The guys at Real Climate have posted a piece outlining their frustration with the media giving ‘global warming skeptics’ a hearing:
We here at RC continue to be disappointed with the tendency for some journalistic outlets to favor so-called “balance” over accuracy in their treatment of politically-controversial scientific issues such as global climate change. While giving equal coverage to two opposing sides may seem appropriate in political discourse, it is manifestly inappropriate in discussions of science, where objective truths exist. In the case of climate change, a clear consensus exists among mainstream researchers that human influences on climate are already detectable, and that potentially far more substantial changes are likely to take place in the future if we continue to burn fossil fuels at current rates. There are only a handful of “contrarian” climate scientists who continue to dispute that consensus. (end of quote)
I am continually amazed when so called scientists (i.e. the guys who run RC) slip from appealing to an ‘objective truth’ to claiming ‘objective truth’ on the basis of ‘a clear consensus.’
To quote the wonderful maverick contrarian Prof Bob Carter:
To the extent that it is possible for any human endeavour to be so, science is value-free. Science is a way of attempting to understand the world in which we live from a rational point of view, based on observation, experiment and tested theory. Irritatingly, especially for governments, science does not operate by consensus and it is often best progressed by mavericks. (end of quote)
I think history is on Bob’s side – that is historically the best science has been done by mavericks who are often contrarians?
I will provide a recent example from Crikey published on 5 October 2005 and titled ‘How the medical establishment snubbed Australia’s Nobel Prize winners’:
A medical industry insider writes:
As the media, politicians and the Australian medical research sector rush to congratulate our newest Nobel laureates – and to bask in their reflected glory – it is worth reflecting on the truth of the long and, at times, lonely journey Barry Marshall and Robin Warren have taken to reach this point.
Rather than welcoming and supporting the work of “local heroes,” many Australian gastroenterologists were highly critical and disbelieving of Marshall and Warren’s (ultimately) Nobel Prize-winning work, and continued for many years to stubbornly deny that Helicobacter pylori had much, or indeed any, role in the pathogenesis of ulcer disease.
Barry Marshall was made to feel quite uncomfortable when he attended specialist conferences – he was regarded by many as a maverick and even a loony, especially when the story of his drinking “swampwater” in order to infect himself got around. Worse still, this lack of acceptance was often blamed on Marshall’s personality (he has been described as “brash”) or justified as a response to him apparently seeking publicity and glory. It certainly didn’t help that he was not a gastroenterologist by training.
Given Marshall and Warren’s pioneering work, Australia should have been the first place in the western world to accept the full H. pylori story. But, shamefully, it was not. Although a Working Party reported to the 1990 World Congress of Gastroenterology (which incidentally was held in Sydney) that H. pylori was definitely an important cause of ulcer disease, many prominent leaders of the gastroenterology specialty in Australia continued to deny its importance, or to claim that it was a cause of only a small minority of cases of ulcer disease, well into the mid-1990s. As examples:
* In 1991, Parke Davis got scant support from local “opinion leaders” when it brought an international speaker (and member of the Working Party) to Australia to discuss H. pylori eradication as an approach to treating ulcer disease.
*In a drug company-sponsored 4-page educational publication for GPs published in Australia in 1992, only the last two paragraphs mention H. pylori, and only in the context of how this company’s anti-acid drug might one day have a role – in combination with antibiotics – in eradicating the bacterium. It was only 4-5 years later, when such combinations were shown to be effective in eradication, that education and promotion to GPs about the role of H. pylori in ulcer disease really started to pick up momentum.Marshall’s work was much more readily accepted internationally than locally, and so he spent what may perhaps have been his most productive years as a researcher overseas. Medical journalist Melissa Sweet gave some of the back-story in this article in the SMH in 1997.
…………….
And there is ‘food for thought’ in this comment posted by ‘detribe’ on 23rd September at my piece titled Now Scientific Basis for Climate Change:
Phil,
I like your response a few posts back to my remarks. It’s how we treat our contrarians that tells us whether we are living in a truely civil society, for the contrarians (Michael is one) are very valuable to us, because they point to the places where ‘conventional wisdom’ may be getting it wrong.
My favorite book at the moment is Christopher Hitchens’ letters to a young contrarian, which I have on my desk as I type this. Whatever you think about Hitchens’ opinions, his English style is great, and youve gotta admire someone who is willing to call Mother Theresa a fraud in print.
And as you know, AGW is the Green version of Mother Theresa.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I might add that my recently decent father, a surgeon and physician, stumbled on a blood susbsitute.
It, however, was not as plentiful as air.
Decedent, though I am informed, still decent.
