Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Climate Change Clock is Ticking
The UK is in denial about its real carbon emissions, suggests a report from the Stockholm Environment Institute. The academics conclude that if "outsourced" emissions produced in countries like China on goods which are imported into the UK are included in our total carbon footprint, this country's total greenhouse gas emissions are 49% higher than currently reported. So we should think twice when blaming the Chinese for emitting the CO2 that is required in the manufacture of our fridges and televisions.
The report illustrates once again - as if we had forgotten - that global warming is an, er, global issue. A tonne of CO2 is a tonne of CO2, wherever it is emitted. How you do the counting is more a matter of politics than mathematics. A much greater concern is that all the politics is in danger of obscuring the increasingly drastic nature of the climate change threat. According to Andrew Simms of the New Economics Foundation, the world has only got 100 months left if we are to have a reasonably high chance of staving off runaway global warming.
This is a pretty dramatic claim, and the associated onehundredmonths.org website has an equally dramatic ticking clock counting down until runaway warming begins. "When the clock stops ticking," it states ominously, "we'll be beyond the climate's tipping point, the point of no return." Yikes. So how valid is this claim? Luckily, NEF's website provides a 100 Months technical note (pdf) explaining the calculations behind the new campaign. The first thing I noticed is that there isn't any new modelling work underlying the claim: it is based on existing science, in particular on an analysis by a researcher called Malte Meinshausen which was published in 2006.
Meinshausen was the first scientist to quantify with percentage figures the probability of exceeding certain climatic thresholds: in his 2006 paper he concluded that only by stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at 400 part per million (ppm) would it be "likely" (defined as 66-90% chance) that the world would stay below an eventual warming of two degrees. The NEF analysis has performed a fairly simple calculation, simply counting the time left before this 400ppm level is reached. The deadline, it turns out, is 1 December 2016.
There are several complicating factors, however. The 400ppm figure in question is not for CO2 only, but for a basket of atmosphere-altering gases - some of which have a positive "forcing" effect (like CO2 itself) whereas others have a negative (cooling) effect, like sulphate aerosols released by industry. Add the sum of these forcings together and you can arrive at a "CO2-equivalence" figure, which is the one that both NEF and Meinshausen use. The timescales need to be borne in mind, however: CO2 resides in the atmosphere for a century on average, whereas aerosols are washed out by rain in just a week or so.
There are other caveats too. Meinshausen is not saying that two degrees of warming will be reached with certainty when we cross the 400ppm threshold, but that the risk of seeing two degrees increases steadily thereafter. (Even at 400ppm there is still a risk of overshooting 2C, of somewhere between 2% and 57%.) At 450ppm the risk of crossing the 2C line rises to between 26 and 78%, whereas at 550ppm the risk of overshooting is between 68 and 99%. Indeed, for 550ppm the risk of overshooting even 3C ranges from 21% to 69%.
So what do all these numbers mean? Reading the small print, sceptics might complain about the false precision implied by the 100 months clock, which seems to suggest that the minute, indeed the second, we pass 400ppm we are certain to see two degrees of warming. The truth is that no one knows where any of the relevant climatic tipping points - from the disappearance of the Arctic ice cap to the release of methane from melting permafrost - actually lie. There are uncertainties regarding both what level of carbon emissions equals what temperature rise, and what temperature rise equals which climatic impacts. All we can say with near-certainty is that the warmer it gets, the further into dangerous territory we stray.
And again, there is the question of timescales. Meinshausen's two degrees calculations referred to two degrees of warming, not the minute the 400ppm line is crossed in December 2016, but when the atmosphere reaches "equilibrium" - in other words when all the warming processes have had a chance to feed through the system. Like a boiling kettle, the planet has a substantial thermal timelag - it takes a long time for ice sheets to rebalance themselves and for warmer waters to penetrate to the bottom of the deepest oceans. So even at this "tipping point" we still wouldn't see the expected two degrees of warming until the end of the century at least, if today's climate models are to be believed.
Reassuring, perhaps - but no cause for complacency. The earth's thermal timelag also means that today's emissions will keep on causing warming for decades to come, and that decisions made today on emissions cuts are essential if we are to rebalance the climate in the second half of the century.
The great danger of climate change is that it is a long-term systemic process. Self-evidently urgent threats - like wars or economic collapse - are easy to put at the top of our list of priorities. But climate change is a very slow process (note the current sceptic line of decrying the lack of year-on-year warming as hoped-for proof that it's all been a big mistake), and one where cause and effect (CO2=climate disasters) are not at all obvious at any intuitive level, hence the continuing predominance of wishful thinking, conspiracy-theorising and outright denial. Climate change clearly does not engage our natural psychological self-defence mechanisms.
