you therefore share with us what keeps Venus hot?
Complain about this comment
I'm no expert on Venus, but it obviously is closer to the sun and receives a lot more solar radiation. I believe it also has an atmosphere made almost totally of CO2 (not a trace gas) with virtually no oxygen or nitrogen and it is at an enormous pressure.
Complain about this comment
SamuelPickwick, you're absolutely right - doubling the CO2 concentration adds a fixed amount to the forcing. Thanks for picking up my slip.
David Whitehouse left the BBC a few years ago but is still writing scientific articles and books, and appears as a commentator on the airwaves of the BBC and of other broadcasters.
timjenvey, your quote from Richard Lindzen I think perfectly sums up the view held by a number of scientists. The implication, though, is still a positive forcing - the negative feedbacks curb the rate of the warming, but do not induce a cooling. So expressed in terms of climate sensitivity, some people (including Fred Singer, for example, when I discussed it with him a few years ago) suggest it's likely to be closer to 1C than the 3C that the IPCC holds as the most likely number. But it's still positive. Apologies for keeping you tied to the computer, by the way, Tim - do take your screen breaks now!
PAWB46, as has often been pointed out, without the Earth's natural greenhouse, the human race would have a very hard time existing. That natural greenhouse effect is largely down to radiative forcing of water vapour, CO2, etc. When the term itself was coined I don't know.
Complain about this comment
Richard,
The Earth does not have a natural greenhouse. A greenhouse relies on glass to prevent convection from removing energy. There is nothing in the earth's atmosphere to prevent convection.
The "greenhouse effect" is widely acknowledged to be a complete misnomer.
Complain about this comment
To PAWBA46 #96:
I've always argued that. I've had greenhouses and if I want them to work I keep the door and windows closed. As soon as they are opened the greenhouse effect disappears.
Complain about this comment
If any climate alarmist is interested in seeing the alternative view i.e. the bits the BBC refuse to report on, look here:
http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html
By all means criticise the work by the scientists etc but at least read the work first
Complain about this comment
Interesting paper about total solar irradiance
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/13/scafetta-paper-increasing-tsi-between-1980-and-2000-could-have-contributed-significantly-to-global-warming-during-the-last-three-decades/#more-6194
Complain about this comment
Someone has to reach 100, so why not me? I've nothing more to add however. I'll just repeat that there is no scientific evidence for AGW, and computer models of the climate are just models, with no evidential basis. If any news item mentions future warming or future ice cap melting and it's based on computer models, then best ignore it (or assume the opposite is likely to happen).
Complain about this comment
I said I would come back on other points:
Statement of William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2196437/posts
Please read the whole satement
Complain about this comment
Comment 101:
Just made a droll connection. This may just be American slang but it's used quite a lot these days. For instance:
"Algebra 101 means you have a good basic general knowledge of algebra".
Could Comment 101 be renamed Climate 101? It certainly addresses the basics of the whole theory.
Struck me as prophetic?
Cheers.........
Complain about this comment
why climate models don't work:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/15/if-you-cant-explain-it-you-cant-model-it/#more-6220
Complain about this comment
Richard Black
I do not know where I stand on the issue of man-made global warming. But it is utterly clear where you and the BBC stand - and that is disquieting, it all looks like campaigning rather than objective reporting.
Your reasons for the BBC failing to report the New York conference are totally unconvincing. Yes, there may be POLITICAL attention on the Copenhagen conference. But that does not justify giving lots and lots of coverage to that conference - including alarmist headlines - and NIL coverage to the New York conference. The BBC website is the largest in the world, you have what, 1000 journalists ? Yet not an iota about the New York conference.
You cannot deny that the attendees in New York included many competent climate scientists (as against "environmentalists" who are not expert in climate science). Whether they are right or wrong is not the point - the point is that they should be heard. Dissension is what science is about.
Of course you yourself are not scientifically qualified to assess the evidence. Nor are you any kind of expert in computer modelling, on which much of the global-warming thesis is based. But we do not ask you to ASSESS the Mew York papers or discussions - we ask you to report them, so the licence-payers can see the issues in the round.
All the drift of BBC coverage continues to present man-made global warming as proven fact - and deliberately suppresses views to the contrary. And this is made worse when you seek to deny what is blatantly obvious.
Complain about this comment
#104 JohnAAA
Long time no see . . .
I do not know where I stand on the issue of man-made global warming.
Oh I think you do!
Complain about this comment
Okay, where do I start? First, for those who state that "there is no scientific data supporting AGW", are you serious, and what is your expertise and research on this? For one, I actually have over-looked much of the numerous accounts of data through Colorado State University. Ice-core samples, which measure gaseous concentrations trapped within ice bubbles trapped over 100-thousand years highlight much of the anthropogenic cause. For one, CO2 as well as methane, sulur oxides, and nitrous oxides that varied among varying temperatures throughout the millenia, never reaching such levels until around the industrial revolution where the trend of an exponential increase...
