The earth has biofeedback mechanisms to deal with fluctuations in carbon dioxide. In a vacuum the amount of carbon dioxide would be a problem but fortunately we don't live in one. We would be far better off to focus our attention on clean air and drinking water instead of wasting our time trying to preventing the emission of something we exhale. Carbon dioxide emissions have only increased over the last twenty years and yet the level of warming has plateaued. This shows that CO2 might not be the devil we once thought it was. While me might contribute to the earth's temperature on some level it is clearly on such a negligible level to be of any concern. The earth's climate is largely impacted by changes in solar activity and that is something none of us can control. Get ready for the cooling by the way because solar activity such as sun spots and flares are at an all time low.
Pretty much all of this is misinformation being propagated by Kochs and the like. The last part about the Sun is typical Heritage Foundation sort of stuff. Misinformation based on pseudo-scientific baloney.
Solar flares don't have any known effect on Earth's surface temp. Solar cycle 24 is the weakest we have seen in 100 years, but solar cyscle 23 was quite weak as well. We have a decade of weak activity aalready with no cooling. That isn't entirely definitive but it is more solid than the talk radio assertions of cool days ahead.
The earth has biofeedback mechanisms to deal with fluctuations in carbon dioxide. In a vacuum the amount of carbon dioxide would be a problem but fortunately we don't live in one. We would be far better off to focus our attention on clean air and drinking water instead of wasting our time trying to preventing the emission of something we exhale. Carbon dioxide emissions have only increased over the last twenty years and yet the level of warming has plateaued. This shows that CO2 might not be the devil we once thought it was. While me might contribute to the earth's temperature on some level it is clearly on such a negligible level to be of any concern. The earth's climate is largely impacted by changes in solar activity and that is something none of us can control. Get ready for the cooling by the way because solar activity such as sun spots and flares are at an all time low.
Pretty much all of this is misinformation being propagated by Kochs and the like. The last part about the Sun is typical Heritage Foundation sort of stuff. Misinformation based on pseudo-scientific baloney.
Solar flares don't have any known effect on Earth's surface temp. Solar cycle 24 is the weakest we have seen in 100 years, but solar cyscle 23 was quite weak as well. We have a decade of weak activity aalready with no cooling. That isn't entirely definitive but it is more solid than the talk radio assertions of cool days ahead.
What does AMT think? Is this becoming a real problem?
I would not say it is becoming a real problem just merely a focused topic. Are there any scientists that can disprove that the sun will burn out in approx. 7billion yrs give or take a million?
After the burnout we (if we are still around) and the earth are no longer. The sun is but a star burning fuel and the tank will run dry.
The human impact on earth can either make it a human assisted suicide or a full blown going down in a blaze of glory.
That is actually a very interesting cover for a couple of reasons
1) The use of the phrase "climate change does not exist" - it's a red herring. I believe climate change exists. It is always changing. The question is what is man's contribution on the scale of things. Science has done a very poor job of answering that to date as it is unable to control for the multitude of variables that come into play. Good science requires randomized controlled trials and in environmental science this scenerio is very difficult to create. This type of thinking would cause me to fall under the "denier" category even though I am approaching the issue from a scientific perspective.
2) "Genetically modified food is evil" - I do not believe it is evil yet many environmentalists and global warming "believers" do think it is evil and would take issue for being told otherwise.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,760
edited March 2015
BS, almost everything you say here [your post, bottom of page 2] goes against the findings of the majority of climate scientists- not the paid off bogus scientists hired by major oil companies to try to convince us of these fallacies- but the knowledgeable, published, hard working, non-partisan climate scientist who do their work in an effort to get as close to the truth of the matter as possible. If you read through some of the articles published at realclimate.org ( strongly scholarly and technical in orientation) or the NASA climate site (easier to read for the layman) or climatecentral.org. ( a good non-partisan science organization), you'll find there are no political objectives or bias interfering with the real work of science. Those guys are the real deal. I will say, you might come away a little disconcerted about how serious the anthropogenic effects are having on our planets climate. I don't mean to sound patronizing but perhaps you will at least give a look at these and some consideration to what these people are saying. I think you will be impressed with both their credentials and their motives.
Here are links to those site. Most of the articles require a fair amount of time to read and digest. These are not major media style brief synopses of what something thinks of what somebody said about the issue. It's the real deal:
Ah, it would seem so! Or is it that the money follows them? People who are the really good at what they do often tend to make a lot of money: Pearl Jam- good at what they do, well off. George Lucas- great film maker, not hurting for money. Alex Rodriguez- over paid? Perhaps. Good ball player? One of the best. brianlux- bookseller... well, ok, there's always an exception to the rule, hahaha!
I don't begrudge the fact that some scientists making a lot of money. In fact, Last-12, I really hope the ones whose work might end up saving our butts are getting well paid. I want them to be well situated so they can keep at the hard work rather be distracted by how they are going to pay next months rent.
And not all are rich. A good friend of mine teaches complex science courses at a major college back east. He is brilliant, great at his job but is far from rich. I have a close relative who who is a world renowned tree geneticist. He lives in a suburban house and drives a Subaru and goes to the gym. Just a regular guy. Really, it's only the top people in these fields who are making the big bucks. We would be selling science short to assume it's all about money. I hear that a lot but I just don't see it.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
The earth has biofeedback mechanisms to deal with fluctuations in carbon dioxide. In a vacuum the amount of carbon dioxide would be a problem but fortunately we don't live in one. We would be far better off to focus our attention on clean air and drinking water instead of wasting our time trying to preventing the emission of something we exhale. Carbon dioxide emissions have only increased over the last twenty years and yet the level of warming has plateaued. This shows that CO2 might not be the devil we once thought it was. While me might contribute to the earth's temperature on some level it is clearly on such a negligible level to be of any concern. The earth's climate is largely impacted by changes in solar activity and that is something none of us can control. Get ready for the cooling by the way because solar activity such as sun spots and flares are at an all time low.