Jen,
How about a post on science and the media?
I think what the RC scientists are objecting to is the fact that they need to be media savvy, not just scientists, if they expect to have their opinions gain traction. They object to having to do that. Though in my mind, that is to deny the reality of 21st century society.
Despite their whinging, the RC scientists know this as well. I mean, they did set up a weblog?
Re science being advanced more by maverick contrarians than conservative students of the conventional.
I don’t subscribe to this view.
Without doubt, it is the mavericks, romantics and contrarians who set alight people’s imaginations, make a lot of noise, and gain the scrutiny of the media and the trendies, but I’ll think you would find that for every media tart contrarian (nobel prize winning or not) there are thousands and thousands of hardworking, brilliant, quiet, unsung overachievers who have furthered our society without their names become part of everyday conversation.
Its easy to be well known if you forget about what is right and wrong, and simply say what you think people want to hear.
Noun: maverick
1. Someone who exhibits great independence in thought and action
2. An unbranded range animal (especially a stray calf); belongs to the first person who puts a brand on it
Jennifer – what they are trying to say is what I heard David Suzuki say is that the ‘balance’ that the media try to give, gives the mistaken impression that the climate scientists are in doubt about global warming.
By giving 50:50 time to skeptics it leaves the uninformed public the view that 50% of climate scientists disagree or are in doubt. The true fact is that 99% of climate scientists understand AGW and agree on the consensus view.
To give a proper impression of the actual debate only one or 2 stories from 100 should mention skeptics.
Real Climate was set up to counter the media skeptic wedge campaign. As most climate skeptics (with a few notable exceptions) seem unable to write papers that are of acceptable scientific quality to be published, they have to resort to the media. As the media can convince people it is cool to smoke or to drive fast cars really fast despite the scientific facts of both these activities, then it is small wonder why the skeptic media campaign has been so effective.
If you read this facinating history of the discovery of AGW
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
you can see that a small handful of scientists, through the scientific community, managed to convince a skeptical audience that the Enhanced Greenhouse effect was real and could have far reaching effects. This is what the skeptics need to do – if their case is scientifically sound then it will be heard.
Politics Religion and Science.
Two require faith and a faithful following where real science needs real non believers with reason.
Unfortunatety for a majority in media, the word and not true observation and reason on the observation is the story.
Politics is all about protecting nothing more than arse, and therefore the only truth is what the punter believes or is led to believe.
Good post Jen, it’s worth coming for a visit.
Agree with Ender totally.
Jen it would be good to view the noble maverick struggling against the status quo – but I find very troublesome the way most sceptics go about their promotions – heavily scornful and political.
The Heliobacter pylori guys just got stuck into it – no screaming at the moon in the national press.
And as much as everyone groans when I mention RC – forget the argument for a while and look at the style – in the main (they’re not perfect either) they have well thought out explanation pieces, well referenced with graphics, dissent is entertained and sometimes rebutted or let go through to the keeper.
It definitely is not hysterical and not shrill.
Most of Bob carter’s pieces seem scornful and quasi-political to me. He should state his case scientifically and politely put where the pro case is incorrect.
The most important thing is for the anti case to put up a cogent explanation of the warming patterns we are seeing.
Just saying “oh well it’s done it before” is hardly a causal mechanism.
“It’s just warming up since the last ice age ” – WHY !!!! How’s this happening??
Some of the things the world’s climate “has done before” were without 6 billion humans, finely balanced stock markets, with 30 days food supply living daily with climate risks.
And if it’s so far back that the darn land masses were locked together in Pangea, Laurasia, Gondwana etc, with different orientation to the equator, with one big ocean, with who knows what orbital forcings, with vastly different flora and fauna well you’d have to be Mandrake to tell me how that all relates to 2005 AD.
And if you were doing an alternative to AGW I’d be looking not at solar flux, not urban heat islands, not hey it’s cooling since 1998, nor undersea volcanoes, not saturation CO2 arguments, not bristlecones, can’t predict the weather so the climate arguments, nor the kitchen sink or Osama Bin Laden – I’d be concentrating on long scale oceanic mechanisms.
At least have a decent go at a plausible alternative mechanism(s).
And for future projections I’d be critical of cloud/aerosol representation in the models, lack of biospheric feedbacks with permafrost, soil carbon, vegetation and oceans, ocean coupling, and the need for better representation of El Nino and oceanic decadal mechanisms.
Be more bullish on hydrogen economy, nuclear fusion viability, carbon sequestration or new technology.
At least get into the right boxing ring and get yourself a decent set of gloves.
So there’s some free kicks for yo’all.