This is the value of the 100 months campaign, which injects a sense of urgency into what is in reality a very slow process of cooking ourselves. We need to frame this issue as an urgent one to generate anything like an appropriate response, and indeed NEF explicitly uses the wartime analogy. But the drawback is also clear: in January 2017, after the deadline passes, people might either become fatalistic ("we've passed the tipping point, so let's give up") or might turn increasingly sceptical ("things don't look any different - I thought you said the world was going to end?"). In reality, this is a matter of risk analysis: how much risk of destroying our planetary habitat are we prepared to bear in order to keep on burning fossil fuels? Quite a lot, it would seem.
Mark Lynas is one of the leading voices in the climate change debate in the UK. He has worked full-time on the issue since 2000 .
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2008
46 Comments so far
Show AllThe biggest problem so far with convincing the deniers to come to the AGW side is that people keep coming up with predictions, and they keep failing to materialize. The only "proof" of global warming is anecdotal: Retreating glaciers, melting ice shelves, and non-climate related weather (a wet or dry year has nothing to do with long term climate by itself). The temperature changes that have occurred have not matched the predictions. And here we go again with another prediction that is not going to materialize.
The strongest counterclaim of the deniers is that water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, and overlaps much of the CO2 absorption spectra, leaving CO2 responsible only for a sliver of a radiation band. Water vapor is shown to represent about 95% of the greenhouse gas effects, leaving CO2, methane, and others in the remaining 5%. AGW papers often leave water vapor off the charts, because it swamps any effect of CO2, no matter how much more CO2 is put into the atmosphere. The other technical issue is saturation, meaning once a radiation frequency is fully absorbed by a gas, adding more gas will not cause more energy to be absorbed, only shorten the distance it takes. A sticky problem is that water vapor concentrations vary enormously in space and time, whereas CO2 concentration does not. The water vapor variation is too complicated to be resolved in models, so it is fudged. The positive feedback loops used by most greenhouse climate models do not accurately take into consideration water vapor variations and absorption saturation. Essentially, if there were such a positive feedback mechanism, then water vapor would have tipped it eons ago.
This is not to say that melting glaciers in Greenland are not caused by humans. In correlation with atmospheric CO2 increases has been an increase in particulate pollution, especially by China, India, and forest fires. As anyone living far enough north knows, dirty snow melts faster than clean snow under the same sunlight conditions. This also explains why Antarctic ice sheets are not melting when compared to northern and tropical areas. In fact, they are growing.
The melting ice shelves both in the north and the south probably has more to do with locally warmer ocean temperatures. Most floating ice is underwater, exposed much more to the ocean temperature than to the atmospheric temperature. Water also has a much higher heat capacity than air, and hence has a greater ability to melt. How can the oceans be locally warmer? Changes to circulation patterns (such as El Nino/La Nina), or changes in seafloor heating can do it. Conduction of heat from the earth's interior through the seafloor accounts for 0.02C/century of temperature change as a whole, but convection via underwater volcanoes, hydrothermal vents, and plate movements can cause local ocean temperatures to reach hundreds of degrees, liquid being possible only because of the pressure of depth.
If AGW scientists are going to convince the critics, they need to stop misleading the public on the assumptions and uncertainties in their models, because on scrutiny, they simply don't hold up.
Better read that new article ~Siggy11~, and argue there and tell all why the author is wrong. It states your just posted opinions are wrong and it fully explains the so called "cooling". That's "climate change" and again SIG, global warming and climate change are related, but are seperate issues.
http://virakkraft.com/climateyear.doc
According to the four major temperature metrics HadCRUT, NASA Giss, UAH and RSS, the global temperatures have plunged in January 2008. The temperature drop has been severe somewhere in the region of -0.588C and -0.75C. In other words almost 20 years of global warming was wiped out since January 2007!
We are cooling.....just the way it is.
Economics will dictate reduced carbon emmissions. We don't need government telling us what we should do etc. Government is a very poor predictor of things that happen.
Hansen has his own agenda Ken, and I recognize that.
Continued cooling is still my biggest fear. Ice in the Arctic, by mass, is equivilant to 1979 levels today. Antarctic ice mass is also growing on the continent as a whole.
The sun is starting a minimum phase. Goes through long term cycles just like our weather.
When a scientist admits that he/they don't understand the suns effects very well on their models, that throws the whole thing into disaray.
And Ken, I have never been able to spell well. That is my archiles heel. I love numbers, and number theory, and do quit well at that.
Conservation is a very good thing and should be the mindset of all people. We have only so many resouces on this earth, and to use them wisely should be common practice.
And Ken, the reason it is called perma frost is just that. It isn't permanent. It thaws every year and freezes every year. Or at least it has done so for about the last 12,000 years. Before that it was frozen actually for eons.
It is a good thing that man wasn't into science per se during the warming of the past 12,000 years or we would be in terrible shape. And when you think of that.....12,000 years isn't a very long time when we are living to be close to 100 more often than not now adays.
Once again, I am not an alarmist. The climate of earth changes periodically. We just have to learn to live with what it is doing now.