Ok I'll bite: what feedback mechanisms? There are significant feedbacks (biological and geological) but I'm curious how you figure that they're 'to deal with fluctuations in CO2'.
The warming plateau is real and has puzzled people for a while. This paper was published last week in Science (v. 347, p. 952). It's a pretty solid explanation, at least as I understand it. I've only snipped out the abstract (can't for the life of me figure out how to post the paper).
Atlantic and Pacific multidecadal oscillations and Northern Hemisphere temperatures
Byron A. Steinman, Michael E. Mann, Sonya K. Miller
"The recent slowdown in global warming has brought into question the reliability of climate model projections of future temperature change and has led to a vigorous debate over whether this slowdown is the result of naturally occurring, internal variability or forcing external to Earth’s climate system. To address these issues, we applied a semi-empirical approach that combines climate observations and model simulations to estimate Atlantic- and Pacific-based internal multidecadal variability (termed “AMO” and “PMO,” respectively). Using this method, the AMO and PMO are found to explain a large proportion of internal variability in Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures. Competition between a modest positive peak in the AMO and a substantially negative-trending PMO are seen to produce a slowdown or “false pause” in warming of the past decade."
Ah, it would seem so! Or is it that the money follows them? People who are the really good at what they do often tend to make a lot of money: Pearl Jam- good at what they do, well off. George Lucas- great film maker, not hurting for money. Alex Rodriguez- over paid? Perhaps. Good ball player? One of the best. brianlux- bookseller... well, ok, there's always an exception to the rule, hahaha!
I don't begrudge the fact that some scientists making a lot of money. In fact, Last-12, I really hope the ones whose work might end up saving our butts are getting well paid. I want them to be well situated so they can keep at the hard work rather be distracted by how they are going to pay next months rent.
And not all are rich. A good friend of mine teaches complex science courses at a major college back east. He is brilliant, great at his job but is far from rich. I have a close relative who who is a world renowned tree geneticist. He lives in a suburban house and drives a Subaru and goes to the gym. Just a regular guy. Really, it's only the top people in these fields who are making the big bucks. We would be selling science short to assume it's all about money. I hear that a lot but I just don't see it.
I left academia a little less than a year ago. There are a long list of reasons (like being unable to make quotes work?), but money (meaning my salary ) was definitely not one of them. I doubt you'll find too many people who get into science (or any other academic field) for the money. However for what it's worth, booksellers are really underpaid.
So we should not be surprised some will doubt mans affect on global climates even as they see glaciers receding at incredible rates in direct relationship to man made emissions or how the temperature of world spiked days after 9/11 due to plane contrails missing from skies.
And ADAM AND EVE populated the world. Okay. Riiiight.
And of course those in power laugh as they play up our emotional needs.
The earth has biofeedback mechanisms to deal with fluctuations in carbon dioxide. In a vacuum the amount of carbon dioxide would be a problem but fortunately we don't live in one. We would be far better off to focus our attention on clean air and drinking water instead of wasting our time trying to preventing the emission of something we exhale. Carbon dioxide emissions have only increased over the last twenty years and yet the level of warming has plateaued. This shows that CO2 might not be the devil we once thought it was. While me might contribute to the earth's temperature on some level it is clearly on such a negligible level to be of any concern. The earth's climate is largely impacted by changes in solar activity and that is something none of us can control. Get ready for the cooling by the way because solar activity such as sun spots and flares are at an all time low.
Ok I'll bite: what feedback mechanisms? There are significant feedbacks (biological and geological) but I'm curious how you figure that they're 'to deal with fluctuations in CO2'.
The warming plateau is real and has puzzled people for a while. This paper was published last week in Science (v. 347, p. 952). It's a pretty solid explanation, at least as I understand it. I've only snipped out the abstract (can't for the life of me figure out how to post the paper).
Atlantic and Pacific multidecadal oscillations and Northern Hemisphere temperatures
Byron A. Steinman, Michael E. Mann, Sonya K. Miller
"The recent slowdown in global warming has brought into question the reliability of climate model projections of future temperature change and has led to a vigorous debate over whether this slowdown is the result of naturally occurring, internal variability or forcing external to Earth’s climate system. To address these issues, we applied a semi-empirical approach that combines climate observations and model simulations to estimate Atlantic- and Pacific-based internal multidecadal variability (termed “AMO” and “PMO,” respectively). Using this method, the AMO and PMO are found to explain a large proportion of internal variability in Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures. Competition between a modest positive peak in the AMO and a substantially negative-trending PMO are seen to produce a slowdown or “false pause” in warming of the past decade."
I appreciate that you recognize the pause and I would love to read this paper if you have the link With any discussion of science one must go back to the source material. Is this study valid? Does it measure what it claims to measure? What variables are controlled for within the study? Is it a blind study? What are the statistical methods? Is the data available and/or can the results be reproduced? It could be an excellent study so I am interested to read it.
In terms of biofeedback mechanisms we know that both trees and the oceans can absorb carbon dioxide. To what extent can this be done? Carbon dioxide is not exactly a pollutant and the question is what load of carbon dioxide is the earth able to handle. What load is unacceptable?This has not been answered very well and it is where I diverge from the "believers". Does the earth have other mechanisms for heat escape? It certainly does but again the question is what amount of heat escape and it is it sufficient to account for carbon related warming?
My problem with current environmental science is that it fails to take into account so many confounding variables and is very dogmatic about what is and isn't happening when truthfully there is so much that we don't know. If you look at nutritional science just over the last year it shows how often science can be wrong about things and that is even a far easier field to study.
I'm not sure nutrition is an easier field of study than climate. Both fields are riddled with variables we can't control. There definitely has been some funny business in nutrition science...mostly a problem of neglect. Big Pharma has suppressed nutrition science in medical education for decades. The problem I have with the money argument in climate issues is that nobody has ever provided a plausible reason for creating a hoax.
Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,760
I left academia a little less than a year ago. There are a long list of reasons (like being unable to make quotes work?), but money (meaning my salary ) was definitely not one of them. I doubt you'll find too many people who get into science (or any other academic field) for the money. However for what it's worth, booksellers are really underpaid.
Thank you bytterman. Considering what my wife do, we are fortunate to be doing well enough. I hope you are doing well in whatever field you moved into.
No offense intended, BS, but what what Callen is saying points to the fact that this is what big money (especially big oil) is hoping to do- give people a sense that things are going to be just fine. We all want that, of course, but what many do not want to hear is this:
Climate Oscillations and the Global Warming Faux Pause No, climate change is not experiencing a hiatus. No, there is not currently a “pause” in global warming.
Despite widespread such claims in contrarian circles, human-caused warming of the globe proceeds unabated. Indeed, the most recent year (2014) was likely the warmest year on record.
It is true that Earth’s surface warmed a bit less than models predicted it to over the past decade-and-a-half or so. This doesn’t mean that the models are flawed. Instead, it points to a discrepancy that likely arose from a combination of three main factors (see the discussion my piece last year in Scientific American). These factors include the likely underestimation of the actual warming that has occurred, due to gaps in the observational data. Secondly, scientists have failed to include in model simulations some natural factors (low-level but persistent volcanic eruptions and a small dip in solar output) that had a slight cooling influence on Earth’s climate. Finally, there is the possibility that internal, natural oscillations in temperature may have masked some surface warming in recent decades, much as an outbreak of Arctic air can mask the seasonal warming of spring during a late season cold snap. One could call it a global warming “speed bump”. In fact, I have.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I'm not sure nutrition is an easier field of study than climate. Both fields are riddled with variables we can't control. There definitely has been some funny business in nutrition science...mostly a problem of neglect. Big Pharma has suppressed nutrition science in medical education for decades. The problem I have with the money argument in climate issues is that nobody has ever provided a plausible reason for creating a hoax.
I think nutritional variables are much easier to control then climate variables. That being said I am not calling this a "hoax". The data has evolved over the last 20 years. A reasonable person could have been very supportive of the theory in the early days yet evolve with the data. Science always evolves as we learn more about the things we don't know.
I left academia a little less than a year ago. There are a long list of reasons (like being unable to make quotes work?), but money (meaning my salary ) was definitely not one of them. I doubt you'll find too many people who get into science (or any other academic field) for the money. However for what it's worth, booksellers are really underpaid.
Thank you bytterman. Considering what my wife do, we are fortunate to be doing well enough. I hope you are doing well in whatever field you moved into.
No offense intended, BS, but what what Callen is saying points to the fact that this is what big money (especially big oil) is hoping to do- give people a sense that things are going to be just fine. We all want that, of course, but what many do not want to hear is this:
Climate Oscillations and the Global Warming Faux Pause No, climate change is not experiencing a hiatus. No, there is not currently a “pause” in global warming.
Despite widespread such claims in contrarian circles, human-caused warming of the globe proceeds unabated. Indeed, the most recent year (2014) was likely the warmest year on record.
It is true that Earth’s surface warmed a bit less than models predicted it to over the past decade-and-a-half or so. This doesn’t mean that the models are flawed. Instead, it points to a discrepancy that likely arose from a combination of three main factors (see the discussion my piece last year in Scientific American). These factors include the likely underestimation of the actual warming that has occurred, due to gaps in the observational data. Secondly, scientists have failed to include in model simulations some natural factors (low-level but persistent volcanic eruptions and a small dip in solar output) that had a slight cooling influence on Earth’s climate. Finally, there is the possibility that internal, natural oscillations in temperature may have masked some surface warming in recent decades, much as an outbreak of Arctic air can mask the seasonal warming of spring during a late season cold snap. One could call it a global warming “speed bump”. In fact, I have.
Trying to get at the source material but it's behind a paywall. Have you read the actual study? Can you post the transcript somehow? All I can get on methodology is this: "Steinman et al. combined observational data and a large collection of climate models to assess the Northern Hemisphere climate over the past 150 years"
Without the source material the link you post is meaningless.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,760
I left academia a little less than a year ago. There are a long list of reasons (like being unable to make quotes work?), but money (meaning my salary ) was definitely not one of them. I doubt you'll find too many people who get into science (or any other academic field) for the money. However for what it's worth, booksellers are really underpaid.
Thank you bytterman. Considering what my wife do, we are fortunate to be doing well enough. I hope you are doing well in whatever field you moved into.
No offense intended, BS, but what what Callen is saying points to the fact that this is what big money (especially big oil) is hoping to do- give people a sense that things are going to be just fine. We all want that, of course, but what many do not want to hear is this:
Climate Oscillations and the Global Warming Faux Pause No, climate change is not experiencing a hiatus. No, there is not currently a “pause” in global warming.
Despite widespread such claims in contrarian circles, human-caused warming of the globe proceeds unabated. Indeed, the most recent year (2014) was likely the warmest year on record.
It is true that Earth’s surface warmed a bit less than models predicted it to over the past decade-and-a-half or so. This doesn’t mean that the models are flawed. Instead, it points to a discrepancy that likely arose from a combination of three main factors (see the discussion my piece last year in Scientific American). These factors include the likely underestimation of the actual warming that has occurred, due to gaps in the observational data. Secondly, scientists have failed to include in model simulations some natural factors (low-level but persistent volcanic eruptions and a small dip in solar output) that had a slight cooling influence on Earth’s climate. Finally, there is the possibility that internal, natural oscillations in temperature may have masked some surface warming in recent decades, much as an outbreak of Arctic air can mask the seasonal warming of spring during a late season cold snap. One could call it a global warming “speed bump”. In fact, I have.
