In the waning weeks of 2009, planeloads of scientists, politicians, and assorted climate wonks from 192 countries will blow through a few million tons of CO2 to jet to Copenhagen, one of the world’s most carbon-conscious cities. The occasion is the much-awaited United Nations Climate Change Conference, aka Kyoto 2. Speeches will be made. Goals and targets will be hammered out. Limited victory will be declared. Set a Google News alert for “Last Chance to Stop Global Warming.”
There’s just one problem. As many of the participants—certainly the scientists—are only too aware, the global war on carbon has not gone well for the atmosphere. The really inconvenient truth: We’re toast. Fried. Steamed. Poached. More so than even many hand-wringing carbonistas admit. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, C02 that’s already in the air or in the pipeline will stoke “irreversible” warming for the next 1,000 years. Any scheme cobbled together in Copenhagen for slowing—forget reversing—the growth of greenhouse gases will be way too little, way too late. In the apt jargon of industry, a hotter planet is already “baked in.” James Lovelock, the British chemist who redubbed Mother Earth as “Gaia,” tells the ungilded truth: Can we hit a carbon Undo button? “Not a hope in hell.”
Now here’s some good news: We can still come out OK. Because by one of those strokes of luck that seem to follow the most charmed species on earth, climate change arrives just at the moment when we have—or have in sight—an array of tools for adapting and extending human civilization to any and every environment. Homo sapiens now splash golf courses across deserts, joyride in outer space, update their Facebook profiles from the South Pole. And technological change is accelerating. By 2050—zero hour for many warming scenarios—the 2010s will look as primitive as the buggy-whipped 1890s do today.
But won’t the transition to a warmer world be painful? The honest answer is that we don’t know. It depends on the resources we can bring to bear, technological and otherwise. There’s plenty of reason to be optimistic, though. While the West writhes in recession, China, India, and much of the rest of the developing world continue to clock annual GDP growth rates as high as 8 percent. Avowedly or not, they’re gunning their economies precisely because they see technology and the wealth it creates as the best (in fact, the only) insurance against a homicidal Mother Nature. Coastal communities, for example, will survive not because the world will somehow unite to stop sea levels from rising (it won’t). They’ll survive because they’ll learn to adapt—much as the Dutch have done since the Middle Ages.
Ditto the other supposed horsemen of the climate apocalypse. Drought? Check out Perth, on the edge of the Great Australian Desert, where more than a million people keep hydrated with seawater that’s been desalinated by wind power. Famine? Talk to the biotech wizards designing postindustrial crops for every microclimate (and, yes, palate). Plague? Getting real health care to the several billion people who lack it will be much better insurance against illness than wishful thinking about a Goldilocks climate. None of these are complete solutions—it’s the sum of all progress that will get us through.
It’s worth keeping in mind that the planet we inhabit has always been fundamentally out of control, driven by fantastically complex, chaotic systems we scarcely understand. With or without our help, dear Mother Earth is capable of producing circumstances highly inimical to human life. Pick whatever black swan you like—how about the next asteroid or an avian superplague or that Yellowstone volcano? Climate change could end up being just a side note.
There are lots of reasons to avoid shifting the focus to adaptation. For starters, “We’re toast” is nobody’s idea of a call to arms. But in fact, an honest accounting of where we stand ought to be the jumping-off place for a more important (and way more interesting) discussion. The real question is not how we can keep things the way they are but how we’ll survive, and maybe even thrive, on a hotter planet. Yes, we should still work on cutting carbon. But we need to be realistic about what that can accomplish and what it can’t.
At the risk of sounding horrifically flip, change is good. Really. Without the challenges inflicted by our volatile environment, starting with some nasty 80 percent-plus species extinctions, Earth would still be the planet of the trilobites. We just need to find a way to do what we’ve always done: adapt and—dare I say—evolve. And then start getting ready for the next ice age.
Contributing editor Spencer Reiss (spencer@upperroad.net) wrote about retooling the electric grid in issue 17.04.
The next weeks will be intense for climate change activists. In Copenhagen from December 8 to December 18 sixty five world leaders are meeting for the United Nations Climate Change Conference. The Obama administration showed its commitment to the issue of climate change in its joint statement November 24th with India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh committing both heads of state to “contribute to global efforts to combat climate change.”
Then the EPA opened the way for executive orders on climate issues from the White House when it announced December 7th that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and the environment. Climate change opponents like Scripps Howard News Service editorial writer Jay Ambrose screamed “tyranny.”
President Obama underscored his concern about global warming the same day when he met at the White House with climate champion Al Gore. And President Obama will make a personal appearance at the Copenhagen climate talks on December 18th. Meanwhile, anti-climate change forces have put private emails from the University of East Anglia's climate research unit online to discredit the scientific leaders of the climate change research community. That’s triggered a flood of accusations from the right, which has dubbed the release of these emails “Climategate.”
What’s the public reaction to this free for all? A Washington Post-ABC News poll released November 24th indicated that the public was losing its faith in the inconvenient truth promoted by climate change proponents. And a Harris Interactive Poll on December 8th backed that up when it revealed that belief in climate change was dropping fast, sliding from the 71% of Americans who believed in climate change in 2007 to 51% today.
There’s good reason for the fuss. A multi-trillion dollar bet and the very future of humanity may hinge on the accuracy of the climate change activist’s primary policy claim—that decreasing greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere can stabilize the earth’s climate.
But that bet has almost no chance of panning out. Not for the usual reasons. Not because the climate change activists are wrong about the instability of the climate.
But because climate instability is far greater than they imagine.
Climate change will happen with or without carbon sequestration and green technology—much as green technology and green energy are necessities. How do we know? There have been 60 ice ages in the two million years during which we’ve climbed from Homo erectus to our current peak as Homo industrialus. And there have been 20 sudden global warmings in the 120,000 years since we emerged from our pre-human state to our current physical form as fully modern humans, Homo sapiens.
The 12,000 year stretch from the end of the Ice Age to today has been an abnormally long period of climate stability. We are long overdue for a major climate flip. And frankly, we do not know whether that flip will be a rapid warming or a dip into an icy deep freeze like the ones that plagued us during the Pleistocene era. There’s only one thing we can be sure of, one thing we must prepare for—massive change.
There were no tailpipes and smokestacks from two million years ago until the invention of agriculture. Yet the climate fried and froze more than 60 times. Why?
Man and biomass are not the only determinants of climate. The earth is on a journey that takes it through dangers stranger than those that encountered by Frodo the Hobbit on his way to the Lonely Mountain The earth goes through strange tilts and wobbles as it circles the sun. Those twists, those precessions, give us the massive weather changes of the Milankovich cycle, a cycle we go through every 22,000, 41,000 and 100,000 years.
But the wobbles of the earth are nothing compared to the journey we take as inhabitants of a solar system on the move. Our sun and its tiny clutch of planets circles the black hole at the center of our galaxy once every 226,000 years. That trip takes us through spiral arms of the galaxy, arms whose cosmic rays wreak havoc on our weather every 143 million years. Our journey around the galactic core also takes us through “galactic fluff,” clouds of cosmic dust. In a normal year our outer atmosphere collects 30 million kilograms of cosmic dust.
But when we whiffle our way through the “fluff,” that amount triples, once again causing massive climate change.
Then there’s the sun itself, which not only undergoes shifts in eleven year patterns but which is now 43% warmer than it was when the planet earth first formed 4.5 billion years ago.
That’s a heavy-duty climate warmer.
What’s more to the point, our passage through the worst the galaxy can throw at us causes shifts in weather patterns that wreak havoc on life. Those weather shifts—plus the occasional meteor--have produced mass extinctions every 26.5 million years. That’s roughly 142 mass extinctions since life began its adventure nearly four billion years ago. All without tailpipes, smokestacks, and capitalism.
When geologists like James Hutton and Charles Lyall first began to read the past of our planet in fossils and in the strata of rock 200 years ago, they noticed something ominous. There were fossilized seashells on mountaintops. Mountaintops had once been at the bottom of seas. What’s more, solid land had once been swamp. And coastal real estate had been the most unstable of all, ending up underwater or high and dry. We humans are coast-hugging creatures. As Plato put it, we are like frogs dotted around a pond. Over 60% of us live near coasts. And coasts are fragile places to be.
The bottom line? Weather change will come. Massive weather change. It will come with or without the mitigation of greenhouse gases. And—like the indigenous people of Indonesia’s Aceh who build their houses on stilts--we have to be prepared to triumph over disaster. We cannot waste trillions on just one form of climate change. We have to be prepared for both fire and ice. Or, to put it differently, we have to realize that Mother Nature is not nice.
_________
Howard Bloom is the author of The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism (“exhilaratingly-written and masterfully-researched. I couldn't put it down.”--James Burke), The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History ("mesmerizing"—The Washington Post), and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century ("reassuring and sobering"—The New Yorker). He is also founder and head of The Space Development Steering Committee, a group that includes astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Edgar Mitchell and members from NASA and the National Science Foundation.
Re:The Flipping Point
« Reply #257 on: 2009-12-10 11:36:53 »
source: Foresight Institute author: J. Storrs Hall dated: December 5th, 2009
At Bryan Caplan’s blog this morning there was an odd comment that stirred up a 40-year old memory:
A single sentence in the Durants’ The Age of Napoleon makes me wonder whether I can trust a word they write on economic policy:
The memory is that it was reading another part of the Durant’s Story of Civilization (of which tAoN is volume 11) back in grade school, I stumbled on a passage which was the very first in any book of any kind in which I realized that the authors could let their political preconceptions alter their interpretation of their subject. What they wrote, as I recall it very inexactly 40 years later, was to the effect that western civilization had progressed in a grand upward sweep since the time of the ancient Greeks, pausing only in the years 1952-1960 — which of course the Eisenhower administration. (This was written before Nixon was elected.) I had previously believed that if something was written in a book, it was authoritatively true. This little gem was so blatantly silly that you couldn’t possibly take it seriously. Books weren’t Truth, after all. It was a defining moment in my intellectual life, something like learning the truth about Santa Claus.
I had some of the same feelings, roughly a decade ago, to learn that the scientific establishment would attack ideas, in this case the notion of diamondoid machinery and mechanosynthesis, using blather, appeal to authority, and various other fallacies, when they knew they didn’t have valid scientific arguments. It was all in aid of getting funding and retaining prestige, and not the search for truth.
There was never a “nanogate” so we will probably never know to what extent the nanotech “in-group” fudged, colluded, or simply used the old-boy network to marginalize their rivals. It would be just as clueless as the Durants to claim that there was a broad sweep of progress in nanotechnology except from 1996 to 2005. But it’s also a bit disingenuous to claim, as some commentators have, to be “shocked — shocked!” to find that kind of thing going on in climate science.
Unlike some people, we at Foresight haven’t been overly focussed on the sturm und drang of science politics. A major reason is that in the long run, it doesn’t matter. If diamondoid machines can be built, and it’s highly likely they can, there is little chance that they won’t be sometime in the coming century. So no matter what the specifics of any given debate, it’s a good idea to look at things like the Industrial Revolution to understand the coming century of technological innovation.
One thing that Climategate does is give us an opportunity to step back from the details of the AGW argument and say, maybe these are heat-of-the-moment stuff, and in the long run will look as silly as the Durants’ allergy to Eisenhower. And perhaps, if we can put climate arguments in perspective, it will allow us to put the much smaller nano arguments (pun intended) into perspective too.
So let’s look at some ice.
I’m looking at the temperature record as read from this central Greenland ice core. It gives us about as close as we can come to a direct, experimental measurement of temperature at that one spot for the past 50,000 years. As far as I know, the data are not adjusted according to any fancy computer climate model or anything else like that.
So what does it tell us about, say, the past 500 years? (the youngest datum is age=0.0951409 (thousand years before present) — perhaps younger snow doesn’t work so well?):
Well, whaddaya know — a hockey stick. In fact, the “blade” continues up in the 20th century at least another half a degree. But how long is the handle? How unprecedented is the current warming trend?
Yes, Virginia, there was a Medieval Warm Period, in central Greenland at any rate. But we knew that — that’s when the Vikings were naming it Greenland, after all. And the following Little Ice Age is what killed them off, and caused widespread crop failures (and the consequent burning of witches) across Europe. But was the MWP itself unusual?
Well, no — over the period of recorded history, the average temperature was about equal to the height of the MWP. Rises not only as high, but as rapid, as the current hockey stick blade have been the rule, not the exception.
In fact for the entire Holocene — the period over which, by some odd coincidence, humanity developed agriculture and civilization — the temperature has been higher than now, and the trend over the past 4000 years is a marked decline. From this perspective, it’s the LIA that was unusual, and the current warming trend simply represents a return to the mean. If it lasts.
From the perspective of the Holocene as a whole, our current hockeystick is beginning to look pretty dinky. By far the possibility I would worry about, if I were the worrying sort, would be the return to an ice age — since interglacials, over the past half million years or so, have tended to last only 10,000 years or so. And Ice ages are not conducive to agriculture.
… and ice ages have a better claim on being the natural state of Earth’s climate than interglacials. This next graph, for the longest period, we have to go to an Antarctic core (Vostok):
In other words, we’re pretty lucky to be here during this rare, warm period in climate history. But the broader lesson is, climate doesn’t stand still. It doesn’t even stand stay on the relatively constrained range of the last 10,000 years for more than about 10,000 years at a time.
Does this mean that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas? No.
Does it mean that it isn’t warming? No.
Does it mean that we shouldn’t develop clean, efficient technology that gets its energy elsewhere than burning fossil fuels? Of course not. We should do all those things for many reasons — but there’s plenty of time to do them the right way, by developing nanotech. (There’s plenty of money, too, but it’s all going to climate science at the moment. ) And that will be a very good thing to have done if we do fall back into an ice age, believe me.
For climate science it means that the Hockey Team climatologists’ insistence that human-emitted CO2 is the only thing that could account for the recent warming trend is probably poppycock.
And that, if you will allow me to return full circle, means that the Fat Fingers argument is probably poppycock too.
Re:The Flipping Point
« Reply #260 on: 2009-12-13 18:25:53 »
How much of the Climate Change Media is a smoke screen to keep us distracted from the other things the companies and governments are noodling away at. Not to say I don't have a problem with contaminating and damaging the eco systems. It all seems to be so narrowly cast and we can't seem to get at the holistic take and encourage the fixes that we can get on with today.
This insignificant planetoid has been found guilty of crimes against the universe.
Trucks pours enough concrete to build 37 football stadiums
Village elder Delgado Caritiana of the Caritiana tribe, is pictured at a reservation near the Brazilian town of Porto Velho, the capital of western Amazon's Rondonia state.
Straddling one the Amazon's main tributaries and flanked by dense jungle, a construction pit the size of a small town bustles with bulldozers and nearly 10,000 workers blasting huge slabs of rock off the river bank.
While blue-and-yellow macaws fly overhead, a network of pipes fed by a constant flow of trucks pours enough concrete to build 37 football stadiums.
The US$7.7 billion Santo Antonio dam on the Madeira river is part of Brazil's largest concerted development plan for the Amazon since the country's military government cut highways through the rain forest to settle the vast region during its two-decade reign starting in 1964.
In the coming years, dams, roads, gas pipelines, and power grids worth more than US$30 billion will be built to tap the region's vast raw materials, and transport its agricultural products in coming years.
The Santo Antonio dam in the western Amazon's Rondonia state, which goes online in December 2011, will pave the way for a trade route between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans by making more of the Madeira river navigable.
But the behemoth project may also make it tougher for the nation to steer a new course as a leader of the global green movement.
Brazil's government says such development is needed to improve the lives of the region's 25 million inhabitants, who remain among the poorest in Latin America's biggest economy.
With the economy expected to grow at 5-6 percent annually in coming years and the country preparing to host the 2014 soccer World Cup and 2016 Olympics, the government wants to ensure ample energy and adequate infrastructure.
Critics say not all projects make economic sense and many energy-saving measures -- such as switching from electric to solar water heaters -- have not been explored. They also argue that the drive for development in the world's biggest forest highlights a policy contradiction as Brazil tries to play a top role in forging a global deal on climate change at the U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen.
Brazil reversed years of opposition to greenhouse gas targets this year, saying it intended to reduce Amazon deforestation by 80 percent and curb projected 2020 greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent.
"They talk about reducing deforestation and boosting controls but they invest in these mega-projects," said Israel Vale, director at the Kaninde environmental advocacy group in Porto Velho, capital of Rondonia.
"The rhetoric doesn't fully match reality," he said.
President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, a pragmatic former factory worker, has acknowledged the importance of tackling climate change and the heavy contribution that destruction of the forest makes to carbon emissions.
But he has consistently backed infrastructure projects in the Amazon and hits out at foreigners he says want to preserve the forest like a park, ignoring the needs of its inhabitants.
"I don't want gringos asking us to leave Amazon people to die of hunger under the canopy of a tree," Lula said in the Amazon city Manaus in November.
He says Brazil needs more international financial aid for sustainable development in the region, something he will push for in Copenhagen.
PROJECTING JOBS
New shopping malls, supermarkets and hotels reviving the decrepit center of Porto Velho showcase the new wealth the Santo Antonio dam brings to an otherwise impoverished region.
Santo Antonio Energia, the consortium building and operating the dam, is made up of Brazilian power and construction companies, a pension fund, as well as domestic and foreign banks.
The investment boom has helped many people get their first job with proper benefits.
"The people who want to protect the forest have never been hungry or needy," said Antonia Meyrilen, a 27-year-old mother training to be a carpenter.
Porto Velho is not new to boom and bust cycles, previously driven by rubber, gold, and timber.
The town of Jaci-Parana, halfway between Santo Antonio and a second dam similar in size being built further upstream on the Madeira, shows how wealth doesn't always equal progress.
Aside from the pick-up trucks with company logos, the scene is reminiscent of a Wild West boom town during the California gold rush.
Bars and brothels hammered together overnight with rough-cut boards line the muddy main strip, with pool tables and prostitutes luring customers. Jukeboxes and video games blare into the night and swinging doors reveal back-parlor gambling.
Talk abounds that landowners have hired a gunman to kill tenants who could otherwise claim part of their compensation for houses that will be flooded by the dam.
"Our town's been turned upside down," said Irene Nascimento, 47, who runs a bar and convenience store.
"The price of land trebled in a few months, everything is expensive -- some people gain, others lose," she said.
Santo Antonio Energia has donated millions of dollars to philanthropic projects, including blackboards and computers for schools, the revival of an old railway and the installation of a much-needed sewage system in Porto Velho.
When the dam is complete, most jobs related to the project will go and financial benefits will be limited to tax payments to public coffers, raising the risk that boom may again turn to bust.
"If the residents here don't keep watch and define the public policies they want, they won't get much out of this," said Ricardo Alves, head of sustainable development at Santo Antonio Energia.
ENVIRONMENT
Santo Antonio and most of the other 10 dams on the drawing board for the Amazon region require a much smaller water reservoir than older dams did and therefore flood a far smaller area per unit of generated energy.
The company says it is minimizing environmental impact by treating sewage from the construction site, combating malaria, and relocating affected flora and fauna. It also donated trucks and equipment to government environmental services.
Still, on both sides of the river as many as 1,000 families will see their homes flooded and their cemeteries moved. Indians and fishermen fear the land they hunt on and the river they fish in won't be the same.
The roughly 200 families that agreed to move to a model housing project with running water, electricity, and an already planted vegetable garden are mostly content.
Several of the others prefer their simple but familiar surroundings -- often wood shacks with no amenities.
"We have no choice. They want to pull us out, so they have to pay," said Leonardo Fonseca da Cruz, a 63 year-old fisherman who lives along the picturesque Teotonio rapids.
His neighbors said the Santo Antonio consortium was offering too little to compensate for lost revenue from fishing.
Company officials admit they don't know how many fish species will be made extinct or what impact a growing population will have on the environment.
"In order to build a dam, you need to move the river. Of course, it's going to have an impact," said Antonio Cardilli, Santo Antonio Energia's head of employee training.
"There are people in society who want to eat an omelet without breaking the eggs," he adds.
Throughout the world hydro energy is still an attractive option because it is much cheaper than nuclear or fossil fuel-fired power plants.
New technologies, accumulated experiences, and heightened awareness have eased but not eliminated the social and environmental risks in building dams, says Carlos Tucci, who has advised the United Nations, World Bank and others on dam construction for 40 years.
"We have the ability to create better projects today but there is always an inevitable local impact and there are still other risks -- design or implementation problems, unforeseen changes in water flow," said Tucci.
A series of dams on Brazil's Sao Francisco river and an unexpected change in water volume caused sedimentation problems that led to dramatic algae growth and a 50 percent reduction in fish stock, said Tucci.
At Santo Antonio, a different dam design and water quality should avoid such problems, though the impact of heavy sedimentation accumulation is uncertain, said Tucci, adding that the company's original sedimentation and hydrology impact study was poor.
Critics say the government pressured the environmental protection agency Ibama into rubber-stamping the environmental license in 2007 and waived the need for certain impact studies. At the time, two Ibama officials resigned over the standoff.
"The government used political and not technical criteria," said Roberto Smeraldi, head of Friends of the Earth in Brazil, which sued Ibama for allegedly breaking environmental law in the licensing process.
NATIVE INDIANS
Leaders of native Indians living on nearby reservations are skeptical, saying government development projects usually make life worse for them.
"The arrival of the white man, the road, the time they threw chickens at us and said it was a farming project to ensure us income -- are we better off today?" asked Antenur Caritiana, of the Caritiana tribe.
He is concerned that rising water levels of tributaries will flood bridges and roads, and that their women will be drawn to prostitution as their lands are invaded by loggers and wildcat miners.
Most Indians in his jungle town understand little of the dams and their potential impact, despite company briefings.
But according to village elder Delgado Caritiana, they won't object if given education, health and farm aid.
"The main concern is the problem of monitoring and protecting Indian lands," said Santo Antonio's Alves.
Forest guards are to help protect reservations but Indians don't trust the government Indian foundation Funai, which negotiates with Santo Antonio Energia on their behalf.
"The Funai doesn't listen to us, they bring their projects ready-made from the capital," said Antenur.
The number of Indians over the last two decades has more than doubled to nearly 1 million, out of Brazil's population of 195 million people. Their lands account for 12 percent of Brazil's territory. But whether on a spacious reservation in the Amazon or cramped on ghetto-like reserves in the south, most of their land is under pressure from ranchers, loggers, wildcat miners, or power and construction companies.
POLITICAL PRESSURE
Such challenges are likely to be multiplied with the planned construction of the much larger Belo Monte dam on the upper Xingu river. The region is home to numerous Indian tribes and the dam would directly impact 120,000 people.
The environmental agency Ibama is again under pressure, this time to speed up the Belo Monte approval process. Again, two officials resigned and conservationists cried foul.
"They want them to turn a blind eye to technical and legal procedures, and sometimes even to ethics," said Marina Silva, former environment minister and renowned Amazon defender.
Perhaps the biggest worry for environmentalists is the planned pavement of the BR 319 motorway between Porto Velho and Manaus, which leads through one of the most pristine areas of the Amazon with a high biodiversity and many endemic species.
Satellite images showing fish-bone shaped patterns of deforestation show how roads attract settlers to set up farms and cattle ranches.
Deforestation of the Amazon has fallen to the lowest rate in over two decades, due in part to stepped up controls on illegal ranching and logging but also to weaker global demand for farm products from the region, such as beef, soy and timber. Still, nearly 20 percent of the Amazon has already disappeared and large chunks of the forest are still destroyed every year. In the year through July 2009 an area the size of the US state of Delaware was chopped down.
Supporters of the road say it would reduce the cost of merchandise in Manaus but studies show transportation costs to and from Manaus are cheaper by river than road.
Jorge Viana, former governor of the Amazon state Acre and a leading voice in Lula's Workers' Party last month sent a letter to Lula along with a group of prominent scholars saying there was "no economic justification that can compensate for the environmental cost" of the road.
The government pledges to create new national parks to buffer the environmental impact of the road but experts point to numerous parks in the region that have been invaded by ranchers and loggers.
"The road makes no sense. We are not against development and infrastructure but it needs to be intelligent," said Paulo Moutinho, coordinator at the independent Amazon research Institute, Ipam.
He said projects like the road could fuel deforestation, which makes up 75 percent of Brazil's carbon emissions.
"If the (infrastructure) plan is not changed, it will put at risk Brazil's deforestation and emissions targets."
Re:The Flipping Point
« Reply #261 on: 2009-12-17 20:34:25 »
googlebot 2009-12-17: I think man invented the car by instinct.
MoEnzyme: Interesting or not? . . . that the next nearest earthlike planet only 40 light years away is probably too hot to permit life as we know it here on earth. Or is it? Only time shall tell. LOTSA water here. Water World even.
I figure if one were to have an imagination with some familiarity with chemistry and biology, there may be many more interesting and strange manifestations of intelligent life than bipedal apes. Perhaps they have some deep aquatic biology, where highly evolved tool using squid and octopi rule over a variety of dolphin-reptile-fish-like deuterostomes, crustations, insects and other protostomes. who knows? its certainly different, but not inconceivable. In another world, or perhaps even our own one day in the future, a clever and lucky squid oportunista hits it big. With enough climate change perhaps anything is possible. -Mo
ps. We already have aquatic life living very comfortably near active volcanic vents here on earth, so I don't see any great leaps of faith, or at least nothing that a few million years of change here on earth couldn't find or at least somewhat imitate. Maybe the message here is "load up heavy on the H2O if you want to live to be this old". only time will tell.
Current Wiki as of this posting.
GJ 1214 b is an extrasolar super-Earth discovered in 2009 orbiting the star GJ 1214, at a distance of 13 parsecs or approximately 40 light-years from Earth, in the constellation Ophiuchus, and is only the second exoplanet (after CoRoT-7b) to have an established mass and radius less than those of the giant Solar System planets. The planet is also significant because its proximity to Earth, and the fact that it transits its parent star, means that its atmosphere can be studied using current technologies.[1] [edit]Planet features
At approximately 393–555 K (120–282 °C or 248–540 °F), it may be cooler than any known transiting planet.[1][2] The temperature range depends on the planet Bond albedo, with 555 K being the upper limit for an albedo of 0 (totally dark) and 393 being the value for an albedo of 0.75, analogous to Venus.[3] The planetary mass and radius are consistent with the planet being an ocean planet, composed prevalently (~75%) of water and ~25% of rock, possibly covered by an hydrogen and helium atmosphere making up to 0.05% of the mass of the planet.[1][2] Due to the hydrostatic pressure, some of the planet's water could be in the form of ice VII.[2] Due to the estimated old age of the planetary system and the calculated hydrodynamic escape rate, Charbonneau et al. conclude that there has been a significant atmospheric loss during the lifetime of the planet and any current atmosphere cannot be primordial.[3] [edit]Detection
The planet transits were detected by the MEarth Project using Software Bisque Paramount ME robotic mounts equipped with RC Optical Systems 40 cm (16 in) telescopes and commercially available cameras.[4]
GJ 1214 (Gliese-Jahreiss 1214) is a dim M4.5[1] red dwarf in the constellation Ophiuchus with an apparent magnitude of 14.7.[1] It is located at a distance of approximately 40 light years from Earth. It is about one-fifth as large as the Sun[2] with a surface temperature estimated to be 4,900 °F[2] (2700 °C). Its brightness is only 0.3% that of the Sun.[2]
Re:The Flipping Point
« Reply #262 on: 2009-12-18 00:36:21 »
This gets so old. And the "reasonable" rehashing has repeatedly been shown to be anything but.
Let me reiterate and recap.
First a personal note. I generally try to avoid the terms "Global Warming" (GW) and "Anthropogenic Global Warming" (AGW) not because they are inaccurate (they are accurate), but because it is confusing to people who don't comprehend that global warming can cause local weather perturbations that may be in either or both directions. Instead I use the expression "Global Climate Change" (GCC) which, given the primary cause of the change, is largely synonymous with "Anthropogenic Global Climate Change" (AGCC).
1) Physics rules. Climate follows. The Earth is a black body. If it had no atmosphere, its temperature would depend on only a few simple things. 1) Thermal energy stored in the Earth 2) New thermal energy created by radionucleide decay in the earth. 3) The balance of other endo- and exo-thermic processes on the Earth.
2) Note what is missing. Right. The sun (or other extra-planetary sources or sinks for thermal energy. The temperature of the Earth would not be primarily dependent on the temperature of the sun or any extraterrestrial sources of energy as the Earth is surrounded by space which cannot conduct or convect thermal energy, so all energy exchanges outside Earth must be via radiation. The Earth is surrounded by Space. Space is a very good insulator and (mainly) quite cold. A few fractions of a degree above absolute zero. This means that as the Earth increases or decreases its temperature due to received radiation interacting with its surface, so too its emitted radiation would follow. That is why, without an atmosphere, Earth would be about 33 degrees cooler than it is now. This is a very simple equation. No scope for belief or dogma or reasonable doubt. The nature of this fundamental physics observation is extremely well characterized. Mars, which doesn't have much of an atmosphere, shows us what the Earth would look like if we lost our atmosphere, and not incidentally, confirms the theory rather well.
3) Fortunately the Earth does have an atmosphere. It acts as a selective blanket. It allows the transfer of energy in some frequency bands more easily than in others. The exact nature of its selectivity is determined by the composition of the atmosphere. Again, this is not something conjectural, it allows us to make precise measurements of the composition of the atmosphere based on spectral response, and to predict the exact nature of the filtration based on atmospheric composition. If the Earth's blanket contained a lot more Methane, CO2 or water, short wave energy from outside the atmosphere would enter just as easily and long wave radiation from the Earth back into space would have a lot more trouble leaving, resulting in soaring temperatures. Venus is a perfect example of this, and again, not at all coincidentally, it confirms this theory very nicely.
4) Unfortunately mankind has been altering the composition of the atmosphere. We have directly and dramatically increased the amount of CO2 and Methane (CH4) and increased the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere at critical altitudes with aircraft contrails. This is also not supposition, it is directly measurable (by examining the ratio of radionucleides in the gas molecules) and has been measured. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world's volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today's human endeavours. (http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/volcanoes-global-warming-460109)
5) Another indication that human emissions dwarf those of volcanoes is the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels, as measured by sampling stations around the world set up by the federally funded Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, have gone up consistently year after year regardless of whether or not there have been major volcanic eruptions in specific years. "If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in carbon dioxide concentrations, then these carbon dioxide records would be full of spikes -- one for each eruption," says Coby Beck, a journalist writing for online environmental news site Grist.org. "Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend." (ibid.)
8 ) In addition the satellite observations measure, directly, the averaged blackbody temperature of the earth as well as the averaged black body temperature of the sun. This has allowed us not only to model rather precisely the influence that the sun (and perturbations of the Earth's orbit and rotation) have on the temperature of the Earth (about 14%) but also the fact that in the time span that we have been able to make such thermal readings the temperature of the Earth has risen.
9) When the Earth's temperature rises, the oceans can hold less CO2 and release some of the huge volume they have stored, as does the permafrost. Also as the temperature rises, melting permafrost allows biological decay to set in, and this releases additional CO2 and Methane. As temperatures rise, Methane stored in Arctic waters as Hydrates and Clathrates sublimate increasing atmospheric concentrations of these potent greenhouse gases. Glaciers and icecaps melt, reducing the mass of ice and the amount of water it traps and releases slowly which results in increased evaporation. The reduction in ice which reflects solar energy back into space results in more short wavelength radiation being converted into longer wave radiation and trapped by greenhouse gases. A warmer Earth also means more evaporation of water and increasing levels of atmospheric moisture. All of these processes provide positive feedback. In other words, the warmer the Earth becomes, the more these effects occur and the more the Earth warms up. Again, this is not an opinion, this is basic physics. Expression of scepticism on these issues is not healthy dialogue, it is a statement that you imagine the laws of physics to have been repealed. Not usually a good bet.
10) The factors in 9 above are cumulative and their positive feedback effect is why climatologists have referred to "tipping points." This is where, even if man were to reduce their production of greenhouse gases, temperatures would continue to rise.
11) We have also had very precise measurements of water levels (by radar measurement of the distance to the water surface) and satellite location (GPS, radio telemetry characteristics, orbital mechanics and characteristics) and have measured the (predicted) rise in sea levels. We have also had precision mass balances in space for the same period, and these analyses reflect massive glacial ice and ice shelf loss.
12) Current measurements suggest that Tundra and Arctic CO[sub]2[/sub and Methane release levels have equalled the anthropic global warming potential, in other words, we may not be able to effect a reduction in temperature by adjusting our production of gases with global warming potential.
13) In field scientist, who are the only ones whose opinion can validly be cited as supporting a consensus still argue, sometimes bitterly, over the exact composition of the models, impact of changes, measurement and normalization routines followed and statistical relevance of observations. The data released by the recent hacking of climate researcher's emails shows how vicious such disagreements can become. What they do not show is any malfeasance, any irregularity, and wrongful manipulation of the data or the process. Neither do they affect the scientific consensus. Observation shows that man has altered the composition of the atmosphere. Theory predicted the results. Observation confirms that the predicted results have occurred.
14) Where I learned science, you could write a Q.E.D. after that.
15) As previously observed, there is a vast amount of supporting evidence of major climatic shifts from multiple fields. This was what persuaded me to reverse my previously sceptical position on AGCC. Without the AGCC theory, it is difficult to imagine any connection between bird distributions, crop failures, seasonal alterations, changes in ice shelf and glacier size etc, etc.
I suppose people can still reject the massively held consensus position and attempt to continue to argue correlation or causation. If they are not in field it doesn't make an iota of difference and if they are in field it merely undermines their credibility. However, when people try to argue with facts, in this field or any other, their beliefs are exposed. Anyone still trying to contradict one of the above points is simply attempting to argue with facts and if the examples I have seen recently are anything to go by, generally by carefully or blissfully cherry picking evidence and coupling this with a cheerful willingness to shift goalposts. In no place is this better shown than the "hacked mail" furore in a teacup where nothing is obvious other than that scientists are human and prone to bicker and that AGCC denialists will adopt any contortion to try to maintain their insupportable positions. The media contributes to this a lot, desperately trying to find a proponent of "on the other hand" in order to pretend to be providing a balanced perspective. As we have seen elsewhere, sometimes there isn't an other hand. Sometimes the people taking a sceptical or contrarian position are just plain wrong. This looks increasingly like one of those times.
Just in case it is not already absolutely apparent that I do not intend any of my commentary above as an attack or even a comment on the.bricoleur, let me explicitly reject that interpretation. This response was triggered by the ongoing introduction of material of dubious worth from sources of unpersuasive credentials into a contentious area which is quite difficult for people without the education, and not competent or prepared to educate themselves, to draw valid inferences, and it is not helped by the ongoing plethora of hysterical articles showing blatant disregard for the normal laws of physics and sometimes messy workings of the process of doing science.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Just in case it is not already absolutely apparent that I do not intend any of my commentary above as an attack or even a comment on the.bricoleur, let me explicitly reject that interpretation. This response was triggered by the ongoing introduction of material of dubious worth from sources of unpersuasive credentials into a contentious area which is quite difficult for people without the education, and not competent or prepared to educate themselves, to draw valid inferences, and it is not helped by the ongoing plethora of hysterical articles showing blatant disregard for the normal laws of physics and sometimes messy workings of the process of doing science.
I consider your response to be no better than the material you mention. A fox smells its own hole.
What follows is not offered in an effort to enter into a debate with you (you already ruled that out), but merely to show that you overstate your case to the point of dogmatic certitude, and where you do not, there is a pot calling a kettle black.
To demonstrate:
Quote:
Let me reiterate and recap.
First a personal note. I generally try to avoid the terms "Global Warming" (GW) and "Anthropogenic Global Warming" (AGW) not because they are inaccurate (they are accurate), but because it is confusing to people who don't comprehend that global warming can cause local weather perturbations that may be in either or both directions.
Global warming is global. Local warming and local cooling are local.
Climate is the integral of weather. Temperature varies around the climate norm for temperature, and this variation (in both directions) is a weather effect.
If the climate changes because of global warming then the temperature of the climate norm rises.
And
If the climate changes because of global cooling then the temperature of the climate norm falls.
Quote:
Instead I use the expression "Global Climate Change" (GCC)
This adoption of "the expression "Global Climate Change" (GCC)" is polemic used as propaganda.
All climates - global and local - have always changed all the time.
Therefore, substituting GCC for AGW is inherently assuming that all global climate change - including transition from the last ice age - is AGW.
Quote:
which, given the primary cause of the change, is largely synonymous with "Anthropogenic Global Climate Change" (AGCC).
AGW is not and never has been the "the primary cause of the change" and, therefore, AGW is not "synonymous" with AGCC.
Quote:
1) Physics rules. Climate follows. The Earth is a black body. If it had no atmosphere, its temperature would depend on only a few simple things. 1) Thermal energy stored in the Earth 2) New thermal energy created by radionucleide decay in the earth. 3) The balance of other endo- and exo-thermic processes on the Earth.
The physics that "rules" is complicated. And the Earth's temperature is mostly determined by the thermal input it obtains from the Sun. Without that solar heating the Earth's temperature would be less than 3 K.
The three itemised effects are trivia that seem to have been presented to confuse the ignorant.
And the Earth is a grey body: it is not "a black body".
Quote:
2) Note what is missing. Right. The sun (or other extra-planetary sources or sinks for thermal energy. The temperature of the Earth would not be primarily dependent on the temperature of the sun or any extraterrestrial sources of energy as the Earth is surrounded by space which cannot conduct or convect thermal energy, so all energy exchanges outside Earth must be via radiation. The Earth is surrounded by Space. Space is a very good insulator and (mainly) quite cold. A few fractions of a degree above absolute zero. This means that as the Earth increases or decreases its temperature due to received radiation interacting with its surface, so too its emitted radiation would follow. That is why, without an atmosphere, Earth would be about 33 degrees cooler than it is now. This is a very simple equation. No scope for belief or dogma or reasonable doubt.
This is a demonstration that 'ignorance is bliss'. The equation is not "simple" and requires several assumptions to determine the temperature rise induced by the atmosphere. Indeed, this complexity is why computer models (general circulation models, GCMs) are constructed.
Space is a vacuum and, therefore, the Earth can only lose heat to space by means of electromagnetic radiation. Most of the heat loss is in the form of infrared (IR) radiation and the amount of radiation emitted is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature (T) of the emitting surface. A simple average temperature cannot be used. Heat is input on the day side but not the night side of the Earth and there is a temperature gradient between the equator and the poles. An equation which adequately describes that is not "simple".
Indeed, tropical regions are net absorbers of radiation from space and polar regions are net emitters of radiation to space. "Simple" !?
The major effect of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans is to reduce the temperature variation over the planet's surface.
The Earth and the Moon are similar distance from the Sun but the Moon has greater temperature variation and lower average temperature than the Earth. It is tempting to assume that the higher temperature of the Earth is purely an effect of the Earth's atmosphere, but this would ignore albedo (i.e. reflectance) differences and the effect of radiative emission being a function of T^4.
Quote:
The nature of this fundamental physics observation is extremely well characterized. Mars, which doesn't have much of an atmosphere, shows us what the Earth would look like if we lost our atmosphere,
Thermal input from the Sun reduces with the square of the distance from the Sun. Mars is further from the Sun than the Earth.
If you had said "the Moon" and not "Mars" then your statement may have had some merit.
Quote:
and not incidentally, confirms the theory rather well.
What theory? If you means AGW then it does not.
Mars has a CO2-rich atmosphere and has been warming as the Earth has been warming recently. Clearly, human emissions of carbon dioxide have not been transported to Mars. So, the theory that recent warming on the Earth is induced by changes to heating from the Sun is confirmed "rather well" by the coincident warming of Mars.
Quote:
3) Fortunately the Earth does have an atmosphere. It acts as a selective blanket.
No. The "blanket" analogy is not valid. Blankets do not move (air and water do) so cannot transport heat in the bulk, and do not change phase (between ice, liquid and vapour) so cannot store and release latent heat.
Quote:
It allows the transfer of energy in some frequency bands more easily than in others. The exact nature of its selectivity is determined by the composition of the atmosphere. Again, this is not something conjectural, it allows us to make precise measurements of the composition of the atmosphere based on spectral response, and to predict the exact nature of the filtration based on atmospheric composition.
True.
Quote:
If the Earth's blanket contained a lot more Methane, CO2 or water, short wave energy from outside the atmosphere would enter just as easily and long wave radiation from the Earth back into space would have a lot more trouble leaving, resulting in soaring temperatures.
This is so wrong it is hard to know what to say about it. If you are not going to read basic climatology textbooks you could at least - as a primer - read the first IPCC Report.
Molecules of greenhouse gases (GHGs) absorb IR photons at specific wavebands that are radiated from the Earth's surface. The GHG molecules then lose that energy. Some of that energy is lost by collisions with other molecules that, thus, get heated to warm that region of the atmosphere. But most of the absorbed energy is emitted from the GHG molecules as other photons. These other photons are released in all directions so half of them return back towards the Earth's surface to increase the heat received by the Earth's surface.
The effect of GHGs is to warm the troposphere (the lower atmosphere) but to cool the stratosphere (the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere) because the GHGs assist radiation to space from the stratosphere.
Quote:
Venus is a perfect example of this, and again, not at all coincidentally, it confirms this theory very nicely.
This is more nonsense. Venus is much closer to the Sun and has an atmosphere rich in sulphur dioxide. Any comparison with what happens in the water-rich atmosphere of the Earth is nonsense; e.g. there is no rain on Venus.
Quote:
4) Unfortunately mankind has been altering the composition of the atmosphere.
In localities, certainly. But probably not, and certainly not significantly, on a global scale.
Quote:
We have directly and dramatically increased the amount of CO2 and Methane (CH4) and increased the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere at critical altitudes with aircraft contrails.
Methane concentration in the atmosphere is falling (nobody knows why). Aircraft contrails increase ice and water in the stratosphere so are cooling agents. And the CO2 statement is pure assertion which cannot be known to be true.
I cite a 2005 paper; Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, 'The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle' E&E v16no2 (2005)
It considers mechanisms in the carbon cycle and uses model studies to determine if natural (i.e. non-anthropogenic) factors may be significant contributors to the observed rise to the atmospheric CO2 concentration. These considerations indicate that any one of three natural mechanisms in the carbon cycle alone could be used to account for the observed rise. The study provides six such models with three of them assuming a significant anthropogenic contribution to the cause and the other three assuming no significant anthropogenic contribution to the cause. Each of the models matches the available empirical data without use of any ‘fiddle-factor’ such as the ‘5-year smoothing’ the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses to get its model to agree with the empirical data.
So, if one of the six models of this paper is adopted then there is a 5:1 probability that the choice is wrong. And other models are probably also possible.
And the six models each give a different indication of future atmospheric CO2 concentration for the same future anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide.
This indicates that the observed rise may be entirely natural; indeed, this presentation suggests that the observed recent rise to the atmospheric CO2 concentration most probably is natural. Hence ‘projections’ of future changes to the atmospheric CO2 concentration and resulting climate changes have high uncertainty if they are based on the assumption of an anthropogenic cause.
Quote:
This is also not supposition,
I agree, it is nonsense.
Quote:
it is directly measurable (be examining the ratio of radionucleides in the gas molecules)
There are no "radionucleides" in the gas molecules of water, carbon dioxide and methane.
I think you must mean carbon isotopes. The change in the 12C:13C isotope ratio disagrees with an assumption that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the major cause of recent increase to atmosheric CO2 concentration.
Quote:
and has been measured. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world's volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today's human endeavours. (http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/volcanoes-global-warming-460109)
Nature emits 34 molecules of CO2 for each molecule of CO2 emitted by the total of all human activities.
Quote:
5) Another indication that human emissions dwarf those of volcanoes is the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels,
What is so special about volcanoes? The ocean exchange of CO2 with the atmosphere each year is greater than an order of magnitude more than the total emission of anthropogenic CO2 each year.
Quote:
as measured by sampling stations around the world set up by the federally funded Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, have gone up consistently year after year regardless of whether or not there have been major volcanic eruptions in specific years. "If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in carbon dioxide concentrations, then these carbon dioxide records would be full of spikes -- one for each eruption," says Coby Beck, a journalist writing for online environmental news site Grist.org. "Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend." (ibid.)
Again, why this distraction about volcanoes?
The annual pulse of anthropogenic CO2 into the atmosphere should relate to the annual increase of CO2 in the atmosphere if one is directly causal of the other, but their variations greatly differ from year to year.
The carbon in the air is less than 2% of the carbon flowing between parts of the carbon cycle. And the recent increase to the carbon in the atmosphere (since 1958 when measurements began at Mauna Loa) is less than a third of that less than 2%.
And the annual flow of carbon into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels (~7 GTC) is less than 0.02% of the carbon flowing around the carbon cycle.
It is not obvious that so small an addition to the carbon cycle is certain to disrupt the system because no other activity in nature is so constant that it only varies by less than +/- 0.02% per year.
Yes, but 'So what'? Nobody doubts the radiative changes. It is their effect on the climate which is of concern.
Quote:
8 ) In addition the satellite observations measure, directly, the averaged blackbody temperature of the earth as well as the averaged black body temperature of the sun. This has allowed us not only to model rather precisely the influence that the sun (and perturbations of the Earth's orbit and rotation) have on the temperature of the Earth (about 14%) but also the fact that in the time span that we have been able to make such thermal readings the temperature of the Earth has risen.
Again, "So what"?
Nothing is constant in nature. If the Earth's temperature had not risen then it would have fallen. At issue is whether or not there is a cause of the Earth's temperature change and - if so - what the cause(s) is (or are).
And the Earth and the Sun are not black bodies.
Quote:
9) When the Earth's temperature rises, the oceans can hold less CO2 and release some of the huge volume they have stored, as does the permafrost. Also as the temperature rises, melting permafrost allows biological decay to set in, and this releases additional CO2 and Methane. As temperatures rise, Methane stored in Arctic waters as Hydrates and Clathrates sublimate increasing atmospheric concentrations of these potent greenhouse gases. Glaciers and icecaps melt, reducing the mass of ice and the amount of water it traps and releases slowly which results in increased evaporation.
Again, "So what"? This true whatever the cause of the temperature rise may be.
Quote:
The reduction in ice which reflects solar energy back into space results in more short wavelength radiation being converted into longer wave radiation and trapped by greenhouse gases. A warmer Earth also means more evaporation of water and increasing levels of atmospheric moisture. All of these processes provide positive feedback. In other words, the warmer the Earth becomes, the more these effects occur and the more the Earth warms up.
The warmer the Earth becomes the more water is evapourated from the oceans and, therefore, the greater the cloud cover.
Clouds reflect solar heat and a mere 2% increase to cloud cover would more than compensate for the maximum possible predicted warming due to a doubling of carbon dioxide in the air.
Good records of cloud cover are very short because cloud cover is measured by satellites that were not launched until the mid 1980s. But it appears that cloudiness decreased markedly between the mid 1980s and late 1990s. Over that period, the Earth’s reflectivity decreased to the extent that if there were a constant solar irradiance then the reduced cloudiness provided an extra surface warming of 5 to 10 Watts/sq metre. This is a lot of warming. It is between two and four times the entire warming estimated to have been caused by the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. (The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that since the industrial revolution, the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has had a warming effect of only 2.4 W/sq metre).
Quote:
Again, this is not an opinion, this is basic physics.
No. It is ignorance of the effect of temperature on the hydrological cycle.
Quote:
Expression of scepticism on these issues is not healthy dialogue,
Agreed. Refutation of such nonsense is needed: not dialogue.
Quote:
it is a statement that you imagine the laws of physics to have been repealed. Not usually a good bet.
This is arrogant and offensive ad hominem from a person whose writings display a level of ignorance of climate and climatology.
Quote:
10) The factors in 9 above are cumulative
No! If that were so then they would be exhibited in the paleo record, but they are not.
Quote:
and their positive feedback effect
... which is negated by the negative feedback from clouds
Quote:
is why climatologists have referred to "tipping points."
No. Only charlatans have claimed such "tipping points" exist. There is no evidence that they do exist.
Quote:
This is where, even if man were to reduce their production of greenhouse gases, temperatures would continue to rise.
Temperatures are not rising. And, there can be no continued rise of temperatures in the absence of additional heat. The ARGO buoys show oceanic heat content is declining and the MSU data show global temperature has been falling for a decade: there has been no statistically significant global warming for 15 years.
Quote:
11) We have also had very precise measurements of water levels (by radar measurement of the distance to the water surface) and satellite location (GPS, radio telemetry characteristics, orbital mechanics and characteristics) and have measured the (predicted) rise in sea levels. We have also had precision mass balances in space for the same period, and these analyses reflect massive glacial ice and ice shelf loss.
So what? It may - or may not - indicate warming but it tells nothing about the cause of such warming.
Quote:
12) Current measurements suggest that Tundra and Arctic CO[sub]2[/sub and Methane release levels have equalled the anthropic global warming potential, in other words, we may not be able to effect a reduction in temperature by adjusting our production of gases with global warming potential.
Then do not bother to lower our emissions.
Quote:
13) In field scientist, who are the only ones whose opinion can validly be cited as supporting a consensus still argue, sometimes bitterly, over the exact composition of the models, impact of changes, measurement and normalization routines followed and statistical relevance of observations.
I do not know what this means and/or is supposed to be saying so I cannot comment on it.
Quote:
The data released by the recent hacking of climate researcher's emails shows how vicious such disagreements can become. What they do not show is any malfeasance, any irregularity, and wrongful manipulation of the data or the process.
That is simply not true.
The released (probably leaked) emails and computer files show alteration of data, attempt at collusion to destroy raw data, attempts to avoid FOI requests for data, corruption of the peer review process, subversion of journals up to and including removal of journal Editors and Editorial Board Members. Some of these activities are unlawful as well as being severe malpractice.
Quote:
Neither do they affect the scientific consensus.
There is not and never was such a "consensus" on AGW. But there is a political consensus.
Quote:
Observation shows that man has altered the composition of the atmosphere.
Untrue, see above.
Quote:
Theory predicted the results.
A hypothesis predicted the results.
Quote:
Observation confirms that the predicted results have occurred.
Untrue, see above.
Quote:
14) Where I learned science, you could write a Q.E.D. after that.
Not on the basis of these writings.
Quote:
15) As previously observed, there is a vast amount of supporting evidence of major climatic shifts from multiple fields.
So what? Climate always changes. It always had and it always will.
Quote:
This was what persuaded me to reverse my previously sceptical position on AGCC.
Delusions are common.
Quote:
Without the AGCC theory, it is difficult to imagine any connection between bird distributions, crop failures, seasonal alterations, changes in ice shelf and glacier size etc, etc.
Your lack of imagination displays your ignorance of history.
Quote:
I suppose people can still reject the massively held consensus position and attempt to continue to argue correlation or causation. If they are not in field it doesn't make an iota of difference and if they are in field it merely undermines their credibility. However, when people try to argue with facts, in this field or any other, their beliefs are exposed. Anyone still trying to contradict one of the above points is simply attempting to argue with facts and if the examples I have seen recently are anything to go by, generally by carefully or blissfully cherry picking evidence and coupling this with a cheerful willingness to shift goalposts. In no place is this better shown than the "hacked mail" furore in a teacup where nothing is obvious other than that scientists are human and prone to bicker and that AGCC denialists will adopt any contortion to try to maintain their insupportable positions. The media contributes to this a lot, desperately trying to find a proponent of "on the other hand" in order to pretend to be providing a balanced perspective. As we have seen elsewhere, sometimes there isn't an other hand. Sometimes the people taking a sceptical or contrarian position are just plain wrong. This looks increasingly like one of those times.
This paragraph is meaningless. Lots of words, much self delusion, insults to those who do not share the delusion, and nothing else. It is sad, really.
Re:The Flipping Point
« Reply #264 on: 2009-12-19 19:41:53 »
the.bricoleur
To me it looks remarkably as if you were trying to argue point for point and were attempting to rebut the response I wrote to the material recently posted here - and where I attempted to write a sound response to match its level and readability and which received positive reviews from the academics I passed it by. First two comments from me upon minor issues where I see your response as having some merit.
I agree that I may have over simplified when I said that in the absence of an atmosphere the Earth is a black body. I agree that it merely approximates one, as does the atmosphere. Fortunately it makes practically no difference to the equations.
While I agree that we still primarily use mass-spectroscopy to analyse isotope distributions in order to develop source attribution, these days we achieve a much greater degree of "finger printing" of sources by placing an alpha particle spectrometer before the mass spectrometer in order to perform a radionuclide analysis of the same material. This often allows indisputable source matching, and it was of this that I was thinking when I referred to radionuclide analysis.
As for the rest, I think that my initial letter was a good summary of the situation and the physics and that your use of selective quotation, hand waving and blatant attempts to assert that the complexity of detailed models (and of course I agree that detailed models are complex) makes it impossible to draw conclusions from simplified models invalidates the need to respond further. This can trivially be demonstrated to be false by examining the energy balance for Earth, Venus and Mars, which I have done in the past, but lost. Fortunately it has been done by others too, so I won't repeat the work, but will point you at a reliable source who has used the Stefan-Boltzmann formulation (for black bodies) to calculate the theoretical temperatures and compared them to the actual temperatures. http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2001Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html
You will note how well the predictions are matched by the measurements. Physics still rules and does not bow to obfuscation.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Re:The Flipping Point
« Reply #265 on: 2009-12-20 03:33:35 »
Thanks for the link Hermit. Interesting.
I still stand by what I said about you overstating the severity of the situation, and that your certitude is not shared with many 'in field scientists'. And those 'in field scientists' who do share your certitude about the severity have made some bold predictions - predictions that will come to pass in a few years. Time will tell.
During the intermission, and because nothing worth knowing is not humerous, I offer:
Re:The Flipping Point
« Reply #266 on: 2009-12-20 13:54:35 »
Quote:
[the.bricoleur]During the intermission, and because nothing worth knowing is not humerous, I offer:
Well Mr. the.bricoleur, since you played the Adolf card , I feel compelled to raise you and call
But seriously folks, we are heading for a world of hurt and change, the humans species is just not equipped for; because of the scale of it and the population base on this planet. I am not in a position to add to the debate around the science both Hermit and the.Bricoleur are discussing, but I am left with that both agree the media propaganda is not helpful to humanity getting the skills, in a timely fashion to adapt. Global warming has in my estimation became a political agenda employing Dogma and Faith wars. I wish I could tease out the 'Agenda's' beyond greed and power, or is that it .... ?