You better start doing your lovin right quick, because you might not have ten more years.
"YOO-HOO", __ohhhh, "yoo-hooooo", Ding, ding, ding a ling!!! Wake up now, ~SIGURDUR11~ ~MIMI~ and ~GEO522~, there is a brand new article here today in the headline section about the "thawing Arctic". Wheeeeeeeee, you can make fools of yourselves once again. ___ LOL!!!!!
It certainly is a complicated issue, and I dont understand all of the data which has led a vast majority of the scientific community to plead with the rest of us to start doing somthing about our carbon emmisions. I do know that the weather seems much different than when I was young. It seemed more predictable back then. It was hot in the summer and cold in the winter in Canada where I live, and now you never really know what you are going to get. I know also that the inuit who have been in the north for thousands of years are saying that the climate is changing drastically.
Even if the small minority of scientists that deny that human carbon emmisions are causing global climate change turn out to be correct, would it really be so bad to try to reduce emmisions. Do we really need slave labour in the third world churning out junk to peddle from the shelves of Wallmart and the dollar stores. Do we really need these big houses (and their big mortgages we can't afford) in suburbs, and the resulting stressful commutes every day.
And what if the vast majority of scientists that say global climate change is already upon us are correct? It seems to me that we should act as if they are - just in case.
A little government regulation might be in order here - some incentives for people to live in a more sustainable way - some penalties for individuals, and corporations that do not. You know, we might even find that by doing so we could make the world a better place in which to live. I better stop now before I start singing a Burt Bacharach song.
What the world needs now
is love, sweet love...
Oops, I wrote finally, ___ wrong.
No ~SIGURDUR11~ I do not believe Co2 is the only driver for global warming. Co2 in the atmosphere is natural. "Excess" Co2 in the atmosphere caused by humans burning fossil fuels, which has created the "current" Greenhouse effect in our atmosphere, is not natural. That's the entire argument.
(B-illions) was a typo ~SISGURDUR~. It was supposed to read (M-illions.) Let me put it with much more credibility. (Since recorded history,) those south sea islands were never anywhere near below the ocean waters. They are now. The fresh water ice melting in Greenland alone will raise sea levels 21+ feet within five to ten years. The fresh water ice which is rapidly melting in Antartica will raise sea levels another 70+ feet.
I don't have the names of the islands handy, but there was an an hour long program about it on the science channel last month. Many more Pacific islands will soon have to be evacuted.
Finally, you claim the planet has been in a cooling phase for several years. Once again, ~James Hanson~, the director of NASA's Goddard Space Studies said "otherwise" just last year, and I do not understand how anyone can argue ewhat CREDIBLE science has proven in that respect. Talk about credibilty. What level do you suppose you are on? Your typed words here are not all typo errors either. Please do tell us, why ~James Hanson~ is wrong. I can wait till Florida is beneath the waves for an answer, as I'm sure you will not tell us why he's wrong and make any sense doing so, if you do bother to reply.
In fact, 650,000,000 million years ago where I am sitting was covered in sea water. I am now 846 feet above mean sea level.
Kem,
What islands are you referring to? Curious minds want to know, as during the past 1 billion years the sea level was a whole lot higher than it is today. So when you say billions of years, you lose credibility.
Kem:
We can agree to disagree. You think the only driver for global warming is co2. I think not. We can each validate what we are thinking, so that makes us neither right nor wrong. What that tells us is that climate modeling is a very inexact science.
We all know 2+2=4. The models are working under the assumption that it may equal something else, they just aren't sure what that something else is.
It boils down to inputs in the models, the variables that are not certain, which cause the models to have to be constantly changed.
It would seem we know with some certainty about 1/2 of the things needed to predict weather, change well. As I have said:
We can't predict weather for 24-48 hrs with any accuracy, and you think we can predict what is going to happen in 20 years?
All I know is I can look at the past 30 years of climate data and see that since 2000 we have been cooling, and the past 12 months the cooling has accelerated very rapidly.
See ya.
I could not edit my previous comments, because WORD PRESS, the neo-con outfit which is blocking so many bloggers here at Common Dreams, won't allow me to edit now. I notice the denier ~MIMICCS~ offers links which are connected to "WORD PRESS". Hmmmmmmmm, interesting.
Interesting comments ~SIGURDUR11~ Apparently one of us is WRONG, has been mis-led. Our opinions, based upon the words and finiings of scientists we quote are 100% opposed on the issue.
There is more thin sea ice in the Arctic and in Antartica this year than last and above average snowfall in sections of Greenland and Alaska, which does not have a single thing to do with global warming. That's climate change, a related but different issue. The giant ice slabs which have been solid ice for centuries are merrily thawing away at a rapid pace and that's the ice we should be concerned about.
