659 replies to this topic

[Mind]

Jean Robert Petit et al., “Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past 420,000 Years from the Votok Ice Core in Antarctica,” Nature, Vol. 399, No. 6735, June 3,1999, pages 429-36.

This paper reconstructed temps over the glacial history of the earth. When viewed in this perspective, the recent temp rise doesn't look like anything out of the ordinary. Here is a paper with the graph of temp changes (page 5). I couldn't find a website with the original paper, probably because it was published in 1999.

We are currently in an interglacial period. What should we expect during an interglacial period? Dramatically warmer temps? yes. Melting ice? yes. Rising sea levels? yes. If the global average temp increases another 2 to 4 C over the next century we will be a little higher than the last interglacial period, but will this be the end of human society as we know it, as is portrayed in the media? I doubt it. I just don't see the justification for all the mass hysteria. Mass hysteria leads to bad policy decisions. I would rather focus on the promotion of new energy sources, than engage in finger-pointing, lawsuits (California recently tried to sue 6 world automakers for global warming "damages"...ridiculous), and heavy handed taxation and regulation. The development of the current industrial society was a "group effort". Nearly the enitre world has participated in this evolution and no one could have anticipated all of the consequences. Governments of the world could no more have stopped the technological/industrial revolution than I could stop a tsunami with my hand. I don't see anything good coming from finger-pointing. We need a "group effort" to develop and promote new energy sources. Thankfully some of this is already happening.

[soren]

I think you are correct, we do indeed need more of a concerted effort.
I dont like the associations pressure groups have on either side of the debate in the public and governing mind. It is too divisive to get any serious action coordinated.
Plus, all this is being handled with supreme inconsistency by the UK government.
I think its time for science to form less tainted organisations to push the agenda, in place of pressure groups and energy interest groups.
Good alternatives have been started in the UK, like Tidal Generators, Turbines, and - dare I say it here, composted waste heat...
I think the tie in with Greenpeace and Friends of The Earth scares off serious consideration, from investors and engineers.
Could not a number of us kick start a Science/business backed alternative fuel research and lobby group?
There are many initiatives going on in the UK, each one having to deal with local councils, then the public, and gaining no wider impact..
As they are very disparate, they would do well from being part of a world wide consensual umbrella group.
Anyone from this group care to contact me about this? I can run it through my university's climate research department -
I hope Im not hijacking the ImmInst code of conduct here...

[platypus]

We are currently in an interglacial period. What should we expect during an interglacial period? Dramatically warmer temps? yes. Melting ice? yes. Rising sea levels? yes.

Skyrocketing GH-gases in the atmosphere? No.

If the global average temp increases another 2 to 4 C over the next century we will be a little higher than the last interglacial period, but will this be the end of human society as we know it, as is portrayed in the media? I doubt it.

All is reasonably well as long as the rains come in time to allow agriculture and feeding the planet. If that fails for one reason or the other, things will get really bad.

[biknut]

Gore gets a cold shoulder

Steve Lytte
October 14, 2007

ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing."

Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.

But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.

He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.
He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

http://www.smh.com.a...1696238792.html

[platypus]

Warm wind hits Arctic climate:

http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/7050132.stm

Arctic voice drowning in cliamte shift:

http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/7041913.stm

Let's hope the current extreme warmth in the whole arctic does not signify that the climate went over a tipping-point, as that would obviously suck...

[Mind]

Let's hope the current extreme warmth in the whole arctic does not signify that the climate went over a tipping-point, as that would obviously suck...

Why? The warming that has occurred so far (last hundred years) has been overwhemingly positive for humanity (on the macro scale). Why will further warming "suck"? There are no guaranteed negative impacts. Why will everything suck?

[platypus]

Why? The warming that has occurred so far (last hundred years) has been overwhemingly positive for humanity (on the macro scale). Why will further warming "suck"? There are no guaranteed negative impacts. Why will everything suck?

Because that would be a very strong indication that global warming indeed was real, and that it can be quicker than the average of current models show. Besides, melting permafrost releases methane, which is a strong greenhouse gas. If the sea-level rises several meters and the global average temperature rises several degrees, it will cost trillions/gazllions for humanity...I think that the Stern report addresses this.

What are the positive impacts you mention?

[biknut]

Because that would be a very strong indication that global warming indeed was real, and that it can be quicker than the average of current models show. Besides, melting permafrost releases methane, which is a strong greenhouse gas. If the sea-level rises several meters and the global average temperature rises several degrees, it will cost trillions/gazllions for humanity...I think that the Stern report addresses this.

There's little doubt there's global warming. The doubt it that it's caused by man.