Trying to get at the source material but it's behind a paywall. Have you read the actual study? Can you post the transcript somehow? All I can get on methodology is this: "Steinman et al. combined observational data and a large collection of climate models to assess the Northern Hemisphere climate over the past 150 years"
Without the source material the link you post is meaningless.
Earth Will Cross the Climate Danger Threshold by 2036 The rate of global temperature rise mayhave hit a plateau, but a climate crisis still looms in the near future Mar 18, 2014 |By Michael E. Mann
“Temperatures have been flat for 15 years—nobody can properly explain it,” the Wall Street Journal says. “Global warming ‘pause’ may last for 20 more years, and Arctic sea ice has already started to recover,” the Daily Mail says. Such reassuring claims about climate abound in the popular media, but they are misleading at best. Global warming continues unabated, and it remains an urgent problem.
The misunderstanding stems from data showing that during the past decade there was a slowing in the rate at which the earth's average surface temperature had been increasing. The event is commonly referred to as “the pause,” but that is a misnomer: temperatures still rose, just not as fast as during the prior decade. The important question is, What does the short-term slowdown portend for how the world may warm in the future?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is charged with answering such questions. In response to the data, the IPCC in its September 2013 report lowered one aspect of its prediction for future warming. Its forecasts, released every five to seven years, drive climate policy worldwide, so even the small change raised debate over how fast the planet is warming and how much time we have to stop it. The IPCC has not yet weighed in on the impacts of the warming or how to mitigate it, which it will do in reports that were due this March and April. Yet I have done some calculations that I think can answer those questions now: If the world keeps burning fossil fuels at the current rate, it will cross a threshold into environmental ruin by 2036. The “faux pause” could buy the planet a few extra years beyond that date to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid the crossover—but only a few.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,760
cont...
A Sensitive Debate The dramatic nature of global warming captured world attention in 2001, when the IPCC published a graph that my co-authors and I devised, which became known as the “hockey stick.” The shaft of the stick, horizontal and sloping gently downward from left to right, indicated only modest changes in Northern Hemisphere temperature for almost 1,000 years—as far back as our data went. The upturned blade of the stick, at the right, indicated an abrupt and unprecedented rise since the mid-1800s. The graph became a lightning rod in the climate change debate, and I, as a result, reluctantly became a public figure. In its September 2013 report, the IPCC extended the stick back in time, concluding that the recent warming was likely unprecedented for at least 1,400 years.
Although the earth has experienced exceptional warming over the past century, to estimate how much more will occur we need to know how temperature will respond to the ongoing human-caused rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide. Scientists call this responsiveness “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS). ECS is a common measure of the heating effect of greenhouse gases. It represents the warming at the earth's surface that is expected after the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere doubles and the climate subsequently stabilizes (reaches equilibrium).
The preindustrial level of CO2 was about 280 parts per million (ppm), so double is roughly 560 ppm. Scientists expect this doubling to occur later this century if nations continue to burn fossil fuels as they do now—the “business as usual” scenario—instead of curtailing fossil-fuel use. The more sensitive the atmosphere is to a rise in CO2, the higher the ECS, and the faster the temperature will rise. ECS is shorthand for the amount of warming expected, given a particular fossil-fuel emissions scenario.
It is difficult to determine an exact value of ECS because warming is affected by feedback mechanisms, including clouds, ice and other factors. Different modeling groups come to different conclusions on what the precise effects of these feedbacks may be. Clouds could be the most significant. They can have both a cooling effect, by blocking out incoming sunlight, and a warming effect, by absorbing some of the heat energy that the earth sends out toward space. Which of these effects dominates depends on the type, distribution and altitude of the clouds—difficult for climate models to predict. Other feedback factors relate to how much water vapor there will be in a warmer atmosphere and how fast sea ice and continental ice sheets will melt.
Because the nature of these feedback factors is uncertain, the IPCC provides a range for ECS, rather than a single number. In the September report—the IPCC's fifth major assessment—the panel settled on a range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius (roughly three to eight degrees Fahrenheit). The IPCC had lowered the bottom end of the range, down from the two degrees C it had set in its Fourth Assessment Report, issued in 2007. The IPCC based the lowered bound on one narrow line of evidence: the slowing of surface warming during the past decade—yes, the faux pause.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,760
more...
Many climate scientists—myself included—think that a single decade is too brief to accurately measure global warming and that the IPCC was unduly influenced by this one, short-term number. Furthermore, other explanations for the speed bump do not contradict the preponderance of evidence that suggests that temperatures will continue to rise. For example, the accumulated effect of volcanic eruptions during the past decade, including the Icelandic volcano with the impossible name, Eyjafjallajökull, may have had a greater cooling effect on the earth's surface than has been accounted for in most climate model simulations. There was also a slight but measurable decrease in the sun's output that was not taken into account in the IPCC's simulations.
Natural variability in the amount of heat the oceans absorb may have played a role. In the latter half of the decade, La Niña conditions persisted in the eastern and central tropical Pacific, keeping global surface temperatures about 0.1 degree C colder than average—a small effect compared with long-term global warming but a substantial one over a decade. Finally, one recent study suggests that incomplete sampling of Arctic temperatures led to underestimation of how much the globe actually warmed.
None of these plausible explanations would imply that climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases. Other measurements also do not support the IPCC's revised lower bound of 1.5 degrees C. When all the forms of evidence are combined, they point to a most likely value for ECS that is close to three degrees C. And as it turns out, the climate models the IPCC actually used in its Fifth Assessment Report imply an even higher value of 3.2 degrees C. The IPCC's lower bound for ECS, in other words, probably does not have much significance for future world climate—and neither does the faux pause.
For argument's sake, however, let us take the pause at face value. What would it mean if the actual ECS were half a degree lower than previously thought? Would it change the risks presented by business-as-usual fossil-fuel burning? How quickly would the earth cross the critical threshold?