You offer the opinion of perma-frost thaw from a man who has lived in Alaska. I offer the opinions of scientists who are studying perma frost, that's all they do. They have proven that the Arctic's perma frost is thawing and it will be totally thawed within five years or less. The climate and atmospheric scientists at NASA, EPA, NOAA all report exactly the opposite of what you write here. Are they ALL wrong?
You say methane releases naturally, citing the eruption of Mt St. Helens as an example. Indeed, methane in our atmophere is natural and unless that natural balance is disturbed, there is no problem. But let me cite an example of why the atmosphere is out of balance due to mankinds activity. Human activity, (burnig fossil fuels,) annually emits more Co2 into the atmosphere than that of 17,000 volcanos.
I'll accept the words of NASA's James Hanson, geologist John Atcheson, Paleontologist Michael J. Benton and the hundreds of highly respected scientists who are in total agreement with their findings. I'll accept the visual observations from daily satellite photos, those which ~PAULK~ offers here on these type threads.
I'll accept the obvious fact, that sea levels are rising and many people had to evacuate their island homelands in the Pacific and many more are preparing to follow suit. That has occurred within the past two years. Those are islands which have been above sea level for billions of years.
I guess we only agree to disagree bud. You keep posting your blogs on the issue and I'll reply to you and all the other global warming deniers, as best I can.
Global warming, yes or no, is NOT the only environmental issue at stake right now. The incredible species die-off that is occurring is truly alarming, because we really don't know what intricate balances may be upset by the disappearance of some seemingly insignificant part of our biosphere.
De-forestation and habitat loss directly affect the carbon balance and the survival of many species.
A lot of what drives this engine is the ever increasing human population, yet promoting birth control at home and around the world is not supported by our government. Good birth control programs PREVENT abortions and help people manage their families so that they can have a chance to climb out of poverty. Fewer people means less environmental devastation, less hunger, and less competition for declining resources.
Sanity would lead us to birth control as opposed to death control (wars etc.). A greener world would be much easier to achieve with a sane approach to family planning world-wide.
what is very well known throughout the scientific community, is that higher resolution studies of the same ice cores revealed that the temperature changes came first then were followed by changes in CO2. (Mudelsee, 2001; Clark, 2003; Vakulenko et al., 2004)
Kem:
These are experts that wrote the above as well.
As I have stated before:
Conservation is a great thing and I think everyone should practice it. I conserve, but that is just who I am. Al Gore doesnt'...and that is just who he is.
I am not an alarmist. We are cooling right now, and that scares me a lottttt more than potential warming.
My cousin lived on Kodiac for 25 years. I asked him about the perma frost. He said that is just what it is, it melts in the summer and freezes in the winter. Has been happending for eons.
The earth emits huge amounts of methane itself. One volcano will emit more methane that man does for a century. (Ref Mt St. Helens).
Once again, I am not an alarmist and not really worried about the "clock". I am more worried about an increase in sun spots soon. If that doesn't happen we are in for some very cold winters and short summers.
In an ocean-sea ice model of the Arctic and the northern North Atlantic driven with 50-yr NCEP-NCAR reanalysis data, no appreciable trend in sea ice volume is found for the period 1948-98. However, rather long subperiods, for example, 1965-95, exhibit a large decline in Arctic sea ice volume. These results and the current data situation make connecting "global warming" to Arctic ice thinning very difficult because the large decadal and multidecadal variability masks any trend....
As yet another indicator of the impact January 2008 has had on the Northern Hemisphere, we find this story from Greenland's Sermitsiaq News:
Minus 30 degrees Celsius. That's how cold it's been in large parts of western Greenland where the population has been bundling up in hats and scarves. At the same time, Denmark's Meteorological Institute states that the ice between Canada and southwest Greenland right now has reached its greatest extent in 15 years.
'Satellite pictures show that the ice expansion has extended farther south this year. In fact, it's a bit past the Nuuk area. We have to go back 15 years to find ice expansion so far south. On the eastern coast it hasn't been colder than normal, but there has been a good amount of snow.'
Surface snowmelt in Antarctica in 2008, as derived from spaceborne passive microwave observations at 19.35 gigahertz, was 40% below the average of the period 1987–2007. The melting index (MI, a measure of where melting occurred and for how long) in 2008 was the second-smallest value in the 1987–2008 period, with 3,465,625 square kilometers times days (km2 × days) against the average value of 8,407,531 km2 × days (Figure 1a). Melt extent (ME, the extent of the area subject to melting) in 2008 set a new minimum with 297,500 square kilometers, against an average value of approximately 861,812 square kilometers
Ya know ~SIGURDUR11~ or Namaste, like most bloggers here at Common Dreams, I normally write comments at the eigth or ninth grade level, as It's easier and most people are comftorable with that level of prose and don't mind a great deal about a few mis-spelled words. But you being such a smart fella, let's get a little bit more technical with word usage, so you might feel more comfortable debating this issue you openly deny and one which you seem to be so fond of commenting about.