I don’t understand what this debate is about. From what I’ve seen of the media the most extraordinary greenhouse claims are accepted willy nilly by ignorant journalists without even basic fact-checking. I’d be surprised if the sceptics even got Ender’s 2% of the publicity on the issue.
It also assumes that there is only one “greenhouse view” when in fact there are a number of models and predictions. Unlike, say, the idea that the world is round, this is not settled science and is highly speculative.
About the only things that we should expect rational beings to agree on at the moment is that the world has got a bit hotter lately and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas – they are the only “round earth” claims. The rest is still open to debate and should ebb and flow with the issues, not some arbitrary dismissal of all dissenting claims by greenhouse researchers and campaigners.
Ian Campbell, our illustrious environment minister, declared recently that the debate was over. This is worrying given the amount of taxpayer money that he controls.
Of course the debate is not over, and there is a growing balance in news reporting, although it seems to me to still be heavily tilted towards doomsday predictions.
The internet is a great medium to facilitate a free market in ideas, a vast freewheeling audit, as Victor Hanson described it. So the debate goes on, here and elsewhere.
I wonder if some of the doomsday proponents actually get out in our wonderful Australian countryside at all. It’s looking pretty good at the moment. (Although I predict Phil and Ender will jump in to tell us about the bits that aren’t looking so good right now)
Might be nice too. Wasn’t a little while ago. And wasn’t a little while ago before that either. It was called drought and scenes of doom and gloom and broody farmers across our TV screens. So what if it’s rained – hooray and let’s celebrate – you think we don’t like to see a good season too. Sweet green grass and rain on the roof. You think I don’t like the bush – both natural and agricultural landscapes. I do – that’s half the point.
It’s the hydro-illogical cycle – as soon as one drought ends – let’s pretend it never happened and won’t happen again.
Where have we said doomsday ?
OK you don’t like what the scenarios say. We’ll make some stuff up to make you happy then. This isn’t a popularity contest or selling Coke vs Pepsi.
Paul – no the bit out my window is fine as well however I do not take this to mean that all is well. The media reporting of AGW is pretty apalling because it is such a big subject. RC and Stephen Schneider etc are trying to supply a resource where people can learn and decide. This is what I did.
Thanks guys, right on schedule.
I do think you both read a fair bit more into my posts than is actually in them. It takes a bit of the enjoyment out of posting here to be likened to a bloodthirsty thrill-killer or an immature teenager when I’m posting an opinion on the environment or conservation.
Paul – fair enough – I would not like to discourage you from posting so I will try to be a bit more civil in future.
OK Paul – if Ender and I let you you kill things with a large gun will you still be our friend (as long as you don’t shoot us when we’re not looking).
OK another poor taste joke (I’m sorry and I’ll stay in after class for that one) – the point is though we are talking about climate and the press. And you made a good point about it being all gloomy and bad for global warming – “doomsday” stuff.
The problem is we have to discuss what the findings are don’t we. Or do we?
When you say *we* Phil I hope that it is in the Royal sense.
The UK govt are moving away from Kyoto
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,9061,1646828,00.html
Did you see that vote on Iraq in the US Senate? – 400/3 against pulling out of Iraq.
The big losers – Kerry Gore and the Dems.
The biggest losers – the press.
Thanks Phil and Ender, I’m sure we can disagree strongly and still be civil.
The problem with the press here in Adelaide is that the “Advertiser” is pretty much indistinguishable from the Green Left Weekly (that last bit was irony). At least the “Australian” has opinion writers from both sides of the debate.
Tim Flannery is the Advertisers chosen guru on all things climatic, and he also sits on at least one “sustainability” committee, advising the state government.
The Rann government is paying lip service to “sustainability” and using a fair bit of taxpayers money in the process.
It all seems a bit one sided for a question that is still undecided.
And please don’t tell me it IS decided. The hockey stick saga has seriously damaged the credibility of the IPCC, and there are further questions over the resignation of a key author, and the rewriting of summaries to emphasise AGW over and above the intent of the original report.
It may be that we are doomed if we continue on our emitting ways, but everyday experience tells us that things are going along pretty well.
As far as history goes, well scaremongering was much scarier in my day. In my lifetime I have seen the threat of nuclear war (Time magazine used to publish a cover each year with a “Doomsday” clock, with the closeness of the hands to midnight representing how close the world was to nuclear destruction, I think the closest was four minutes to midnight), worldwide Communist imperialism, with a very real belief in Australia that the Communists wanted to take over the country, the “Population Bomb” theory, that predicted we would run out of resources and be fighting wars over water by the 1980’s, not to mention the scares over pesticides, deforestation, “unsustainable” agriculture and high fat diets.