Predicting the FutureA Date with Destiny: 2036 Most scientists concur that two degrees C of warming above the temperature during preindustrial time would harm all sectors of civilization—food, water, health, land, national security, energy and economic prosperity. ECS is a guide to when that will happen if we continue emitting CO2 at our business-as-usual pace.
I recently calculated hypothetical future temperatures by plugging different ECS values into a so-called energy balance model, which scientists use to investigate possible climate scenarios. The computer model determines how the average surface temperature responds to changing natural factors, such as volcanoes and the sun, and human factors—greenhouse gases, aerosol pollutants, and so on. (Although climate models have critics, they reflect our best ability to describe how the climate system works, based on physics, chemistry and biology. And they have a proved track record: for example, the actual warming in recent years was accurately predicted by the models decades ago.)
I then instructed the model to project forward under the assumption of business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions. I ran the model again and again, for ECS values ranging from the IPCC's lower bound (1.5 degrees C) to its upper bound (4.5 degrees C). The curves for an ECS of 2.5 degrees and three degrees C fit the instrument readings most closely. The curves for a substantially lower (1.5 degrees C) and higher (4.5 degrees C) ECS did not fit the recent instrumental record at all, reinforcing the notion that they are not realistic.
To my wonder, I found that for an ECS of three degrees C, our planet would cross the dangerous warming threshold of two degrees C in 2036, only 22 years from now. When I considered the lower ECS value of 2.5 degrees C, the world would cross the threshold in 2046, just 10 years later [see graph on pages 78 and 79].
So even if we accept a lower ECS value, it hardly signals the end of global warming or even a pause. Instead it simply buys us a little bit of time—potentially valuable time—to prevent our planet from crossing the threshold.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,760
and...
Cautious Optimism These findings have implications for what we all must do to prevent disaster. An ECS of three degrees C means that if we are to limit global warming to below two degrees C forever, we need to keep CO2 concentrations far below twice preindustrial levels, closer to 450 ppm. Ironically, if the world burns significantly less coal, that would lessen CO2 emissions but also reduce aerosols in the atmosphere that block the sun (such as sulfate particulates), so we would have to limit CO2 to below roughly 405 ppm.
We are well on our way to surpassing these limits. In 2013 atmospheric CO2 briefly reached 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history—and perhaps for the first time in millions of years, according to geologic evidence. To avoid breaching the 405-ppm threshold, fossil-fuel burning would essentially have to cease immediately. To avoid the 450-ppm threshold, global carbon emissions could rise only for a few more years and then would have to ramp down by several percent a year. That is a tall task. If the ECS is indeed 2.5 degrees C, it will make that goal a bit easier.
Even so, there is considerable reason for concern. The conclusion that limiting CO2 below 450 ppm will prevent warming beyond two degrees C is based on a conservative definition of climate sensitivity that considers only the so-called fast feedbacks in the climate system, such as changes in clouds, water vapor and melting sea ice. Some climate scientists, including James E. Hansen, former head of the nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies, say we must also consider slower feedbacks such as changes in the continental ice sheets. When these are taken into account, Hansen and others maintain, we need to get back down to the lower level of CO2 that existed during the mid-20th century—about 350 ppm. That would require widespread deployment of expensive “air capture” technology that actively removes CO2 from the atmosphere.
Furthermore, the notion that two degrees C of warming is a “safe” limit is subjective. It is based on when most of the globe will be exposed to potentially irreversible climate changes. Yet destructive change has already arrived in some regions. In the Arctic, loss of sea ice and thawing permafrost are wreaking havoc on indigenous peoples and ecosystems. In low-lying island nations, land and freshwater are disappearing because of rising sea levels and erosion. For these regions, current warming, and the further warming (at least 0.5 degree C) guaranteed by CO2 already emitted, constitutes damaging climate change today.
Let us hope that a lower climate sensitivity of 2.5 degrees C turns out to be correct. If so, it offers cautious optimism. It provides encouragement that we can avert irreparable harm to our planet. That is, if—and only if—we accept the urgency of making a transition away from our reliance on fossil fuels for energy.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
None of that is a scientific study. That is just a scientist discussing an educated opinion. It is not worthless but it is only commentary. I was referring to the published journal article that the Climate Oscillations and the Global Warming Faux Pause piece was based on.
I'm not sure nutrition is an easier field of study than climate. Both fields are riddled with variables we can't control. There definitely has been some funny business in nutrition science...mostly a problem of neglect. Big Pharma has suppressed nutrition science in medical education for decades. The problem I have with the money argument in climate issues is that nobody has ever provided a plausible reason for creating a hoax.
Rgambs, what do you mean by your statement "Big pharma has suppressed nutritional science in medical education for decades"? Are you referring to medical school curricula, continuing medical education, or something else? Because there are many factors influencing the development of curricula for medical schools, but Big Pharma isn't one of them (at least, not in recent decades- I can't speak for many decades ago). You are correct that nutrition hasn't been given the attention it deserves but then again that applies to many other areas - there has been and continues to be an explosion in medical knowledge but no increase in the length of time of a typical medical school program (4 years). As well, there is of course a strong push to increase the amount of time spent in direct clinical contact even in the earliest weeks and months, not just in the later years. The current rules around pharmaceutical company involvement in formal medical education are very strict (appropriately so), with little to no contact allowed with drug reps, and drug companies are not involved in the development of teaching material.
If I've misunderstood your point, let me know, but otherwise I have to say that this is one area you can't blame Big Pharma for.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I knew you were an academic oftenreading......just too damn well written not to be. Glad to have your well written and well thought responses here on this thread.