To begin, the thermal properties of the gases mentioned is undeniable as proven by scientific studies in organic chemistry and elemental physics, they are thermal pollutants by physical law (torsion at the elemental/crystalline structural level)...basically those gases radiate heat when bombarded by UV radiation from the sun. Great for us, but like Goldilocks not too much, not too little, it is a delicate balance that needs to be "just right". Next, these gases show an exponential rise beginning around the industrial revolution which was not observed for 100K years prior (already mentioned I know, but needed to be repeated). Third, fossil fuels, when undergone an exothermic reaction from oxidative combustion release these gases as byproducts. Further, due to human activity, the Carbon, Nitrogen, Sulfur, etc. have been released in a gaseous state to have such reactions in which without human interference they would have remained stable in a solid or liquid state trapped in the Earths mantle for 1000's to millions of years in which their release would have been stable and drawn out over just as many years.
To say there is no scientific proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming is to be ignorant of the facts. Obviously you don't want to believe in humanity's blunders eh?
As well, Global Warming isn't the scare card people, it is global extinctions that will come from it, and besides that, they are already being witnessed. We have been within the 6th largest extinction event (largest since the C-T boundary event that killed the dinosaurs, but it wasn;t the largest by any stretch) to have ever faced this planet, it is going on now. Without the diverse biota that make up this planet and its resources we will die. Humans will become extinct, unless some major change or sheer luck hits us.
Not to mention that it took 50,000 years for humanity to reach 1 billion people, and only 130, 30, 15, 12, and 12 years to reach 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 billion!!! That is the real problem...us! Our growth rates, consumption, and inefficient use of resources. So go on, ignore the real science from your comfortable home, read the mis-directed propoganda of psuedoscience and claim it as truth, steer clear from the true scientific arenas of men and women who work tirelessly just to have their data questioned by ignorant people...just remember that it isn't GW that is the major threat, it is merely a byproduct of our "pest like" growth...and as all species inevitably go through, extinction is the next stop for a species that drastically over shoots its carrying capacity...I just hope if we do re-populate that it isn't the idiots that survive...good day, and good luck in our struggle for existence.
Complain about this comment
To add, while some have stated that CO2, and other greenhouse gases, are "small players" is quite ignorant as well. For one, their correlation to temperature increases is over 0.8 (R-squared), which is usually un-witnessed in many natural phenomena....equals quite strong of a relationship, not a minor player. Second, of course satelites are observing high rates with water vapor, that is not unknown to climatologists, infact even methane is a bigger player is thermal conductivity but its concentration to CO2 is much lower. Since the albedo effect strikes the higher surface areas, yes clouds would cover much of this ground....however, since they are albedo, they reflect it back out into space, they don't absord in NIR and reflect it to the surface to the degree that greenhouse gases do. However, I am not arguing the point of water vapor being a greenhouse gas, that is well known...but due to waters properties of high inertia when you build up teh interior heat from otehr such gases you confound teh problem by it being retained to a higher degree within the very clouds you say that dispell GW!!! You are proving the point sir! Not to mention, that greenhouse gases conserve so much energy that they in fact build up clouds (see NASA reports on this phenomena at their site) which will further increase the energy of storms (just watch how the severity of the global average of storms will rise steeply soon, actually it is already starting)
Oh and for whoever dispelled modeling...lol...modeling has been emperically proven to work at very high rates b/c we do know the basis for erecting them, it's just that media and dis-information tactics are working to make you not believe it...again, NASA details this very well
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_04/
Complain about this comment
Okay, the TSI argument is so old it is not even funny any more. Even Galileo argued this and the correlation is well known, but the order of magnitude does not correlate to todays witnessed events despite the smaller magnitude of correlation, which is true. It seems that many of you have googled this, which is inherently set up to throw out 100's of versions of the 1991 paper in Science...read below, he says it best
"Currently TSI is monitored using a Total Irradiance Monitoring Instrument (TIM). TSI is known to be linked to Earth climate and temperature. Proxies of the TSI based on sunspot observations, tree ring records, ice cores, and cosmogenic isotopes provide estimates of the solar influence on the Earth's climate that extend back thousands of years, and correlate with climatic events on the Earth.
The idea that solar activity affects our climate has since become more popular, perhaps partly due to a paper published by two Danish researcher in Science 1991 (this paper is still controversial), and it is now proposed that changes in the sun may affect our climate in three different ways: (i) through changes in the TSI, as discussed above, (ii) by increased absorption of UV-light in the stratosphere (because there is more UV-light), and (iii) through galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). The former mechanism is well accepted within the science community, but the changes in the TSI are considered to be too small to produce large variations in the global mean temperature. Changes in the TSI cannot explain the present global warming. The various TSI data sets are in basic agreement indicating that variations of TSI track the passage of sunspots across the sun yeilding a net change of about 0.2%, and that long-term solar cycle variations are only on the order of 0.1%."
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Solar_activity_and_climate_change
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS