Although many Americans and Europeans may not have experienced it, 2009 is going down in the record books as one of the warmest years ever according to NASA:
2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880.So how much warming has taken place since modern records began 130 years ago? Not much:
In total, average global temperatures have increased by about 0.8°C (1.5°F) since 1880.Furthermore, much of the warming has taken place in the coldest areas of the planet, such as the Arctic and Siberia, as evidenced by this graphic:
To give an idea of how cold it gets in some of those regions, the island of Dikson in Siberia is predicted to have a high temperature of -31 Fahrenheit on Thursday (and a balmy 19 degrees today). Mongolia, meanwhile, is currently dealing with cold weather so severe than an estimated 1 million livestock have perished. We should remember that extreme cold weather is a greater killer than extreme heat.Meanwhile, a new paper says that another contributor to global warming might be the closing of the hole in the ozone layer:
That the hole in Earth’s ozone layer is slowly mending is considered a big victory for environmental policy makers. But in a new report, scientists say there is a downside: its repair may contribute to global warming.Sometimes you just can't win.
It turns out that the hole led to the formation of moist, brighter-than-usual clouds that shielded the Antarctic region from the warming induced by greenhouse gas emissions over the last two decades, scientists write in Wednesday’s issue of Geophysical Research Letters.
“The recovery of the hole will reverse that,” said Ken Carslaw, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Leeds and a co-author of the paper. “Essentially, it will accelerate warming in certain parts of the Southern Hemisphere.”
25 comments:
TGRIG: "So how much warming has taken place since modern records began 130 years ago? Not much: snip"
Not that your usual reader(s) will care, but you're doing them a disservice.
Only a naive interpretation would indicate the rate of temperature change is "not much." Not much compared to what? What are you measuring it against? Do you have a frame of reference?
Based on the rate of change supported over a multitude of proxies (not just tree rings) the earth should be cooling at an average of 0.5C averaged over 8000 years, which was the rate exhibited during the pre-industrial Holocene.
Not only is the temperature now going in the opposite direction, but the rate of increase we're seeing today is ten times faster than previous fluctuation jumps occurring every 100k years.
In short, the 0.8C temp increase in the last 130 years is unprecedented.
Not much in the sense that it is barely perceptible. Sit in a room that is 70 degrees, turn the heat up 1.5 degrees, and let me know how much of a difference you experience.
Yes, if it doesn't make sense at the gut-level, it must be wrong, or at least incomprehensible for you.
So you're a denialist of the caliber that looks out his window, sees snow, therefore AGW is a myth.
Ah, denialist, what a loaded term. It's a label which is applied to two types of people -- those who express skepticism about catastrophic global warming and people who believe the holocaust never occurred. Only people disinterested in an open and honest debate would use such a word.
No, a denialist, like their inbred creationist cousins, is a label for those too ignorant and ideologically biased to deal with or even understand the current science behind the theories they flail against.
I'm just curious, will there come a point when you make an attempt to discuss the research behind climate science, or are you forever committed to trivial and inane responses.
Ideologically biased? Pot. Kettle. Black.
Your own biases have led you to view me in a caricatured fashion, accusing me of believing in a conspiracy among climate scientists and of being a "denialist" -- a term formulated to libel the opposing side and cut off meaningful debate.
But what exactly have I denied? Certainly not that the earth is warming, which was highlighted in the post you are presently commenting on. You continue to argue with things I never said.
No one said you're denying incontrovertible data points; your shenanigans--trivializing and obfuscating the significance of those numbers--are more specious.
Throwing accusations of capitalist-hating doom-mongers is pure partisan hackery, and when applied to scientific organizations without any justification amounts to conspiracy theory.
Again, your disregard for the science behind the raw data does not help your case.
Apparently you need an invitation, so here's your chance to support your position: what specific part of the science behind AGW is incorrect and why?
Throwing accusations of capitalist-hating doom-mongers is pure partisan hackery, and when applied to scientific organizations without any justification amounts to conspiracy theory.
Which scientific organization did I accuse? Oh, right, we've been through this before, none.
Apparently you need an invitation, so here's your chance to support your position: what specific part of the science behind AGW is incorrect and why?
Ah, now we get to the debate you've been so badly seeking. In any case, it isn't the science itself I have a problem with, it is the notion that global warming is an inevitable catastrophic event that will doom us to rising 20 foot sea levels unless massive action is taken now. The hyperbole is ridiculous. Global warming doom-sayers politicize everything, even citing Hurricane Katrina as evidence of climate change -- nevermind of course that hurricane activity proceeded to dip in subsequent years. Others have warned that it might produce earthquakes. It seems global warming is behind every potential plague ever known with the possible exception of frogs.
Simply put, I don't see global warming as a big deal. The costs of dealing with its effects are cheaper than trying to prevent it, assuming that human activity is a significant factor. Climate change is uncertain science. The last IPCC report I read -- and this was a few years ago, I think one or two new ones has come out since -- only provided a range of possible temperature rises, and 3 degrees is a different story than 7 degrees. While global warming may be a known quantity, the extent most certainly is not.
Indeed, there is much that remains unknown. Last I checked scientists still couldn't say with 100% certainty what the role of clouds are. Do they trap heat and promote warming or block sun rays and produce cooling? I also don't believe computer models -- the basis for many claims about future warming -- can successfully replicate historic weather patterns. Why should I put my faith there?
It's also worth keeping in mind that global warming brings with it certain benefits. Opening the Northwest Passage will reduce shipping costs. Canada will see a longer growing season. More people die of extreme cold than extreme heat. More life is found in warm areas than cold areas. It is not a pure unalloyed bad thing.
This is just off the top of my head.
Now, here are some questions for you: Do you think the earth is currently at an exact perfect temperature, and that any deviation is bad? Why? If you had the power to set the earth's average temperature, what would it be? Would cooling be preferable to warming? Why?
Assuming that human activity is a significant factor? There's a consensus of experts that says it is. You either agree with the science or you don't. So which is it?
TGRIG: "Simply put, I don't see global warming as a big deal. The costs of dealing with its effects are cheaper than trying to prevent it, assuming that human activity is a significant factor."
That's an amazing statement. You deduced this how?
Among scientists it is viewed as unjustifiable hubris to ever claim one's findings as unassailable. But in general, the older and more established a given theory becomes, the less and less likely it is that any new findings will drastically change things.
The Greenhouse theory is over 100 years old, and the first predictions of AGW were in late 1800s.
But what certainty there is about AGW is close enough to 100% for all practical purposes that it should be taken as 100%. That you buy-in to think-tank generated propaganda saying that we need to wait for 100% certainty to know for sure before we can act tells me you're unfamiliar with how basic science works.
Science is obviously another language for you so let me translate: Global warming is definitely happening and it is definitely because of human activities and it will definitely continue as long as CO2 keeps rising in the atmosphere.
Assuming that human activity is a significant factor? There's a consensus of experts that says it is. You either agree with the science or you don't. So which is it?
Consensus isn't science. Allow me to quote wikipedia:
"Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method."
As a scientist it's somewhat shocking you don't know this.
In any case, yes, I think humans contribute to global warming, but I don't know to what extent. The earth has warmed and cooled before industrialization ever happened.
That's an amazing statement. You deduced this how?
From reading various analysis pieces which compared the costs of agreements such as Kyoto against estimated impacts of global warming.
But what certainty there is about AGW is close enough to 100% for all practical purposes that it should be taken as 100%. That you buy-in to think-tank generated propaganda saying that we need to wait for 100% certainty to know for sure before we can act tells me you're unfamiliar with how basic science works.
Yes, but how much certainty exists surrounding the impact of AGW? That's a much more relevant question.
Now, since I did you the pleasure of answering your questions will you please extend me the courtesy of answering mine?
1. A scientific consensus is what laypersons and the media rely on to help them determine whether a scientific theory is credible because they don't have the skill-set to determine such things on their own. Arguing from consensus is an argument from authority, in this case scientific authority, not the authority of a single person. Before you cry fowl, keep in mind you either trust in the scientific method as a tool for getting at the truth or you don't.
What I asked you do deduce wasn't whether you thought global warming is real, but this: "Simply put, I don't see global warming as a big deal. The costs of dealing with its effects are cheaper than trying to prevent it, assuming that human activity is a significant factor."
How'd you arrive at this? keep in mind issues that concern us all such global warming's impact on biodiversity among other things.
Colin: "Yes, but how much certainty exists surrounding the impact of AGW? That's a much more relevant question."
You're shifting the argument away from the science of AGW without first addressing your continued attempt to trivialize both the extent of warming (which you are clearly unable to comprehend) and the extent of human impact. These are both addressed by a large body of research.
Case in point: "In any case, yes, I think humans contribute to global warming, but I don't know to what extent. The earth has warmed and cooled before industrialization ever happened."
Your questions are weird and irrelevant to whether AGW is real, but I'll attempt to humor you in the next post.
There is scientific consensus that global warming is occurring. There is scientific consensus human activity plays a role.
But so what?
The real question is how big of a problem is it and how much warming will take place. There is no consensus on that. Without that key piece of the puzzle there is little reason to proceed with expensive measures which may well have little impact. So far the effects of global warming have been quite modest.
There is much that isn't understood. There has been a 0.3C uptick since 1980 -- how much of that is anthropogenic? We don't know. Co2 isn't the only pollutant, with nitrous oxide also playing a role? How much, we don't know. Hell, that right-wing think tank Science just notes that we are still struggling to understand the role of water vapor in the stratosphere:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100128_watervapor.html
It's take an incredible amount of arrogance to survey how much we don't know and then state with any degree of certainly both the impact and magnitude of global warming.
How'd you arrive at this? keep in mind issues that concern us all such global warming's impact on biodiversity among other things.
I deduced this based on the fact that global warming has already taken place and has proven less than catastrophic. In a 2007 report the UN estimated sea levels would rise about a foot the rest of this century. Well, guess what, sea levels have already risen about a foot since 1860 -- was this a disaster? Was NYC flooded?
So let me turn this around -- why do you think the opposite? What gives you such certainly about future events and costs?
You're shifting the argument away from the science of AGW without first addressing your continued attempt to trivialize both the extent of warming (which you are clearly unable to comprehend) and the extent of human impact. These are both addressed by a large body of research.
I already explained why I trivialized the warming. It's a fraction of one degree Celsius. This is hardly end of the world stuff. This is evidenced by the fact that global warming has had less than catastrophic consequences.
Your questions are weird and irrelevant to whether AGW is real, but I'll attempt to humor you in the next post.
The questions are incredibly relevant to the global warming debate. After all, if deviation from the current temperature isn't a bad thing, then addressing AGW is completely pointless.
As I explained in an earlier post, your "skepticism" harbors a deep misunderstanding of how science works. Climate isn't what you experience in your living-room fiddling with the thermostat. And Science isn't built on proofs--that's the realm of mathematics and logic; it's complete hubris to demand 100% certainty; there is, however, increasing levels of likelihood measured as probability.
This may be the problem with Global Warming Deniers: a group of people who have a hard time dealing with "fuzzy" data and analytical thinking.
The models based on current GW theory have strong predictive power, even if you were able to debate their capacity to predict accurately enough to sensibly invoke radical political action (which you haven't done).
The important thing is that as the years have gone by and as the theory has developed, and the models have been enhanced to accommodate new knowledge and understanding, the general pattern of prediction remains unchanged-- that there is a problem with humans inducing significant climate change, already and into the future. This is a key clue for any watchers of science that a discipline is making steady progress, that they are essentially correct and likely to be increasingly so in the future.
We have EVERY reason to believe that climate scientists are right about what they say so far, and very very few reasons to doubt the progress they are making. And we have every reason to accept their analysis (via meta-studies such as the IPCC, the conclusions of pretty much any relevant scientific body you can think of, etc.) as to where their scientific work is leading them. To reject their conclusions based on trivial flaws is reckless, if not down right pigheaded stupid.
In short, the volume of scientific work is too significant and the consensus in the work too great for the entire climate scientist community to be that far out. It would be as unlikely as evolution being overturned. You seem pretty right-wing so maybe that's not an apt comparison.
If you are skeptical of the science communities conclusions (the likelihood of AGW's effect on global climate will be severe and long-lasting e.g., global glacier and perma-frost recession, droughts, floods and more severe seasonal weather, etc.) then you must do the actual work of disproving the theories that support these conclusions.
Colin: "I already explained why I trivialized the warming. It's a fraction of one degree Celsius. This is hardly end of the world stuff."
Again, you're basing this off of what? Certainly nothing that stems from any knowledge about climate science. Turns out you aren't as educated in the science as you let on. You're regurgitating run-of-the-mill denialist nonsense.
Colin: "Do you think the earth is currently at an exact perfect temperature, and that any deviation is bad? Why? If you had the power to set the earth's average temperature, what would it be? Would cooling be preferable to warming? Why?
1. There is no such thing as the earth being at an exact perfect temp. The question is nonsense and based on ignorance. Cycles (el nino, la nina) and deviations (sun spots) are natural, and in relation to current climate models normalized to background noise.
2. There is no such thing as an average temperature all over the globe. When scientists say average global temperature has risen 0.8C it's geographically relative. Why don't you know this? Anyway, I have no desire to set the entire earth's average temperature. If it's cold I vacation in the south.
3. Gradualism in either direction is always preferable to dramatic shifts in global temperature, like the one we're seeing now.
And we have every reason to accept their analysis (via meta-studies such as the IPCC, the conclusions of pretty much any relevant scientific body you can think of, etc.) as to where their scientific work is leading them. To reject their conclusions based on trivial flaws is reckless, if not down right pigheaded stupid.
What conclusions? You act as if there is a definitive consensus on the level of global warming taking place when no such thing exists. The 2007 IPCC report has 6 different scenarios on the level of expected global warming, ranging from 1.8 degrees to 4 by 2100 according to their best estimates. Somewhere around 2.8 degrees seems like the median estimate.
The models are more consistent until about 2050, where they begin to diverge, at which point 1.5 degrees warming seems to be about the median projection.
Assuming these models hold up, this is again less than catastrophic. As already mentioned, we've already experienced a 1.5 degree warming over the last 130 years with results which have been entirely manageable.
It stands to reason that over time both our increasing levels of wealth and enhanced technology will better position us to deal with negative global warming effects.
If you are skeptical of the science communities conclusions (the likelihood of AGW's effect on global climate will be severe and long-lasting e.g., global glacier and perma-frost recession, droughts, floods and more severe seasonal weather, etc.)...
The IPCC says that most of what you are describing has "likely" already taken place since the 1960s and 70s. Again, the results have been less than catastrophic. Notably, with regard to the "likelihood of a human contribution to the observed trend" most phenomena you described are rated "more likely than not" -- several steps below their "virtually certain" "very likely" and "likely" ratings.
Again, you're basing this off of what?
Off the fact that we can look back over the last 130 years and survey the impact of the global warming which has taken place.
There is no such thing as an average temperature all over the globe. When scientists say average global temperature has risen 0.8C it's geographically relative. Why don't you know this?
I am well aware of this, as I pointed out in the blog post that the extent of global warming has varied. It's warming a bit more in Siberia than many other parts of the planet, which is no doubt awful news for its inhabitants.
Colin: "You act as if there is a definitive consensus on the level of global warming taking place when no such thing exists."
Again with the absolutes. Go back and read what I said about how science works. No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability or if sea levels have risen over the last century. Instead, you seek some imaginary unanimity, which shouldn't be mistaken for an intellectual dragging of the feet.
I'll lay out the consensus from the meta-analysis that is the IPCC report:
1. the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend that is beyond the range of natural variability.
2. the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2.
3. the rise in CO2 is the result of fossil fuel burning.
4. if CO2 continues to rise over the next century the warming will continue.
5. a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
As a layperson you don't really get to argue with these points (and not be considered a denialist). So this is what we will be basing policy on. And it seems a more than a bit silly to boldly state how you personally haven't felt the effects of global warming. I'm pretty sure you're reporting from front.
Points 1-4 are not what is up for debate. Global warming has not been denied (indeed, a warming was pointed out in the very post you are responding to), despite your insistence on tagging me with the denialist label.
The only point up for debate is #5, where even you concede global warming currently represents a "potential" danger. No consensus exists on either the magnitude of global warming or its implications.
The only thing that has been denied is that global warming is a catastrophic calamity.
As a layperson you don't really get to argue with these points (and not be considered a denialist). So this is what we will be basing policy on. And it seems a more than a bit silly to boldly state how you personally haven't felt the effects of global warming. I'm pretty sure you're reporting from front.
The strawman is obviously your favorite debating tactic. I never said global warming isn't a threat because I haven't been personally impacted. What I said is that the results have been entirely manageable. Not only that, global warming has brought with it benefits in certain places in addition to costs:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/world/europe/28greenland.html
This should not surprise us, as warmer temperatures are more conducive to life than colder ones.
What is rather apparent here is that the debate you've been desiring is one where I deny that global warming is taking place and attribute it all to some conspiracy among scientists. Then you swoop in with a response that references the IPCC, tags me as a denialist and makes a gratuitous reference to creationism. Actually, that's pretty much been your response to what I have written anyway.
Colin: "This should not surprise us, as warmer temperatures are more conducive to life than colder ones."
These statements only demonstrate that your ARE denying the current warming trend as anything but extremely worrisome.
Let’s say we take CO2 concentrations up to 550 ppm by 2100 (level 2 scenario from the US Climate Change Science Program.) With that concentration, there would be a ~70% chance of temperatures reaching 2-3C higher global average than without human GHGs and ~10% chance of 3-4C (cite (http://globalchange.mit.edu/resources/gamble/policy.html).)
Or we could say we take CO2 concentrations as high as anyone (including, to my mind, activists) could want – somewhere around 700-900 ppm. Then there would a ~1% chance of temperatures reaching 2-3C higher than preindustrial global averages without GHGs, and a ~12% chance of 3-4C higher, and ~78% chance of >4C higher (cite (http://globalchange.mit.edu/resources/gamble/policy.html).)
At the 2-3C change level we have:
*Droughts that expose 0.4 to 1.7 billion people to water scarcity.
An additional 3 million people at risk of flooding.
An increase in the agricultural productivity in wealthy nations such as Canada and Russia, and a decrease in agricultural productivity in poor tropical nations such as Congo (both of ‘em,) India, and Peru.
Bleaching a majority of the world’s coral reefs with negative consequences for communities that rely on them for fishing and tourism.
Rapid increase in frequency and breadth of heat waves with attendant crop failures and forest fires.
Widespread deglaciation of the ice sheets on Greenland and the West Antarctic.
High risk of extinction for 20-30% of the planet’s species.
At the 3-4C change level we have:
High probability of total melting of Greenland’s and West Antarctica’s ice sheets.
Falling global food production – no longer to wealthy northern nations enjoy and increase.
Tens of millions more exposed to increased flooding risk.
Hundreds of millions to a billon more exposed to increased water scarcity.
Ecosystems on land may completely switch from soaking up atmospheric carbon to a net balance of adding carbon to the atmosphere.
Widespread complete elimination of coral reefs.
This was all in the IPCC report you apparently said you read. (the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report, WGII, chapters 19 & 20, especially tables 19.1 and 20.4.)
The moving of denial from "AGW isn't human caused" to "AGW won't have any bad effects" is pretty unconvincing given how dependent systems, especially biological systems, are on temperature ranges.
What you present mostly serves to re-confirm my view of the non-catastrophic nature of global warming.
Water scarcity already afflicts many parts of the earth, but is easily dealt with. Think Saudi Arabia, which uses desalinization -- because it is rich -- or Las Vegas, which imports it from elsewhere and is also rich.
And yes, I realize that each suffers from various water management problems that are in large part attributable to improper pricing of water and government policy.
3 million people at risk of flooding, meanwhile, only represents 0.04% of the earth's population. Again, the solution there is economic growth. There is a good reason why Bangladesh suffers many flood deaths on a regular basis while the Netherlands does not.
Although I would have to take a deeper look to say definitively, swapping higher agricultural production in Russia and Canada for India, Peru and Congo could be a good deal. India's agricultural sector is inefficient by global standards and could realize gains from various reforms. Depending on the losses from global warming, this itself could be enough to compensate for those losses.
Peru, meanwhile, is a net agriculture importer. The DRC, meanwhile, only has 3.5% of its land under cultivation, so there is room for growth. Even without expanding the amount of land being tilled it could realize production gains through various efficiencies. The other Congo is another net importer of agriculture, and both has room for efficiency gains and would be better off having less of its people working in subsistence farming.
I'm more sympathetic to the plight of coral, although I will note that the economic benefit of coral has been calculated at $30 billion, which is a trivial amount compared to the global economy, and preserving it may not survive a cost-benefit analysis. Furthermore, with a number of coral experts stating that coral is likely imperiled even under a 1 degree rise in temperatures, I'm not sure what can be done there given that global warming mitigation efforts hold warming to a 1-2 degree increase in the best case scenario.
I've scanned chapters 19 and 20 looking for the 20-30% extinction cite and can't find it, so if you would direct me to that it would be useful.
"AGW won't have any bad effects"
This is yet another instance of you shoving words into my mouth and mischaracterizing my position. I never said bad effects wouldn't occur, rather I said they would be manageable.
Colin: "No consensus exists on either the magnitude of global warming or its implications."
Should we start cataloging your lies? Refer back to the report under discussion.
And when your not outright making stuff up you're cherry picking facts and only commenting on the best-case scenarios.
The worst-case scenario, btw., is 140 feet rise in sea level, although that would be far, far into the future.
Countries that can afford desalination plants and are located on the coast contain a very small percentage of the people who will be negatively impacted by increased drought conditions.
Should we start cataloging your lies? Refer back to the report under discussion.
Not a lie. There isn't consensus, which is why multiple scenarios are presented. The only consensus is that warming will take place and it will be a minimum of 1.8 degrees Celsius by 2100.
But maybe I'm wrong and you can show me the part of the IPCC report where scientists definitely state that X amount of warming will occur by a given date.
I didn't comment on the worst-case scenario because there is a 90% chance it won't occur. I prefer to deal with the more realistic consequences of global warming.
Countries that can afford desalination plants and are located on the coast contain a very small percentage of the people who will be negatively impacted by increased drought conditions.
Then you simply build a pipeline and import the water from those locations where it is more plentiful. This is hardly an insurmountable problem.
Do you understand that the issue in respect to AGW isn't whether there's an optimal temperature for planet earth but how fast the temperature is shifting? Rapid change is the real danger. The mass extinction that created the Permian/Triassic Boundary was due to increased CO2.
You also seem to want to dissolve the differences between environmentalism and climate science to support the idea that since alarmists hype data none of the data can be that bad.
Here's another issue you don't seem to understand: mitigation and adaptation to global warming. You deny the first as even a possibility, and, without a shred of evidence, insist the second is easily manageable. Your grand solution seems to be "delay, delay, delay" because technology, technology, technology."
Colin: "There isn't consensus, which is why multiple scenarios are presented. The only consensus is that warming will take place and it will be a minimum of 1.8 degrees Celsius by 2100."
There's a wealth of information; you need only comprehend it.
From the IPCC report:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1755-1315/6/6/062014/ees9_6_062014.pdf?request-id=c215a7fb-ea8f-4ca5-a4a5-93888e7a8bbb
"We identified significant risks for many supporting and
regulating services, including irreversible biodiversity losses and biological feedbacks that are very likely to accelerate climate change."
The Economic Costs of Extreme Weather Events
http://www.economics.noaa.gov/?goal=weather&file=events/
Heightened tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic: natural variability or climate trend?.G. J Holland and P. J Webster (2007)Phil Trans R Soc A 365, 2695-2716
"It is concluded that the overall trend in SSTs, and tropical cyclone and hurricane numbers is substantially influenced by greenhouse warming."
Carlos D. Hoyos, Paula A. Agudelo, Peter J. Webster, Judith A. Curry. Deconvolution of the Factors Contributing to the Increase in Global Hurricane Intensity.
Thomas R. Knutson, et al., Journal of Climate, Impact of CO2-Induced Warming on Simulated Hurricane Intensity and Precipitation: Sensitivity to the Choice of Climate Model and Convective Parameterization, 15 Sept. 2004. Retrieved March 4, 2007.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~gav/ipcc_shears.html IPCC Projections and Hurricanes
Vecchi, Gabriel A.; Brian J. Soden (18 April 2007). "Increased tropical Atlantic wind shear in model projections of global warming". Geophysical Research Letters 34 (L08702): 1–5. doi:10.1029/2006GL028905. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2007/gav0701.pdf. Retrieved 21 April 2007.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E.Hanson. ed (PDF). Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 7–22. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-spm.pdf.
Future economic damage from tropical cyclones: sensitivities to societal and climate changes. R. A Pielke Jr (2007) Phil Trans R Soc A 365, 2717-2729
Forced and unforced ocean temperature changes in Atlantic and Pacific tropical cyclogenesis regions. B. D. Santer, T. M. L. Wigley, P. J. Gleckler, C. Bonfils, M. F. Wehner, K. AchutaRao, T. P. Barnett, J. S. Boyle, W. Bruggemann, M. Fiorino, et al. (2006) PNAS 103, 13905-13910
Commondreams.org News Center. Extreme Weather Prompts Unprecedented Global Warming Alert. Retrieved on 13 April 2007.
Global change and eutrophication of coastal waters.N. N. Rabalais, R. E. Turner, R. J. Diaz, and D. Justic (2009) ICES J. Mar. Sci. 66, 1528-1537
Decadal variations of intense typhoon occurrence in the western North Pacific.J. C.L Chan (2008) Proc R Soc A 464, 249-272
You also seem to want to dissolve the differences between environmentalism and climate science to support the idea that since alarmists hype data none of the data can be that bad.
Show me where I said that. My consistent position has been that global warming alarmism -- e.g. Al Gore's warning of 20 foot sea rises and the like -- is irresponsible hype. I have not contested whether global warming is real or whether it will have detrimental impacts. Rather I maintain there is good reason to think it will be entirely manageable.
There's a wealth of information; you need only comprehend it.
The debate is not whether information exists, its whether there is a consensus on the magnitude and impact of global warming. Nothing you have posted contradicts my point that no such consensus exists. Indeed, even the right-wing troglodytes over at The Guardian write in an editorial today:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/01/climate-change-university-east-anglia
There is plenty of room for argument about the rate at which the world is warming, the degree to which humans are culpable, the likely outcomes and the most effective steps to be taken.
Again, the IPCC report which is a meta-analysis, a consensus view.
In response to the effects CO2 increases.
"In a risk management context major concerns for the resilience of the Earth's ecosystems emerge,
increasing rapidly with projected trends of greenhouse gas emissions and other global changes such as landuse change, pollution, and resource utilization. We identified significant risks for many supporting and regulating services, including irreversible biodiversity losses and biological feedbacks that are very likely to
accelerate climate change. These findings are summarized and discussed in the context of ecosystem resilience, with its decisive relation to Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and specific climate policies such as the 2°C target of the EU."
What does that tell you?
Colin: "I have not contested whether global warming is real or whether it will have detrimental impacts. Rather I maintain there is good reason to think it will be entirely manageable."
So you have not contested whether it will have detrimental impacts but you think they won't be detrimental enough to cause alarm. Not only have you provided zero evidence of how you arrived at this conclusion, but you're forcing a distinction without a difference. Playing fast and loose with words such as "detrimental" to make it seem as if you recognize a problem, therefore not anti-science, while denying what a consensus of experts say the data suggests. This argument was easily discredited back when Bjorn Lomborg made it years ago.
As I've stated since the beginning your are trivializing the data to support your bias. No matter how much information I provide, you do the intellectual equivalent of covering your ears and singing "la-la-lalala"
Again, the IPCC report which is a meta-analysis, a consensus view.
And, yet again, the IPCC as only a rough idea what the magnitude of these risks will be. It offers up various scenarios, the most likely of which are effects that I have shown are quite manageable. Water scarcity? Allocate water better. 3 million people made more prone to floods? Build dikes, floodwalls, etc.
What does that tell you?
It tell me they've identified a bunch of risks. Again, this is ground we have already covered.
Not only have you provided zero evidence of how you arrived at this conclusion, but you're forcing a distinction without a difference.
Yet more ground that has been covered. I already explained how I arrived at that conclusion, noting for example that we have already experienced sea level rises and other effects of global warming. The results have been something less than cataclysmic. Further, the more likely scenarios of global warming and their impact -- which you have yourself highlighted such as coral bleaching, water scarcity, decreased agriculture production in Peru, etc. -- is not catastrophic. In addition, it stands to reason that given the pace of technological change and increased human wealth/ productivity our ability to manage such effects will only improve with time.
As I've stated since the beginning your are trivializing the data to support your bias. No matter how much information I provide, you do the intellectual equivalent of covering your ears and singing "la-la-lalala"
Now you know how I feel, given that many of your points I have already addressed, some more than once. You believe the earth is headed for catastrophic warming and the effects can't be mitigated/managed, despite the fact that many of these likely symptoms of global warming you point to aren't of the catastrophic variety. If, for example, you are truly concerned about decreased agricultural yields in India your efforts are better devoted towards urging reforms in that sector which would realize efficiencies and increase production.
You have failed to respond to much of what I wrote other than to offer up petty criticisms such as the fact that desalinization is only available to people living on the coasts.
Because of your unwillingness to even acknowledge these points, your consistent mis-characterizations of my positions and diminishing returns on a discussion that has gone on for days you can consider this my final post in the thread.
Colin: "And, yet again, the IPCC as only a rough idea what the magnitude of these risks will be."
A rough idea? No, it's a pretty substantive idea that AGW will increase exponentially in a feedback loop over the coming century (refer back to the forecasting of severe climate papers I presented, which you dismissed as just data).
You, for whatever ideological reason, remain stubborn to the real probability that the effects of AGW will be severe enough that it will require major changes in our infrastructure and politics. That unless we prepare for these risks, which means recognizing that they're serious, nothing will change and our economy and environment will suffer tremendously. There is room for debate on what should be done, but insisting that everything will be fine because...TECHNOLOGY!...is laughable. It's not even an argument. It's a Utopian ideal that has no basis in reality.
The IPCC's reasonable assessment, which I've outlined seems to be your idea of doomsday mongering, which reflects your own warped sense of things.
Additionally, you are factually incorrect (likely ignorant) in insisting that global temperature shifts and increases in greenhouse gases hasn't already caused problems for us.
You don't understand the science, and when presented with papers which point out your errors in thinking, dismiss them out of hand.
I in turn have responded to everything substantive you wrote, which isn't really much. But Feel free to do a point-by-point comparison of factual information vs. trite armchair commentary between our comments.
Post a Comment