I knew you were an academic oftenreading......just too damn well written not to be. Glad to have your well written and well thought responses here on this thread.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I'm not sure nutrition is an easier field of study than climate. Both fields are riddled with variables we can't control. There definitely has been some funny business in nutrition science...mostly a problem of neglect. Big Pharma has suppressed nutrition science in medical education for decades. The problem I have with the money argument in climate issues is that nobody has ever provided a plausible reason for creating a hoax.
Rgambs, what do you mean by your statement "Big pharma has suppressed nutritional science in medical education for decades"? Are you referring to medical school curricula, continuing medical education, or something else? Because there are many factors influencing the development of curricula for medical schools, but Big Pharma isn't one of them (at least, not in recent decades- I can't speak for many decades ago). You are correct that nutrition hasn't been given the attention it deserves but then again that applies to many other areas - there has been and continues to be an explosion in medical knowledge but no increase in the length of time of a typical medical school program (4 years). As well, there is of course a strong push to increase the amount of time spent in direct clinical contact even in the earliest weeks and months, not just in the later years. The current rules around pharmaceutical company involvement in formal medical education are very strict (appropriately so), with little to no contact allowed with drug reps, and drug companies are not involved in the development of teaching material.
If I've misunderstood your point, let me know, but otherwise I have to say that this is one area you can't blame Big Pharma for.
On paper eveverything you say is true, but I was there at my wife's side as she went through Optometry school and I worked in a major hospital as a trusted surgical assistant and I can tell you flat out, the industries that profit from healthcare dictate the standards of care in a number of ways. Two good examples are the twisted relationship between Luxotica and EyeMed in Optometry and the meteoric rise of ChloraPrep in surgery.
Big Pharm absolutely has it's hands in the medical school curriculum and continuing education. There is no doubt. Do you think the endowments and donations are done for pure charity? It's the exact game that lobbyists and politicians play in Washington.
Big Pharm absolutely has it's hands in the medical school curriculum and continuing education. There is no doubt. Do you think the endowments and donations are done for pure charity? It's the exact game that lobbyists and politicians play in Washington.
That's pretty much been my point throughout this thread.
Comments
The last part about the Sun is typical Heritage Foundation sort of stuff. Misinformation based on pseudo-scientific baloney.
Solar flares don't have any known effect on Earth's surface temp.
Solar cycle 24 is the weakest we have seen in 100 years, but solar cyscle 23 was quite weak as well. We have a decade of weak activity aalready with no cooling. That isn't entirely definitive but it is more solid than the talk radio assertions of cool days ahead.
After the burnout we (if we are still around) and the earth are no longer. The sun is but a star burning fuel and the tank will run dry.
The human impact on earth can either make it a human assisted suicide or a full blown going down in a blaze of glory.
edit - billion
1) The use of the phrase "climate change does not exist" - it's a red herring. I believe climate change exists. It is always changing. The question is what is man's contribution on the scale of things. Science has done a very poor job of answering that to date as it is unable to control for the multitude of variables that come into play. Good science requires randomized controlled trials and in environmental science this scenerio is very difficult to create. This type of thinking would cause me to fall under the "denier" category even though I am approaching the issue from a scientific perspective.
2) "Genetically modified food is evil" - I do not believe it is evil yet many environmentalists and global warming "believers" do think it is evil and would take issue for being told otherwise.
Here are links to those site. Most of the articles require a fair amount of time to read and digest. These are not major media style brief synopses of what something thinks of what somebody said about the issue. It's the real deal:
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://climate.nasa.gov/
http://www.climatecentral.org/what-we-do
Pearl Jam- good at what they do, well off.
George Lucas- great film maker, not hurting for money.
Alex Rodriguez- over paid? Perhaps. Good ball player? One of the best.
brianlux- bookseller... well, ok, there's always an exception to the rule, hahaha!
I don't begrudge the fact that some scientists making a lot of money. In fact, Last-12, I really hope the ones whose work might end up saving our butts are getting well paid. I want them to be well situated so they can keep at the hard work rather be distracted by how they are going to pay next months rent.
And not all are rich. A good friend of mine teaches complex science courses at a major college back east. He is brilliant, great at his job but is far from rich. I have a close relative who who is a world renowned tree geneticist. He lives in a suburban house and drives a Subaru and goes to the gym. Just a regular guy. Really, it's only the top people in these fields who are making the big bucks. We would be selling science short to assume it's all about money. I hear that a lot but I just don't see it.
The warming plateau is real and has puzzled people for a while. This paper was published last week in Science (v. 347, p. 952). It's a pretty solid explanation, at least as I understand it. I've only snipped out the abstract (can't for the life of me figure out how to post the paper).
Atlantic and Pacific multidecadal oscillations and Northern Hemisphere temperatures
Byron A. Steinman, Michael E. Mann, Sonya K. Miller
"The recent slowdown in global warming has brought into question the reliability of climate model projections of future temperature change and has led to a vigorous debate over whether this slowdown is the result of naturally occurring, internal variability or forcing external to Earth’s climate system. To address these issues, we applied a semi-empirical approach that combines climate observations and model simulations to estimate Atlantic- and Pacific-based internal multidecadal variability (termed “AMO” and “PMO,” respectively). Using this method, the AMO and PMO are found to explain a large proportion of internal variability in Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures. Competition between a modest positive peak in the AMO and a substantially negative-trending PMO are seen to produce a slowdown or “false pause” in warming of the past decade."
Climate change, religion, identities(race,creed) nationalism(patriotism).
So we should not be surprised some will doubt mans affect on global climates even as they see glaciers receding at incredible rates in direct relationship to man made emissions or how the temperature of world spiked days after 9/11 due to plane contrails missing from skies.
And ADAM AND EVE populated the world. Okay. Riiiight.
And of course those in power laugh as they play up our emotional needs.
USA USA USA USA.
In terms of biofeedback mechanisms we know that both trees and the oceans can absorb carbon dioxide. To what extent can this be done? Carbon dioxide is not exactly a pollutant and the question is what load of carbon dioxide is the earth able to handle. What load is unacceptable?This has not been answered very well and it is where I diverge from the "believers". Does the earth have other mechanisms for heat escape? It certainly does but again the question is what amount of heat escape and it is it sufficient to account for carbon related warming?