To begin, when the climate warms, methane gas is more apt to release into the atmosphere. Since methane is a very potent Greenhouse gas that intensifies warming, that additional warming in turn causes more methane to release. That phenomenon is termed "FEEDBACK". Feedback analysis, or in the case of global warming, let us term it ecological homeostosis or, ___ a "disturbed ecosystem".
The entire mass of living matter on Earth, from the most basic one cell micro-organism, and advancing to more intelligent life forms and all plant life, functions as a vast homostatic superorganism, that actually modifies it's planetary enviroment to produce the enviromental conditions necessary for it's own survival. In that viewpoint, the planet attempts to maintain homeostasis.
For one important example: When atmospheric conditions are "in balance", the phytoplankton of the ocean's waters thrive. Currently our atmosphere is "out of balance", becaue of the well proven greenhouse effect, the vital for all life on Earth's phytoplankton are suffering because of that man caused imbalance and are dying off at an alarming rate.
So it is not only the Arctic thaw that is obvious visual proof of global warming, there are many other obvious clues that our blue and white water world is currently in dire straits. The bad part of that situation is, we do not have another water world to migrate to.
This planet we've named Earth is it, and while we may still have a slim chance of correcting the Greenhouse effect, which is caused from burning fossil fuels over the past 200+ years, it is very distasteful and even maddening, to see global warming deniers such as you and MiMi and Geo522, etc, attempt to cause the issue to be argumentative, which only tends to detract from any efforts to correct it.
Argue with people such as James Hanson, the Director of NASA's Goddard Space Studies. He firmly states that humanity is causing the Greenouse effect in our atmosphere from burning Fossil Fuels and their studies over the past 31 years, proves that the Arctic is indeed thawing at an alarming rate and the record low of Arctic ice in mid-September of 2005 was surpassed this year and last and there is no evidence it is not going to continue to thaw at a rapid pace.
I'd love to hear it and know it was a fact ~SIGURDUR11~ but it's not a fact. If what you just posted were factual, the Arctic would not be thawing and the Arctic's ice melting so rapidly. Last year was the first year in recorded history that the Northwest Passage was open all the way east to west. It's the Greenhouse effect on the atmosphere bud. Until that's taken care of, global warming will continue, ___ wise up.
Read this link and click onto the articles about the Arctic's perma frost thawing in the far northern Arctic. It's called Perma-Frost because it is supposed to be "permanently" frozen. It is not frozen anymore. Know why? Because it's getting warm enough to "permanently" thaw it. Do you comprehend that? The Arctic's perma-frost is readily visible to the human eye, no science is necessary.
http://www.farnorthscience.com/2007/09/26
Oh shit, I wrote another comment, dang, I'm over powering and polluting this thread.
Also,
Yes, we have been cooling for the past 8 years on a global scale. I know some folks don't like hearing that.....but that is just how it is.
Points to ponder:
1. The accuracy of weather in 24-48 hours is?
2. The amount of ice in the Arctic today is about the same as it was in 1979.
And for those of you who won't believe me, look it up and you will see that.
3. The accuracy of models is very suspect. In Real Climate Gaven made the statement that they didn't know much about the sun's impact on our climate. HOLY COW.....the sun issssssss the driver of our climate. Get with it folks!!!!!!
The carbon bills are not being paid for by the bankrupt developed nations. The point of final product consumption is a good place to measure and charge for the worlds carbon costs. The main point here is that the developed world is using their exploitation of developing countries yet again, to transfer costs to the places of labour,resource and environment exploitation from the places of profit and consumption.
3 ponits: Mimmic, on the one hand, you say that you don't blame the scientists because it's a complex system with iffy data from the past, yet you are willing to believe data from scientists who dispute global warming. Can't have it both ways.
China, India, and other eastern countries would be able to reduce their emissions if the greedy "f&**ing" mothers of industry stopped using slave labour for their, and only their benefit.
Lastly, watch out for what we can never know, don't turn around, it's right behind you.
You also deride me, that I gave no link that scientists are concerned about the methane issue. Read the article again in the NOAA link I posted. Read it several times, as you have a reading comprehenson disability.
Then read the other article again, it's all about the Arctic methane threat and John Atcheson is very concerned, as is Doctor Benton.
Few if any atmospheric scientists or geologists disagree with Atcheson, including the National Geological association scientists.
Oops, silly old me. I wrote two blogs in reply to your one. Hit me in the face.
I do not want ANY of your help ~MIMICCS~ thank you. I'll rely on
the atmospheric scientists from NOAA, EPA and NASA for my
opinions and learning help.
Indeed, I often blog more comments than others on this subject.
Why? Because I'm always replying to you and two, three, or more
other global warming deniers. You will post three, four or more
blogs, ~Geo522~ will post three or four + and ~Namaste~ will
add his three or four and I reply to all of them and I have 16 to your 4. I would have had one about the Arctic methane issue here
if you had not arrived. Now I'm replying to you once again.