What’s a bit of global warming compared to the dangers of a high fat diet! (Game meat is of course, low fat, Phil)
What all these scares underestimated was the ability of humans to meet a challenge. And some of them were just plain wrong.
I feel very confident that if AGW is shown to be a serious problem, we as a species can deal with it.
Paul – I am sure we can deal with it. One of the problems with it is that if we wait until we know for sure that it is a problem it will be too late to do anything.
You are partly correct. The IPCC report is a political document that was written to best codify the consensus of climate scientists. It is almost certain that amongst 1500 scientists there would be personality clashes. The AGW case was emphasised because that is what the 1500 scientists concluded from the available evidence not some plot to conjure a case where it did not exist.
I really really really really do not want to start 450 posts on the hockey stick (again) so I am shutting up here – you can have this one if you like.
OK time for a joke for Paul:
A man is hauled before the court charged with shooting and boiling a platypus.
His defence threw everything at the case and they said that it was totally and utterly out of character, he had recently been divorced, and also lost his job, Under immense personal stress.
Couldn’t happen again. A once off aberration. It looked like it may have worked from His Worship’s countenance.
The Judge in formal attire, with large wig and glasses, lent over and said “I can see there are some mitigating circumstances perhaps in this case – but I am curious – what an unusual case – My dear fellow – what does a platypus actually taste like”.
The defendant rose to his feet and said:
“Uhh – hmmm – ahem – well my Lord – saltier than dugong but not as tough as dolphin”.
At least he shot it and then boiled it; he could have brought it to the boil and then shot it.
This has been refreshing to read. The usual protagonists are becoming more moderate in their posts. This is, to my mind, most important, because as soon as someone says “the evidence is all in, no further debate is necessary” I become confident their argument is too weak to survive rigorous analysis. This accusation can be levelled at both sides of this debate at times.
Mavericks in science: it has been my observation that some scientists are mavericks because they are simply enfant terribles who need to be the topic of discussion, or they are actually people a step ahead of the pack. Picking the difference can be difficult, even if you work with them.
The Washington Post, 17 november 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111701304.html
By Charles Krauthammer
“Which brings us to Dover, Pa., Pat Robertson, the Kansas State Board of Education, and a fight over evolution that is so anachronistic and retrograde as to be a national embarrassment. Dover distinguished itself this Election Day by throwing out all eight members of its school board who tried to impose “intelligent design” — today’s tarted-up version of creationism — on the biology curriculum. Pat Robertson then called the wrath of God down upon the good people of Dover for voting “God out of your city.” Meanwhile, in Kansas, the school board did a reverse Dover, mandating the teaching of skepticism about evolution and forcing intelligent design into the statewide biology curriculum.”
“Skepticism” is all over the place!
More reason for real skepticism about scaremongering on mooted sea level changes from climate change – ice caps are thicker in the North as well as in antarctica.
Johannessen, O.M., Khvorostovsky, K., Miles, M.W. and Bobylev, L.P. 2005. Recent ice-sheet growth
in the interior of Greenland. via Sciencexpress / http://www.sciencexpress.org / 20 October 2005.
Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland Ola M. Johannessen,1,2* Kirill Khvorostovsky,3 Martin W. Miles,4,5 Leonid P. Bobylev3
A continuous data set of Greenland Ice Sheet altimeter height from European Remote Sensing satellites (ERS-1 and ERS-2), 1992 to 2003, has been analyzed. An increase of 6.4 T 0.2 centimeters per year (cm/year) is found in the
vast interior areas above 1500 meters, in contrast to previous reports of highelevation balance. Below 1500 meters, the elevation-change rate is –2.0 T 0.9 cm/year, in qualitative agreement with reported thinning in the ice-sheet margins. Averaged over the study area, the increase is 5.4 T 0.2 cm/year, or È60 cm over 11 years, or È54 cm when corrected for isostatic uplift. Winter elevation changes are shown to be linked to the North Atlantic Oscillation.
Ender- I have a problem with the idea of paying for something I don’t want, to solve a problem that hasn’t happened yet, that may not be too bad if it does happen. In a simplified way, that is what we are being asked to do to combat climate change.
I may be wrong, but not too many AGW scenarios are predicting widespread human extinction, as far as I know. Most of them seem to predict some loss or hardship rather than an uninhabitable globe.
In fact the cost of AGW has been estimated at about $5 trillion for the century to 2100. By contrast, the cost of maintaining CO2 emissions at 1990 levels is about $15 trillion, and the cost of maintaining current temperatures is over $100 trillion dollars. (Figures from “The Skeptical Environmentalist”, Chapter 24, Global Warming).