If the entire arctic ice cap melts it will not cause a rise in see-level, and in fact the see-level will fall because of it. That's exactly what's happening now in the arctic ocean. Ice takes up more space than water.

All the reports are claiming the permafrost is melting, however global methane levels are not rising.

[Mind]

Global methane levels have been declining for 3 years now. See here. Methane peaked in 2004 and has been fairly level since 1995.

What are the positive impacts you mention?

If the average human lifespan is an indication of a favorable climate then we have done very well in the last hundred years. The changing/warming climate (and rising oceans) certainly did not stop the human population from expanding from 2 billion to over 6 billion in the last 100 years.

Poverty as a percentage of the population has been declining for a couple decades now.

Hunger as a percentage of the population has also declined.

Food production has increased to the point where we have more than enough to feed the entire world and we are using less land to do it. (present starvation problems are mostly due to politics and war).

Purveyors of the "earth is doomed" global warming hysteria have been saying this since the late 1980s, yet, most people of the world are better off, with more food, more money, more freedom, and better health, than at anytime in the human history. In the ultimate worse case scenario, if all the ice melts and the oceans rise 50 feet, it will cost a lot of money to rebuild further inland, but even the hysterical "experts" like Algore don't expect this to happen for 100 years, and that is with an expectation of "business as usual", meaning at least a linear increase in fossil fuel usage for the next 100 years. Oil production has levelled off and declining production is likely as soon as next year. Fossil fuels are becoming prohibitively expensive and it is only 2007! The GCM's that the IPCC (and Algore) rely on for their "end of the world' predictions are seriously flawed because they do not have realistic fossil fuel usage built into them.

[niner]

Mind, why do you concatenate 'Al' and 'Gore'? Is that supposed to signify something?

[Mind]

"Algore". It is just a silly nickname/contraction. I really shouldn't use it.

[platypus]

Because that would be a very strong indication that global warming indeed was real, and that it can be quicker than the average of current models show. Besides, melting permafrost releases methane, which is a strong greenhouse gas. If the sea-level rises several meters and the global average temperature rises several degrees, it will cost trillions/gazllions for humanity...I think that the Stern report addresses this.

There's little doubt there's global warming. The doubt it that it's caused by man.

There is not much doubt about it, really. Claims that greenhouse gases don't cause a warming effect are being pushed further into the fringe.

All the reports are claiming the permafrost is melting, however global methane levels are not rising.

That is correct. Let's hope the melting does not start for real or that it does not raise methane levels as much as it is feared.

[Lazarus Long]

The fact that some efforts began in the 80's (actually the 70's) to diminish the crisis is one of the reasons we have the improvements that we witness, which some are now trying to use to claim there is no problem.

Methane levels began their decline in response to global improvements in efficiency for pipelines and refining. The Clean Air act in this country had a lot to do with it but so did the markets which found it made sense not to dump methane when there was a market for it. In fact declining levels have more to do with human conduct than the still defrosting permafrost. Does anyone else see the idea of *defrosting permafrost* as an oxymoron?

The evidence being sited is actually more confirmation of human sourced problems but areas where our behavior changes, like with CFC's, have started making a difference. The real questions is whether it will be fast enough.

Also it is a false dichotomy to claim the problem is "either human caused or natural;" the problem is that human behavior is having a dramatic acceleration upon a natural trend and it could even be significantly adding to the impact.

[platypus]

If the average human lifespan is an indication of a favorable climate then we have done very well in the last hundred years. The changing/warming climate (and rising oceans) certainly did not stop the human population from expanding from 2 billion to over 6 billion in the last 100 years.

Poverty as a percentage of the population has been declining for a couple decades now.

I don't think climate change has much of anything to do with lifespan or economic growth.

Hunger as a percentage of the population has also declined.

Food production has increased to the point where we have more than enough to feed the entire world and we are using less land to do it. (present starvation problems are mostly due to politics and war).

I think that one large medium-term danger from rapid climate change is changing rainfall patterns. No water = no food. Even countries like Italy will be in trouble as they lose the glacial meltwater they use in agriculture now.

Purveyors of the "earth is doomed" global warming hysteria have been saying this since the late 1980s, yet, most people of the world are better off, with more food, more money, more freedom, and better health, than at anytime in the human history.

Yes, but all that growth is bound to affect the environment. I think we're just beginning to see the changes. The pollution levels in China have incresed manyfold in just a decade and the changes can be clearly seen from space.