Why do you refer to that fine article of ~John Atcheson's~ as "INFAMOUS", which BTW was once a lead article here at Common Dreams? John Atcheson is a geologist who is world renouned and
highly regarded by his peers. His findings are not a theory, as
you state they are.
In that article, which YOU term "INFAMOUS", John Atcheson
also refers the reader to the distinguished vertebrate
paleontologist, ~Michael J. Benton~, who totally agrees with
what John Atcheson has written in that article. Doctor Benton
also warns us, that what transpired during the Permian Mass
Extinction, when almost all life on Earth millions of years ago
was eradicated, is about to re-occur, unless we stop polluting our atmosphere with excess Co2 by burning fossil fuels and especially coal.
You have previously stated that both of those men are wrong. I disagree with you. Unless I learn differently, I believe they
are far far more qualified to discuss the issue than you are.
So I often repeat their words and opinions here.
You post a link which "proves" the Arctic is not thawing,
saying there is plenty of ice there. Actually, what the article
is all about, is some scientists predicted there was a "50/50"
chance the Arctic may be ice free this year. It likely will
not be ice free this year, so they were 50% wrong, or 50% correct.
It has nothing to do with global warming and if the current
atmospheric conditions persist, the Arctic will be ice free within five years or less, but probably not this year.
You say to the Arctic being ice free, "Who cares." I care, and
if you were totally wrapped up, with both oars in the water,
you'd care also. When the Arctic thaws and the methane there
burps out, you're gonna care, ____ we are all gonna care, but
not for very long, unless someone has a lifetime supply of
bottled oxygen.
Strong arguments KEM. I reply to you because you kind of monopolize the issue (one large thread had you at 30% of the comments)
Here are these strong arguments of yours:
"About eight or ten here then will disagree with her"
"[Some] consensus scientists disagree with you."
of course
The scientists that agree with me are ALL wrong, or are corrupted by Big Oil. They have no integrity, unlike some government scientists who work for a government that wants to use the issue for social control and to tax you, or some other scientists who need government grants to do research.
"[Some consensus] atmospheric scientists believe 27 million tons of methane released in one year" (no link of course showing the concern of these scientists that 1 year minor release will cause life threatening warming)
How can I argue with such logic.
"You cannot be sane and serious at the same time stating that type of absolute nonsense." Help me out kem, just tell me what losing arctic sea ice in the summer means for the world, and why Greenland becoming greener as it was in the MWP is a concern. Spell it out. To this kem will repost his infamous link as proof.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html
This is not proof. A theory or a hypothesis is a theory or hypothesis because it is not proven. A majority vote or consensus is not PROOF.
If you can not understand this, and it seems you can't or won't, I can not help you. Good luck.
And ~MIMICCS~ you just "Cherry Picked" one sentinece out of
an article with the intent to take the entire article's gist
out of context. That is one of the methods yoou use to promote
fhe false opinion, that global warming is just a Democrat ruse
to fool the general public and to make money.
When the Arctic's methane burps out, global warming will get
so far out of control there will be no chance whatsoever of
turning back. If we begin now to combat it, we have a chance.
And you refer to me being frightened. That's a totally false
assumption on your part Kiddo, I don't fear anything or anyone.
I do believe it's a damn shame we are leaving our children with
little hope for a future. I do fear for the children of the world.
Strange, how when a thread of this topic is posted, ~MIMI~
always shows up and denies global warming is a problem.
About eight or ten here then will disagree with her and that
includes me of course. But I'm usually the only one she respnds
to and says things like, ___ "KEM is beyond help", etc.
~MIMI~ if you are correct, the scientists at NOAA, the EPA,
NASA, etc, are ALL wrong. The world renouned geologist John
Atcheson is wrong, the very highest regarded scientists,
geologists, paleontologists are ALL wrong and YOU are right.
You say that 27 million tons of methane released into the
atmosphere in one year is not serious? Really, why do the
atmospheric scientsts believe it is? Maybe you should straighten
them out. Maybe you should straighten yourself out, because the
things you just posted are just flat out wrong and I'm certain
that you are aware they are, ___or, you are in serious need of professional help.
~MIMI~ you wrote, (incredible as it sounds), "Even if there is
no sea ice in the Arctic, who cares? If Greenlad becomes a bit greener, that's good." You cannot be sane and serious at the
same time stating that type of absolute nonsense.
Kems beyond help. Hope he really isn't as terrified as he seems.
From Kems link "Additionally methane rose by 27 million tons after nearly a decade with little or no increase". Wow, sounds ominous, not.
The atmosphere has 780 giga tons of carbon in the air, or about 30 million times the 27 million tons of methane added after 10 years of no growth. After a decade, methane has increased from 1780 ppb to 1783 ppb. Lets round off to 1800. BTW, 1800 ppb is 1.8 ppm. I am not worried.