So no wonder there is a fair bit of scepticism if we are being asked to accept a solution that is costlier than the disease! Especially as the disease has not yet begun to show any symptoms.
Phil- Surely any self respecting greenie would know that the platypus is only cray-bait! Thyllacine is much tastier.
“So there’s some free kicks for yo’all.’
Its good that you mentioned these Phil, but the tone of your comment suggests that you think this discussion is a game to win rather that a tool to reveal truth (and errors) about the real world. In my view, it really doesnt matter who discovers errors in our assumptions, as long as someone makes them clear to all of us, and we all learn
(make heuristic progress some would say).
Paul – I don’t consider myself a greenie – just a free thinker.
What scenarios are predicting human extinction??
5 trillion – it’s very easy to argue these numbers. Is this an “independent” estimate. You see the same logic in reverse is used by anti-AGWs to shaft the Club of Rome report – the advances possible in technology and adaptation of the population (birth control) were incorrectly estimated.
Rog is so concerned about human health – massive respiratory problems in SE Asia, India and China from burning fossil fuels. Probably making their TB worse Rog ? What health benefits might result from less pollution, How many 1,000s die in coal mining accidents each year. What efficiency saving might be made through conservation measures. In fact it might even be a net positive – I’m not suggesting a handbrake turn here. It’s turning the Queen Mary – can’t move direction quickly.
Let’s become more efficient and make a serious attempt at other energy sources.
Kyoto at least has taught us what the sources and sinks are and the magnitude of the problem. Good work on greenhouse inventory has been done. I’m not wedded to the protocol – Rog is wasting his time taunting me with Kyoto’s “failure”.
David – (a) most of the warming already comes from thermal expansion of the oceans (b) some increased inland snow pack is not inconsistent with GW theory (c) alarming increases of ice melt and erosion near the glacial margins – wouldn’t want to massively destabilise ice sheets behind them (d) the currents sea level rises are doing what the IPCC expects (e) the salinity levels in the deep water formation regions of the northern Atlantic Conveyor are freshening – at what point do you reckon we might switch the conveyor off.
(a) most of the warming already comes from thermal expansion of the oceans
I presume this comment,Phil, is a typographical error (I make them al the time!) and really refers to sea water levels. Have you a link to separate estimates of the water expansion factor?.
(e) the salinity levels in the deep water formation regions of the northern Atlantic Conveyor are freshening – at what point do you reckon we might switch the conveyor off.
Your “we” here presumes human agency I assume. Before “we” make decisions to try and change the course major natural events, decisions which themselves may have unanticipated and undiscussed adverse consequences, I would want to see the full evidence on what is being discussed, and, as I’ve said before, with all the caveat’s up front. I keep on discovering that the the caveat’s are not being mentioned, or that new wrinkles are continually being published in the scientific literature. It’s truly a moveable feast we a talking about.
Phil- The bit about the greenie was a joke.
“What scenarios are predicting human extinction??” None that I know of.
“5 trillion – it’s very easy to argue these numbers.” That’s easy for you to say. It’s a prediction, a bit like projected climate changes are predictions, right?
What Club of Rome report are you referring to? The one where we have all run out of water and mineral resources by now? Are they still issuing predictions? That’s style!
Perhaps there are two sorts of sceptics, not mutually exclusive. Those sceptical about the science of AGW, and those sceptical about the costs. And we’re right to be sceptical, since all we hear about are the negatives, the positives seem to be suppressed.
Paul – What is the cost of doing nothing? Already the Insurance industry is hurting from increased payouts. What will be the cost of the greater range of the Malaria mosquito? Most of the costs attributed to combating global warming have been inflated and do not take into account the increase in industrial activity from complying. For example the USA invented most of the technology for cleaning the output of coal plants. In Germany however the tight pollution restrictions imposed caused the USA technology to be manufactured in Europe not in the USA where the looser restrictions did not create as big a market. Try to guess where now USA companies and just about anyone else buy scrubbers for coal plants – Germany. Ask a USA electrity plant where the generators come from – Germany or Japan, very rarely the USA. We bought all of ours from Europe. Which company is the leading wind turbine manufacture – Vestas from Denmark.
Smart companies can turn environmental restrictions into profits – the problem is that we do not want to change or innovate.
BTW – if we trigger a thermal runaway then it is curtains for us. Google the Eocene Thermal Maximum.
Kyoto R.I.P. Phil, its as dead as a Norwegian Blue parrot.
David Tribe – sorry yes- I meant sea levels. I apologise.
“most of the current sea level rise comes from thermal expansion of the oceans ”
You’ll always get caveats – you see this is the heart of the problem. True management and leadership is about making good decisions with imperfect information. The conveyor is very interesting – perhaps much easier to turn off than restart.
For a “flavour” of the problem.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/bigchilltrans.shtml
Paul
Reference (and I only providing the reference not necessarily supporting)
http://www.clubofrome.org/docs/limits.rtf
Ender- Cost of doing nothing, about $5 trillion.
Malaria mosquito -already ranges over all continents except Antarctica. Malaria was present in Britain until the mid 1800’s. (It was cooler then, so temperature is not a determinant of malaria’s range). This is a classic example of why we still have sceptics, AGW proponents are still pushing this scare story, which sounds feasible if you don’t know any history.
“Most of the costs attributed to combating global warming have been inflated ”
I doubt it. Probably the opposite. I doubt many people really have any idea of the costs associated with reducing CO2 emmissions, if they think having shorter showers will make a difference. (I’m referring to Tim Flannery’s ads which have been appearing on local TV).
The IPCC has recommended that economies be regionalised, and that sailing ships and bicycles form a major part of our transport systems. The full cost of complying with these and other measures has been estimated at over a quarter of global income in the century to 2100. That’s $274 trillion. Again, the figures are from “The Sceptical Environmentalist”, Chapter24.
“the problem is that we do not want to change or innovate.”
That’s simply breathtaking. Remember back, say, twenty five years, how things were compared to today. A whole lot of change and innovation, I’d say.
Of course smart companies can turn environmental restrictions into profits, they capitalise on an opportunity, just as companies will capitalise on carbon sequestration technology if that becomes mandated. However these profits came at the expense of other potential profits in other fields, the opportunity costs. That would be the case if environmental restrictions were driven by market forces, ie consumers demanded cleaner power, or by government regulation. So I’m not against cleaner air.
I could illustrate the effect of regulation on profits from my own experience, but I think it’s pretty obvious that the greater the amount of regulations, the less effort can be diverted to new opportunities. For example, the Soviet Union.
“Eocene Thermal Maximum.”
Did a non-google search. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum involved the abrupt release of about 1200Gt of carbon into the atmosphere, or three times the carbon in the earths biomass. Current anthropogenic carbon release is 6.5Gt per year, much of which is absorbed in biomass, so the average annual increase in atmospheric CO2 is about 3.5Gt. I’m not worried.
The “Limits to Growth” report is so wildly wrong and implies the application of such draconian coercive measures that I fail to see why you mention it in this discussion, Phil.
Paul – limits to growth may only be wrong in the timing. Philosophically systems modelling is here to stay as are resource limits. Anyway pls read the context in which I first used it.
One of the flaws in the GCMs is biospheric feedbacks. There may be another 300ppm of CO2 sitting in the biosphere that may be liberated.
In any case the atmosphere doesn’t really care too much about the economy. Doesn’t care what we think – it only reacts.
Yes, I appreciate the context,I just think it is a terrible example to use given how discredited it is. I strongly disagree that it is wrong only in the timing. The basic premise, that growth needs to be stopped, is awful. Resources are limited only in the sense that there is only one Earth. In actual fact we have barely begun to discover what the world holds, or what technologies may be developed.
There may also be 300ppm CO2 to taken up by increased biomass. The earth’s biomass is increasing, did you know?
I STILL agree with your last statement.
Weellll .. maybe not.
Permafrost is melting – and US, European and Russian forests are near limit of absorbing CO2 – maturity
Paul – 5 trillion according to Lomborg who is not the only person making predictions.
I think you need to read this if you think the increased risk of malaria is a scare tactic:
http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/distribution_epi/distribution.htm
” Temperature is particularly critical. For example, at temperatures below 20°C (68°F), Plasmodium falciparum (which causes severe malaria) cannot complete its growth cycle in the Anopheles mosquito, and thus cannot be transmitted.”
Read the whole link. With increased warming the range where the bacteria can complete its growth cycle will increase.
More to follow.
Paul – I think you need to provide the reference to where the IPCC report says “that sailing ships and bicycles form a major part of our transport systems”. Bicycles for more that just emission reduction as combating the obesity crisis in Western society.
Consider the 50 years ago we still got power from large central coal fired power plants – not much inovation there. Cars then had internal combustion motors as they do now. Commerce was then carried by large fossil fuelled ships etc. In al lot of our infrastructure we have not innovated rather we have improved on known themes. A good part of the innovation was in consumer goodies.