In the ultimate worse case scenario, if all the ice melts and the oceans rise 50 feet, it will cost a lot of money to rebuild further inland, but even the hysterical "experts" like Algore don't expect this to happen for 100 years,

In the ultimate worst case scenario the ocean will rise roughly 60 meters, if I remember correctly. That will of course take at least a couple thousand years to happen. But anyway, a rise of several meters in reasonably close future is not out of the question.

and that is with an expectation of "business as usual", meaning at least a linear increase in fossil fuel usage for the next 100 years. Oil production has levelled off and declining production is likely as soon as next year. Fossil fuels are becoming prohibitively expensive and it is only 2007! The GCM's that the IPCC (and Algore) rely on for their "end of the world' predictions are seriously flawed because they do not have realistic fossil fuel usage built into them.

When will peak coal happen? I'm afraid people will just start using that as there are no viable choices in the short-term.

[Mind]

I don't think climate change has much of anything to do with lifespan or economic growth.

If the sea-level rises several meters and the global average temperature rises several degrees, it will cost trillions/gazllions for humanity

Maybe you should reconcile your two statements. Maybe you meant that the warming and ocean rise that has occurred thus far had zero effect on humanity what-so-ever, but in the future it surely will, and it will all be bad.

[Mind]

When will peak coal happen? I'm afraid people will just start using that as there are no viable choices in the short-term.

Coal could be a stop-gap measure for a while, but it will also become more expensive if it is the only reliable source of fossil fuel. The price has already jumped quite a bit in the last few years. It is a dynamic, not static commodity. I wnat to re-iterate that the GCM inputs unrealistically depict a nearly endless supply of cheap fossil fuels for the next 100 years. This most likely also leads to an unrealisitc dpeiction of atmospheric methane, which I hope the IPCC considers before their next meeting.

[Mind]

The fact that some efforts began in the 80's (actually the 70's) to diminish the crisis is one of the reason we have the improvements that we witness, which some are trying to use to claim there is no problem.

I'll grant you that this might account for a small part of the changes (I'll give the clean air act some credit), but I would argue that the profit motive was the lion's share of the change agent. Since the mid 1970s the U.S. has doubled its economic efficiency, according to Amory Lovins. We now expend 50% less energy per dollar of GDP than back in the 1970s. Most companies squeeze every ounce of energy and productivity out of their operations as they possibly can....because of the bottom line. Turns out this is also good for the environment. Yay! Hopefully, Chinese and Indian companies will find the same way to wealth.

[platypus]

Maybe you should reconcile your two statements. Maybe you meant that the warming and ocean rise that has occurred thus far had zero effect on humanity what-so-ever, but in the future it surely will, and it will all be bad.

Yes, that pretty much sums it up, the changes will be mostly bad as there are so many people on the planet that coping with rapid changes will not be easy.

[biknut]

There is not much doubt about it, really. Claims that greenhouse gases don't cause a warming effect are being pushed further into the fringe.

Not really. Studies show that temperature rise precedes CO2 increase. Not the other way around as algore would have you believe. Since that seems to be true, it pretty much blows the whole global warming theory out the window.

In a few more years when the climate starts cooling many scientists are going to have a lot of questions to answer. Of course then they will have all kinds of excuses why man is causing the climate to cool.

[Mind]

Judging by the geologic record, we are overdue for another ice age.

Interesting thought....IF all the changes in temperature over the last century were solely caused by humans (big IF)...and we should have been in another ice age by now, then our fossil fuel usage may have saved (or at least postponed) us from great hardship (not too mention that it was good for the economy and progress!)

While fossil fuel usage has brought pollution it has also brought us to the precipice of a new technological revolution that has the potential to quickly remedy any environmental scars. Those among us who believe there will be true AGI within 10 to 15 years or a singularity before 2050, cannot also expect we will still be driving cars with internal combustion engines in 2100. It doesn't follow, but that is what climate modelers expect.

It doesn't do any good to look back and point fingers. It's our fossil fuel history and we all participated. We can transform the fossil fuel infrastructure into something better.

[DJS]

Judging by the geologic record, we are overdue for another ice age.

Interesting thought....IF all the changes in temperature over the last century were solely caused by humans (big IF)...and we should have been in another ice age by now, then our fossil fuel usage may have saved (or at least postponed) us from great hardship (not too mention that it was good for the economy and progress).

Hah! That's the same thought I've had quite a few times.

[platypus]

There is not much doubt about it, really. Claims that greenhouse gases don't cause a warming effect are being pushed further into the fringe.

Not really. Studies show that temperature rise precedes CO2 increase. Not the other way around as algore would have you believe. Since that seems to be true, it pretty much blows the whole global warming theory out the window.