House paint allows 200 ppm lead. Paint in toys is permitted at levels of 600 ppm. Methane is in the air at concentrations of 1.8 ppm. They use 1800 ppb to make it sound bigger than it is.
Even if there is no sea ice in the Arctic, who cares? If greenland becomes a bit greener, thats good.
There is zero evidence of any accelerating "GLOBAL" warming or that it is entirely caused by mans CO2. There has been no global warming since 1998. We have warmed 0.6 deg C since 1880. It was just as warm in the Arctic in 1940, and the MWP 800 years ago, and even warmer 9000 years ago at the Halocene Optimum.
Life is good, enjoy it. The plants are happy and well fed. Don't starve them like we are starving people in Africa due to high energy prices and financial speculation that have increased food prices. Don't let them tax you or deprive you of energy and make you poorer for a problem that does not exist.
The same propaganda machine that sold the Iraq war and GWOT are behind the AGW hoax. Each party gets their own issue. The Dems own this one, the Republicans own the other one, both parties have the same driver, and they are driving us off a cliff.
Well those who say the scientists are wrong and don't know how much Co2 or methane, or CH4, is currently in our atmosphere, are stating the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admisistration (NOAA) are ALL wrong.
I don't believe they are wrong at all and they are in total disagreement with MIMICCS's comments, but the NOAA is in total agreement with the NASA and our EPA's atmospheric scientists.
The NOAA states that humanity is directly responsible for the current Greenhouse effect and the subsequent global warming. They also say that CH4 is currently 1,800 parts per billion in our atmosphere and that the Arctic is thawing at an "alarmng" rate.
For example, last year was the first year in recorded history, that ships could navigate through the Northwest Passage without the help of ice breakers, or skidding boats across miles of frozen tundra and water. The Arctic IS most definently rapidly thawing and satellite image proves that fact beyond any argument and MIMI's comments and links are wrong.
The Arctic is not thawing at any normal rate of several million years time from acts of nature, it's thawing at an alarming rate of just a few years time and will be totally ice free within five years or less.
Some may and some do say, "So what?" This is "So What"!!! When the Arctic thaws, the methane gas which has been safely locked up in the Arctic's ice for several millions of years, will be able to release into our atmosphere.
There is 3,000 times as much methane in the Arctic, as is currently in our atmosphere. Remember, that was 1,800 ppb in the atmosphere. So when the methane in the Arctic suddenly releases, it will rise to 5,401,800 ppb. ____1,800ppb is worryng the NOAA scientists. Five million ppb plus is gonna worry everybody. ___ It's not good.
This link is important, and it takes about three minutes to read and understand.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080423_methane.html
And this link is even more important, as the author predicted what the previous link's author have now proven. Another three minute read.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html
MiMi, you're really picking your sea ice input. Elsewhere, there's no sea ice within 500 miles of the Yukon, for example. Using Cryosphere Today's July 31, 1979 as a baseline I see less sea ice, and less solid sea ice for what's left of it, all over the place in the Arctic: north of all parts of Siberia, north of Alaska, in the Northwest passage, on both the East and West sides of Greenland.
We are on a small and fragile raft headed toward the falls. We are moving ever faster, and the noise is getting louder and louder. There is no time to argue about who should paddle, or how far we are from the precipice, or whose fault it is that we are faced with this calamity.
A story in the Globe and Mail today:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080801.wcanpark0801/BNStory/National/home
A June report from the Nat Sno and Ice Data Ctr indicated s that it is still not certain that the Arctic has tipped. More recent news indicates that the melt this year is behind last years.
The Bad News is that until there is 100% certainty about any of these phenomena, there is the "Let's go slow attitude." This a surefire homicidal strategy.
www.StudentsForTheEarth.org
Paul, thanks for your input. Regular people can embrace the global warming probabilities data like they embrace important probabilities in their everyday lives where facts are scarce. Instead of throwing around these numbers, we use a more abstract representation, but it's all the same. People usually err on the side of caution. And the people do have a say in climate policy. The people will first demand that the capitalists cease immediately their hostile pursuit of economic growth, consumption growth, geo-political rivalry, externalization of costs, and suppression of the public will. Let's see if that doesn't cut the equivalent CO2 content.
historical GHG - you tellin' me folks can calculate how much GHG the US put out from 1776 to twenty years ago? SOunds a little far fetched.
I believe I read that one of China's ecenomic ministers said that his country will NEVER sacrifice GDP for climate concerns. NEVER is a very strong and not so subtle word. No means No and Never means Never.
least thats what my wife tells me.
"....IF today's climate models are to be believed"
Thats a big IF. Belief and science of course are not compatable, nor is consensus.
As for the Arctic ice, don't worry.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/30/polar-ice-check-still-a-lot-of-ice-up-there/#more-1938
"New data from the Norwegian Meteorological Institute shows that there is more ice than normal in the Arctic waters north of the Svalbard archipelago.