Why do people always bring up the Soviet Union when talking about governmant regulation. Read this:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/23/214849/506
“Every evidence is that they can mine coal safely, they can mine coal without destroying the land, and they can clean up emissions. They can make a profit at it, too, as the major companies are breaking all records while meeting these requirements.
But they won’t lift one damn finger unless we make them. Without regulation, they would backslide in a heartbeat, and without more regulation, they won’t take another step”
Now this is regulation in the land of the free. It really is needed.
Re Malaria risks;
Ender, be sure to include the scientific criticism by[French] malaria specialists of the argument that global warming will trigger malaria epidemics.
detribe – I never said that it would cause an epidemic but it will increase the areas where you can get malaria.
Ender – “5 trillion according to Lomborg ”
No.
http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/web%20table%20of%20contents%20102599.htm
I’ll see your CDC reference and raise you this one.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol6no1/reiter.htm
“I think you need to provide the reference to where the IPCC report says “that sailing ships and bicycles form a major part of our transport systems”.”
Happy to.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/063.htm#1431
Incidentally, does anyone else see some ideological similarities between this and the “Limits to Growth” report that Phil linked to above?
“Why do people always bring up the Soviet Union when talking about governmant regulation.”
Because the attempts to run a command economy, ie. totally regulated, led to economic ruin, millions of deaths and environmental disaster. However, I’m not arguing for total LACK of regulation.
“Cars then had internal combustion motors as they do now.”
Yes, but do you consider a Model T to be the technological equivalent of a Ford Laser? There is at least an order of magnitude improvement in fuel efficiency, safety and affordability. If oil prices continue to rise, then innovation, in the sense of finding a new source of power for transport, will occur regardless of government regulations.
Phil – When you posted your link to the Club of Rome report you said this-
“Reference (and I only providing the reference not necessarily supporting)”
Then a couple of posts later, this-
“Paul – limits to growth may only be wrong in the timing.”
So I’m a bit confused as to your position on “Limits to Growth”.
Also, thanks everyone for this discussion, looking up references etc has sharpened my thinking on this topic. Luckily I’m on holidays this week!
Paul – the only reference to sailing vessels is this: “Sails still drive much of ship traffic in parts of the world, as on the Niger and Nile, or the great rivers of China. And bicycles carry a substantial portion of traffic in many regions of the world.”
Which acknowledges that sail is still carries a lot of freight. This is not an endorsement of sail by any stretch of the imagination.
And as malaria moves into areas that do not have measures to combat it, it will cost to have measured implemented.
Yes Paul there are improvements in a Laser over a Model T however look at the similarites. Brakes invented in 1936, spark ignition invented in 1908,
still runs on the same fuel. Really the only difference is the computer that runs the modern Ford Laser’s engine and this is an outgrowth of the consumer electronic advances that I mentioned.
If oil prices continue to rise then we will get the solution that suit the oil corporations and the car companies. We could have the solution today.
Paul – I just read the second reference and found this: “Whereas many studies projected baseline global temperature increases by 2100 in the 3 to 4 ºC range, a better guess for uncontrolled warming would be close to 2 ºC warming in 2100”
There is NO evidence that there will be only 2 deg warming by 2100. This seems to be a guess that they like.
Ender – In the context of the piece, that is definitely an endorsement of sail and bicycle power.
If we could have the solution , today, why don’t we? Answer, because the solutions we have make sense right now. I assume that people don’t really care whether their cars are powered by petrol or by fairy dust. So they choose the option that works best.
“There is NO evidence that there will be only 2 deg warming by 2100.”
I think you need to provide a reference for that. This doesn’t answer the substance of the paper, that malaria was once present even in the Arctic circle.
Yet AGW proponents still say that malaria will be spread as a consequence of global warming, when clearly temperature is only one factor, and not a particularly important one, if it was once found throughout temperate and arctic zones.
Any comment on PETM?
Feeling like I’m about to stoned for answering the Limits to Growth question.
Club of Rome got it spectacularly wrong. Thta’s still OK though. But it was a prototype of things to come – most Treasuries around the world now routinely do systems modelling of economics, so do car designers with engineering, climate modellers, drug designers. Systems simulation is used in lots of fields – some say providing a third mode between theory and experimentation in the field or with real organisms.
So what did Club of Rome do for us – it made us think about the world as one system with inputs, flows, consequences of decisions. They goofed on technological innovation and resource limit assumptions. But it is fascinating to consider modelling the entire system and considering consequences. But many have learned these lessons – when and how you use models.
Most big nations – USA, Japan, Europe are putting together Earth Simulators to model climate x biosphere interactions.