My problem with current environmental science is that it fails to take into account so many confounding variables and is very dogmatic about what is and isn't happening when truthfully there is so much that we don't know. If you look at nutritional science just over the last year it shows how often science can be wrong about things and that is even a far easier field to study.
The problem I have with the money argument in climate issues is that nobody has ever provided a plausible reason for creating a hoax.
http://www.realclimate.org/ (more at this link- it gets more technical but worth the read)
Climate Oscillations and the Global Warming Faux Pause
No, climate change is not experiencing a hiatus. No, there is not currently a “pause” in global warming.
Despite widespread such claims in contrarian circles, human-caused warming of the globe proceeds unabated. Indeed, the most recent year (2014) was likely the warmest year on record.
It is true that Earth’s surface warmed a bit less than models predicted it to over the past decade-and-a-half or so. This doesn’t mean that the models are flawed. Instead, it points to a discrepancy that likely arose from a combination of three main factors (see the discussion my piece last year in Scientific American). These factors include the likely underestimation of the actual warming that has occurred, due to gaps in the observational data. Secondly, scientists have failed to include in model simulations some natural factors (low-level but persistent volcanic eruptions and a small dip in solar output) that had a slight cooling influence on Earth’s climate. Finally, there is the possibility that internal, natural oscillations in temperature may have masked some surface warming in recent decades, much as an outbreak of Arctic air can mask the seasonal warming of spring during a late season cold snap. One could call it a global warming “speed bump”. In fact, I have.
"Steinman et al. combined observational data and a large collection of climate models to assess the Northern Hemisphere climate over the past 150 years"
Without the source material the link you post is meaningless.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/
Earth Will Cross the Climate Danger Threshold by 2036
The rate of global temperature rise mayhave hit a plateau, but a climate crisis still looms in the near future
Mar 18, 2014 |By Michael E. Mann
“Temperatures have been flat for 15 years—nobody can properly explain it,” the Wall Street Journal says. “Global warming ‘pause’ may last for 20 more years, and Arctic sea ice has already started to recover,” the Daily Mail says. Such reassuring claims about climate abound in the popular media, but they are misleading at best. Global warming continues unabated, and it remains an urgent problem.
The misunderstanding stems from data showing that during the past decade there was a slowing in the rate at which the earth's average surface temperature had been increasing. The event is commonly referred to as “the pause,” but that is a misnomer: temperatures still rose, just not as fast as during the prior decade. The important question is, What does the short-term slowdown portend for how the world may warm in the future?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is charged with answering such questions. In response to the data, the IPCC in its September 2013 report lowered one aspect of its prediction for future warming. Its forecasts, released every five to seven years, drive climate policy worldwide, so even the small change raised debate over how fast the planet is warming and how much time we have to stop it. The IPCC has not yet weighed in on the impacts of the warming or how to mitigate it, which it will do in reports that were due this March and April. Yet I have done some calculations that I think can answer those questions now: If the world keeps burning fossil fuels at the current rate, it will cross a threshold into environmental ruin by 2036. The “faux pause” could buy the planet a few extra years beyond that date to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid the crossover—but only a few.
A Sensitive Debate
The dramatic nature of global warming captured world attention in 2001, when the IPCC published a graph that my co-authors and I devised, which became known as the “hockey stick.” The shaft of the stick, horizontal and sloping gently downward from left to right, indicated only modest changes in Northern Hemisphere temperature for almost 1,000 years—as far back as our data went. The upturned blade of the stick, at the right, indicated an abrupt and unprecedented rise since the mid-1800s. The graph became a lightning rod in the climate change debate, and I, as a result, reluctantly became a public figure. In its September 2013 report, the IPCC extended the stick back in time, concluding that the recent warming was likely unprecedented for at least 1,400 years.
Although the earth has experienced exceptional warming over the past century, to estimate how much more will occur we need to know how temperature will respond to the ongoing human-caused rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide. Scientists call this responsiveness “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS). ECS is a common measure of the heating effect of greenhouse gases. It represents the warming at the earth's surface that is expected after the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere doubles and the climate subsequently stabilizes (reaches equilibrium).
The preindustrial level of CO2 was about 280 parts per million (ppm), so double is roughly 560 ppm. Scientists expect this doubling to occur later this century if nations continue to burn fossil fuels as they do now—the “business as usual” scenario—instead of curtailing fossil-fuel use. The more sensitive the atmosphere is to a rise in CO2, the higher the ECS, and the faster the temperature will rise. ECS is shorthand for the amount of warming expected, given a particular fossil-fuel emissions scenario.
It is difficult to determine an exact value of ECS because warming is affected by feedback mechanisms, including clouds, ice and other factors. Different modeling groups come to different conclusions on what the precise effects of these feedbacks may be. Clouds could be the most significant. They can have both a cooling effect, by blocking out incoming sunlight, and a warming effect, by absorbing some of the heat energy that the earth sends out toward space. Which of these effects dominates depends on the type, distribution and altitude of the clouds—difficult for climate models to predict. Other feedback factors relate to how much water vapor there will be in a warmer atmosphere and how fast sea ice and continental ice sheets will melt.
Because the nature of these feedback factors is uncertain, the IPCC provides a range for ECS, rather than a single number. In the September report—the IPCC's fifth major assessment—the panel settled on a range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius (roughly three to eight degrees Fahrenheit). The IPCC had lowered the bottom end of the range, down from the two degrees C it had set in its Fourth Assessment Report, issued in 2007. The IPCC based the lowered bound on one narrow line of evidence: the slowing of surface warming during the past decade—yes, the faux pause.