In most years, there are open waters in the area north of the archipelago in July month. Studies from this year however show that the area is covered by ice, the Meteorological Institute writes in a press release.
In mid-July, the research vessel Lance and the Swedish ship MV Stockholm got stuck in ice in the area and needed help from the Norwegian Coast Guard to get loose."
Things are looking up. Don't sell your coastal property yet.
Yes indeedy, there is a lot of uncertainty. A lot. Thats why the certainty that man is causing catostrophic climate change rapidly seems so poorly grounded when one looks at the evidence. A 100 ppm increase in CO2 has caused a global surface temperature rise of 0.6 deg C. We have been warming since the Little Ice Age. Temperatures today are well below the Holocene optimum. Greenland was green in the medieval Warming period.
Yet todays warming is unprecedented. We have good data for only 50 years, beyond that we have observation and data that is very uncertain. Some of the data has likely been, shall we say, compromised by the same adjustments that give us the CPI lie. When asked for the raw data these scientists do not release it sighting IPR, or in some cases say it is no longer available since they did not retain it (check climate audits site for details). Satellite data is opposed by all people, by those NASA scientists supporting AWG. Why do we have our main CO2 measurement center located near a source of the main outgassing of CO2 from the oceans. Of course, they tell us the atmosphere is well mixed, and prove this from CO2 data in locations located near major sinks. Yet the word is, that satellite data might show otherwise.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/a-encouraging-response-on-satellite-co2-measurement-fr...
What else is are they uncertain about? They have a low low understanding of solar forcing on climate, the source of heat which drives the climate and weather. And they lack a good understanding of precipitation systems and their interactions with the climate.
I do not blame the scientists, it is a very complex system with not a lot of great data to work with over long periods of time, and factors that affect climate and our historical understanding of past climate cross many different fields of science.
We actually have a proposal that calculates the fair share of the global bill for India and China, based on wealth and historical GHG pollution. It turns out the China, with about 4 times the population of the US, would get a bill about 1/5 the size of the US bill, and India, with a slightly smaller population than China, would get a bill about 1/30 the size of the US bill.
If we had actually stepped up to the plate and owned up to our responsibility, rather than blaming everyone else while we did nothing for 20 years, those countries might by now be willing to accept their fair shares.
Our "Greenhouse Development Rights" proposal can be found at www.ecoequity.org/GDRs
--Paul
PhD In Ky I got one of them two - I'm a professional Post Hole Digger. Bet ya my degree did't cost as much as yours. Tell me something, how are we gonna make the Chinese and the Indians and the Vietnames and the..... work with the west on climate control? Seems like with all the changes the world wants to make, certain countries will not sacrifice GDP for better air quality. And who can blame them - if China's middle class looses ground who do they go after? The hairs of Mao. I'd like to see this whole thing get worked out, but Dr. Baer, What about the Asian Tigers?
As a friend and colleague of Meinshausen's (disclaimer: my own work is also cited in the 100 months technical note) I am encouraged that people are picking it up in order to highlight the urgency of the situation. However, Lynas misses a critical point in reviewing the story: there is actually a great deal of uncertainty in the estimate of the current "effective" greenhouse gas concentration, measured in CO2-equivalent terms. The claim that we will cross the 400 ppm (parts per million) line in December of 2016 is based on a "best estimate" that the current level is 377 ppm. However, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from which this estimate is drawn, there is substantial uncertainty in this number - it could easily be 50 ppm higher or lower.
It is not unreasonable to act as if the number were indeed 377, which makes the problem quite urgent. But the truth is that we may already be over the 400 ppm level, or a long ways from it. I worry that ignoring this uncertainty makes the argument weaker than it needs to be.
Paul Baer, PhD
Research Director, EcoEquity
The NYT is filled with nothing but namby pamby doom and gloom weenies. Plain and simple you're born, you live and then you die. You don't know when your demise will be but in the end you will meet it. Stop worring about what you can't control and get out there and recycle some cow dung. Anyone with half a brain knows that the cows are the one's really doing us in. By the way, when you take care of the cows enjoy a nice t bone steak. This way you'll address the real carbon emission problem and be full as well. I suggest that you enjoy it with a delicious American beer. None of this foreign crap as they don't respect us anyway.
"Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children."
Ancient Indian Proverb
Uh, I'm confused by your comments ~TOAST~. The article you offered says that Arctic area is melting at an unprecidented rate. Could you clarify?
Bullshit.
The good news is that the "world" does indeed appear to be cooling as the denialists have been urging us all to believe in the face of an enormous databank of evidence to the contrary.
I believe that this NYT article offers some good "real world" evidence to back up their "it ain't broke, so don't try to fix it" theories.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-arctic-melting.html
I have trouble interpreting complicated data, so my conclusions may be off a bit. So very sorry, if that is the case.