The time taken by everyone to thoughtfully state their case and views, is brilliant and I really appreciate it !!!!
The calamatists and denialists are primarily political figures, with firm ideological loyalties, whereas the warners and skeptics are primarily scientists, guided by ever-changing evidence. That distinction between ideology and science not only helps clarify the strengths and weaknesses of the four stances, it can also be used to predict how they might respond to future climate developments.
---
[STEWART BRAND:] Climate talks have been going on in Copenhagen for a week now, and it appears to be a two-sided debate between alarmists and skeptics. But there are actually four different views of global warming. A taxonomy of the four:
DENIALISTS They are loud, sure and political. Their view is that climatologists and their fellow travelers are engaged in a vast conspiracy to panic the public into following an agenda that is political and pernicious. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma and the columnist George Will wave the banner for the hoax-callers.
"The claim that global warming is caused by manmade emissions is simply untrue and not based on sound science," Mr. Inhofe declared in a 2003 speech to the Senate about the Kyoto accord that remains emblematic of his position. "CO2 does not cause catastrophic disasters — actually it would be beneficial to our environment and our economy .... The motives for Kyoto are economic, not environmental — that is, proponents favor handicapping the American economy through carbon taxes and more regulations."
SKEPTICS This group is most interested in the limitations of climate science so far: they like to examine in detail the contradictions and shortcomings in climate data and models, and they are wary about any "consensus" in science. To the skeptics' discomfort, their arguments are frequently quoted by the denialists.
In this mode, Roger Pielke, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado, argues that the scenarios presented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are overstated and underpredictive. Another prominent skeptic is the physicist Freeman Dyson, who wrote in 2007: "I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models .... I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests."
WARNERS These are the climatologists who see the trends in climate headed toward planetary disaster, and they blame human production of greenhouse gases as the primary culprit. Leaders in this category are the scientists James Hansen, Stephen Schneider and James Lovelock. (This is the group that most persuades me and whose views I promote.)
"If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted," Mr. Hansen wrote as the lead author of an influential 2008 paper, then the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would have to be reduced from 395 parts per million to "at most 350 p.p.m."
CALAMATISTS There are many environmentalists who believe that industrial civilization has committed crimes against nature, and retribution is coming. They quote the warners in apocalyptic terms, and they view denialists as deeply evil. The technology critic Jeremy Rifkin speaks in this manner, and the writer-turned-activist Bill McKibben is a (fairly gentle) leader in this category.
In his 2006 introduction for "The End of Nature," his famed 1989 book, Mr. McKibben wrote of climate change in religious terms: "We are no longer able to think of ourselves as a species tossed about by larger forces — now we are those larger forces. Hurricanes and thunderstorms and tornadoes become not acts of God but acts of man. That was what I meant by the 'end of nature.'"
The calamatists and denialists are primarily political figures, with firm ideological loyalties, whereas the warners and skeptics are primarily scientists, guided by ever-changing evidence. That distinction between ideology and science not only helps clarify the strengths and weaknesses of the four stances, it can also be used to predict how they might respond to future climate developments.
If climate change were to suddenly reverse itself (because of some yet undiscovered mechanism of balance in our climate system), my guess is that the denialists would be triumphant, the skeptics would be skeptical this time of the apparent good news, the warners would be relieved, and the calamatists would seek out some other doom to proclaim.
If climate change keeps getting worse then I would expect denialists to grasp at stranger straws, many skeptics to become warners, the warners to start pushing geoengineering schemes like sulfur dust in the stratosphere, and the calamatists to push liberal political agendas — just as the denialists said they would.
Global alarm over climate change and its effects has risen manifold after the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Since then, many of the 2,500-odd IPCC scientists have found climate change is progressing faster than the worst-case scenario they had predicted.
Their studies will be considered for the next IPCC report, but since that will come out only in 2013, the University of New South Wales in Sydney has just put together the main findings in the last three years. Most are by previous IPCC lead authors "familiar with the rigour and completeness required for a scientific assessment of this nature", a university spokesperson said.
The most significant recent findings are:
Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were 40 percent higher than in 1990. The recent Copenhagen Accord said warming should be contained within two degrees, but every year of delayed action increases the chances of exceeding the two-degree warming mark.
Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas (GHG) warming the atmosphere.
To keep within the two-degree limit, global GHG emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilise climate, near-zero emissions of carbon dioxide and other long-lived GHG should be reached well within this century.
More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well under one tonne carbon dioxide by 2050. This is 80-95 percent below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.
Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.19 degree Celsius per decade. The trend has continued over the last 10 years despite a decrease in radiation from the sun.
The studies show extreme hot temperature events have increased, extreme cold temperature events have decreased, heavy rain or snow has become heavier, while there has been increase in drought as well.
They also show that the intensity of cyclones has increased in the past three decades in line with rising tropical ocean temperatures.
Satellites show recent global average sea level rise (3.4 mm/year over the past 15 years) to be about 80 percent above IPCC predictions. This acceleration is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps, and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice sheets.
New estimates of ocean heat uptake are 50 percent higher than previous calculations. Global ocean surface temperature reached the warmest ever recorded in June, July and August 2009. Ocean acidification and ocean de-oxygenation due to global warming have been identified as potentially devastating for large parts of the marine ecosystem.
By 2100, global sea level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by the IPCC in 2007; if emissions are unmitigated the rise may well exceed one metre.
The sea level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperatures have been stabilised, and several metres of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries.
A wide array of satellite and ice measurements demonstrate that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are melting at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has also accelerated since 1990.
The contribution of glaciers and ice-caps to global sea level rise has increased from 0.8 mm per year in the 1990s to 1.2 mm per year today. The adjustment of glaciers and ice caps to present climate alone is expected to raise sea level by about 18 cm. Under warming conditions they may contribute as much as around 55 cm by 2100.
The net loss of ice from the Greenland ice sheet has accelerated since the mid-1990s and is now contributing 0.7 mm per year to sea level rise due to both increased melting and accelerated ice flow. Antarctica is also losing ice mass at an increasing rate, mostly from the West Antarctic ice sheet due to increased ice flow. Antarctica is currently contributing to sea level rise at a rate nearly equal to Greenland.
Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. The area of summertime sea-ice 2007-09 was about 40 percent less than the average prediction from IPCC climate models in the 2007 report.
The studies say avoiding tropical deforestation could prevent up to 20 percent of carbon dioxide emissions.
New ice-core records confirm the importance of GHG for temperatures on earth, and show that carbon dioxide levels are higher now than they have been during the last 800,000 years.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Re:The Flipping Point
« Reply #269 on: 2010-01-07 14:32:33 »
The integrity of this piece is summed up in the following:
Quote:
The most significant recent findings are:
Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were 40 percent higher than in 1990.
And ...
Quote:
Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.19 degree Celsius per decade. The trend has continued over the last 10 years despite a decrease in radiation from the sun.
... thing is, over here on the 6th Jan 2010 the head of the Met Office stated on Daily Politics that they predicted the levelling off of warming observed after 1998 due to natural effect of El Nino and La Nina*.
It is not necessary for me to go into the numerous ways in which this picture is incredulous.
the.bricoleur
* Of course back in 1998 the prediction was actually one of runaway global warming and imminent tipping points driven by anthropogenic forces. Suddenly now, in face of the evidence and with no shame, we are told that the prediction was one of levelling off due to natural forcing. But, true to form, the head of the Met Office did concluded by stating that they predict a return to warming over the next decade. Well, considering the history, please excuse me for not taking him or his computer models too seriously.
Author
Logged
This insignificant planetoid has been found guilty of crimes against the universe.
waterworld.jpg
IRIS-TES_Satellite_Analysis.png