There's a perfectly good scientific explanation to that, you can read it from realclimate.org for example. In other words, you're wrong.

In a few more years when the climate starts cooling many scientists are going to have a lot of questions to answer. Of course then they will have all kinds of excuses why man is causing the climate to cool.

No sign of such cooling yet.

[platypus]

Judging by the geologic record, we are overdue for another ice age.

Interesting thought....IF all the changes in temperature over the last century were solely caused by humans (big IF)...and we should have been in another ice age by now, then our fossil fuel usage may have saved (or at least postponed) us from great hardship (not too mention that it was good for the economy and progress!)

Maybe. Then again, the warming might cause a gulf-stream shutdown and an ice-age a bit further down the road. "Climate is an angry beast and we're poking it with sticks..."

[Mind]

"Climate is an angry beast and we're poking it with sticks..."

I prefer "Climate is an angry beast and we're are just now learning how to control it."

[Lazarus Long]

(Mind)
I prefer "Climate is an angry beast and we're are just now learning how to control it."

Ahh Mind, now you are making me nostalgic. However you do realize that this is the phase in taming a wild beast when the risks are the highest?

[platypus]

I just saw a presentation on the 2007 arctic sea ice minimum. Some scientists are speculating that the arctic is passing a tipping point into a new quasi-stable state where the sea-ice extent during summer is drastically reduced.

Edit: Oh yeah, the minima this summer was 5 standard deviations away from a historical summer mean so one can really call it a drastic change in ice extent!

[biknut]

Not really. Studies show that temperature rise precedes CO2 increase. Not the other way around as algore would have you believe. Since that seems to be true, it pretty much blows the whole global warming theory out the window.

There's a perfectly good scientific explanation to that, you can read it from realclimate.org for example. In other words, you're wrong.

I don't think so platypus. This study says otherwise.

http://www.sciam.com...umber=1&catID=1


realclimate.org is a propaganda driven webb site with an obvious political agenda. You can only believe half of what they say.

[platypus]

Not really. Studies show that temperature rise precedes CO2 increase. Not the other way around as algore would have you believe. Since that seems to be true, it pretty much blows the whole global warming theory out the window.

There's a perfectly good scientific explanation to that, you can read it from realclimate.org for example. In other words, you're wrong.

I don't think so platypus. This study says otherwise.

http://www.sciam.com...umber=1&catID=1

realclimate.org is a propaganda driven webb site with an obvious political agenda. You can only believe half of what they say.

I meant that you're completely wrong about the "it pretty much blows the whole global warming theory out the window" - part. Like I said, there are perfectly good scientific explanations on why warming the planet causes a rise in CO2, and these explanations in no way discredit the "global warming theory".

[Mind]

Here is a VERY interesting quote from the article Biknut linked to:

This year, the sea ice around Antarctica grew to its largest extent since satellite observation began in 1979—whereas the Arctic arrived at record minimum

For those who follow the AGW debate, you will remember that just a couple years ago, the media and AGW proponents were in an extreme tizzy about the ice shelves around Antarctica "disintegrating". Ocean levels were going to rise and drown coastal cities because of the rapid melt of all the ice on and around Antarctica. If we didn't take action soon we were heading for oblivion because of all the melting going on around Antarctica. Now there is a RECORD amount of sea ice around Antarctica.

Now, the same cadre of AGW proponents is raising alarm about Arctic sea ice. I am not saying the research, monitoring, and data collection is invalid or invaluable, however, this type of thing will certainly make me more critical in the future. Perhaps it is summed up best by another quote from the article:

it remains to be seen exactly how sensitive global climate really is. "We just don't know very well," Stott acknowledges, "how the climate itself, which is much more than temperature, is going to behave."

[biknut]

realclimate.org is a propaganda driven webb site with an obvious political agenda. You can only believe half of what they say.

I meant that you're completely wrong about the "it pretty much blows the whole global warming theory out the window" - part. Like I said, there are perfectly good scientific explanations on why warming the planet causes a rise in CO2, and these explanations in no way discredit the "global warming theory".

I was talking about the global warming theory as espoused by the leading GW authority, actually god like person algore, that says rising green house gases, mainly in the form of CO2 caused by activities of man, is causing global warming. He supports his theory by going
back in time to the last ice age, and beyond to show that first there was a rise in CO2, then the temperature followed.

Honest scientists have tried to point out that that's not really the case, and that it's the other way around, but in most cases they have been labeled as deniers, and in the pocket of big oil in order to keep people like you and me from knowing the truth. The truth that GW is not caused by man.

What GW theory were you talking about?