Many climate scientists—myself included—think that a single decade is too brief to accurately measure global warming and that the IPCC was unduly influenced by this one, short-term number. Furthermore, other explanations for the speed bump do not contradict the preponderance of evidence that suggests that temperatures will continue to rise. For example, the accumulated effect of volcanic eruptions during the past decade, including the Icelandic volcano with the impossible name, Eyjafjallajökull, may have had a greater cooling effect on the earth's surface than has been accounted for in most climate model simulations. There was also a slight but measurable decrease in the sun's output that was not taken into account in the IPCC's simulations.
Natural variability in the amount of heat the oceans absorb may have played a role. In the latter half of the decade, La Niña conditions persisted in the eastern and central tropical Pacific, keeping global surface temperatures about 0.1 degree C colder than average—a small effect compared with long-term global warming but a substantial one over a decade. Finally, one recent study suggests that incomplete sampling of Arctic temperatures led to underestimation of how much the globe actually warmed.
None of these plausible explanations would imply that climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases. Other measurements also do not support the IPCC's revised lower bound of 1.5 degrees C. When all the forms of evidence are combined, they point to a most likely value for ECS that is close to three degrees C. And as it turns out, the climate models the IPCC actually used in its Fifth Assessment Report imply an even higher value of 3.2 degrees C. The IPCC's lower bound for ECS, in other words, probably does not have much significance for future world climate—and neither does the faux pause.
For argument's sake, however, let us take the pause at face value. What would it mean if the actual ECS were half a degree lower than previously thought? Would it change the risks presented by business-as-usual fossil-fuel burning? How quickly would the earth cross the critical threshold?
Predicting the FutureA Date with Destiny: 2036
Most scientists concur that two degrees C of warming above the temperature during preindustrial time would harm all sectors of civilization—food, water, health, land, national security, energy and economic prosperity. ECS is a guide to when that will happen if we continue emitting CO2 at our business-as-usual pace.
I recently calculated hypothetical future temperatures by plugging different ECS values into a so-called energy balance model, which scientists use to investigate possible climate scenarios. The computer model determines how the average surface temperature responds to changing natural factors, such as volcanoes and the sun, and human factors—greenhouse gases, aerosol pollutants, and so on. (Although climate models have critics, they reflect our best ability to describe how the climate system works, based on physics, chemistry and biology. And they have a proved track record: for example, the actual warming in recent years was accurately predicted by the models decades ago.)
I then instructed the model to project forward under the assumption of business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions. I ran the model again and again, for ECS values ranging from the IPCC's lower bound (1.5 degrees C) to its upper bound (4.5 degrees C). The curves for an ECS of 2.5 degrees and three degrees C fit the instrument readings most closely. The curves for a substantially lower (1.5 degrees C) and higher (4.5 degrees C) ECS did not fit the recent instrumental record at all, reinforcing the notion that they are not realistic.
To my wonder, I found that for an ECS of three degrees C, our planet would cross the dangerous warming threshold of two degrees C in 2036, only 22 years from now. When I considered the lower ECS value of 2.5 degrees C, the world would cross the threshold in 2046, just 10 years later [see graph on pages 78 and 79].
So even if we accept a lower ECS value, it hardly signals the end of global warming or even a pause. Instead it simply buys us a little bit of time—potentially valuable time—to prevent our planet from crossing the threshold.
Cautious Optimism
These findings have implications for what we all must do to prevent disaster. An ECS of three degrees C means that if we are to limit global warming to below two degrees C forever, we need to keep CO2 concentrations far below twice preindustrial levels, closer to 450 ppm. Ironically, if the world burns significantly less coal, that would lessen CO2 emissions but also reduce aerosols in the atmosphere that block the sun (such as sulfate particulates), so we would have to limit CO2 to below roughly 405 ppm.
We are well on our way to surpassing these limits. In 2013 atmospheric CO2 briefly reached 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history—and perhaps for the first time in millions of years, according to geologic evidence. To avoid breaching the 405-ppm threshold, fossil-fuel burning would essentially have to cease immediately. To avoid the 450-ppm threshold, global carbon emissions could rise only for a few more years and then would have to ramp down by several percent a year. That is a tall task. If the ECS is indeed 2.5 degrees C, it will make that goal a bit easier.
Even so, there is considerable reason for concern. The conclusion that limiting CO2 below 450 ppm will prevent warming beyond two degrees C is based on a conservative definition of climate sensitivity that considers only the so-called fast feedbacks in the climate system, such as changes in clouds, water vapor and melting sea ice. Some climate scientists, including James E. Hansen, former head of the nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies, say we must also consider slower feedbacks such as changes in the continental ice sheets. When these are taken into account, Hansen and others maintain, we need to get back down to the lower level of CO2 that existed during the mid-20th century—about 350 ppm. That would require widespread deployment of expensive “air capture” technology that actively removes CO2 from the atmosphere.
Furthermore, the notion that two degrees C of warming is a “safe” limit is subjective. It is based on when most of the globe will be exposed to potentially irreversible climate changes. Yet destructive change has already arrived in some regions. In the Arctic, loss of sea ice and thawing permafrost are wreaking havoc on indigenous peoples and ecosystems. In low-lying island nations, land and freshwater are disappearing because of rising sea levels and erosion. For these regions, current warming, and the further warming (at least 0.5 degree C) guaranteed by CO2 already emitted, constitutes damaging climate change today.
Let us hope that a lower climate sensitivity of 2.5 degrees C turns out to be correct. If so, it offers cautious optimism. It provides encouragement that we can avert irreparable harm to our planet. That is, if—and only if—we accept the urgency of making a transition away from our reliance on fossil fuels for energy.
If I've misunderstood your point, let me know, but otherwise I have to say that this is one area you can't blame Big Pharma for.
Two good examples are the twisted relationship between Luxotica and EyeMed in Optometry and the meteoric rise of ChloraPrep in surgery.