See http://www.es.jamstec.go.jp/esc/eng/ES/index.html
and
http://www.thocp.net/hardware/nec_ess.htm
Amazing stuff – if it works??
For me I think there are resource limits – one of these – oil – may be just around the corner if not already here. So called Peak Oil – so maybe Club of Rome might be 20 -30 years late. Maybe they’re still wrong. But at least we’re now arguing about “the system” as a whole.
The other very interesting resource limit – is Peak Platinum – basically most out of one hole in the ground in South Africa – friends of mine have calculated there’s not enough to go around – what for you might ask – fuel cells to drive the cars using the future hydrogen economy.
There may be other Peak Rare Element issues too – palladium etc.
Is there no answer – maybe one – nuclear fusion – there’s been some more progress recently.
It would not take much engineering to develop a sailing ship, steam ship hybrid – with computer controlled sail trimming and operation. Propellors take over when winds are low.
“Feeling like I’m about to stoned for answering the Limits to Growth question.”
No Phil, I’m not like that. It’s not the concept of systems modelling that is so wrong, it’s the assumption that people like you and me need to be told how to live our lives based on that model, which in the event, turned out to be pure fantasy.
This implies enormous coercion in peoples lives, which has been proved deadly in places such as Communist China and the Soviet Union. Who do you trust to make the best decisions about your life, yourself, or unaccountable, unelected faceless beaurocrats?
Re the sailing ship hybrids, when they make economic sense, they will happen.
Paul – I beg to differ. It was just stating the fact that a lot of the world’s freight is carried by sail. In another way the statistic that 20 years ago approx 65% of the world’s air freight was carried by Douglas DC-3s. This does not mean that the person was saying we should ditch Boeing 747 airfreighters for DC-3s.
If you go to half the way down this pagehttp://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/ClimateFrameset.html
you will see some of the projected temperature increases. The median value of all of them is 3.5 to 4 deg. This is why I think 2 deg is very optimistic with unrestrained CO2 growth.
PETM?
Paul – it’s just a report. Australians are known for taking the “piss” and being pretty cynical. One report won’t change the world. Tomes have been written on global warming and I reckon 80% are prtty cynical. OR if they have to change to reduce CO2 and realise the pain they will rapidly become cynical.
We have democracy and it changes (or potentially at least) every few years. I wouldn’t worry too much can happen too quickly (except for IR laws). And don’t stone me on that either.
Ender – We’ll have to agree to differ, then. I think the thrust of the IPCC report was anti-development, which was the point I was making.
Also, my request for a reference was partly facietous, in that I would only have to come up with one reference that predicts warming of less than 2C to prove your statement wrong. None of which tells us which prediction will turn out to be right, of course.
PETM = Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum, which you mentioned above, and I responded. I was wondering if you had any further comments.
Phil – Yes, it was just a report, that was basically ignored. Which shows the good sense of the average person!
I haven’t been stoning you at all, have I?
Paul – if the worst scenerios of warming happen then this can trigger positive feedbacks releasing methane from frozen permafrost:
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/methane/index.php
“It is estimated that northern ecosystems have accumulated 25-33% of the world’s soil carbon. In a warming climate, carbon and methane trapped in permafrost have a high potential for release into the atmosphere through chemical and biological processes such as thawing. When permafrost thaws and higher levels of CO2 and CH4 are released, atmospheric temperature also increases. This can result in a feedback loop and more permafrost thaw.”
The higher temperatures of the oceans now can store much less carbon dioxide and could actually release some. This is coupled with the release of CO2 along with the methane.
All of this, in the worst possible case, trigger a thermal runway that would be impossible to stop.
http://www.feasta.org/documents/feastareview/climatechangepanel.htm
“One of the nightmares of climatologists is that the liberation of methane from permafrost will enhance the Arctic warming because of the greenhouse effect of the methane, and so induce further release of methane and thus increased warming, in a runaway feedback cycle.’ He fears that warming will also release methane from hydrate in shallow Arctic seas. ‘Any slight warming of the Arctic water will release hydrate from the sea floor sediments almost immediately’ he writes 5. ‘The danger of a thermal runaway caused by methane release from permafrost is minor but realŠ The social implications are profound.’
Several other potentially damaging feedbacks were also omitted from the Hadley study. One is that as oceans warm, they become less capable of absorbing carbon dioxide which therefore builds up in the air more rapidly. A second is that changes in the chemistry of the upper air will affect the rate at which methane – which is relatively short-lived in the atmosphere at present – gets broken down. Taken together, these four effects can only mean that there is a significant risk that warming will spiral out of control during the next half-century unless greenhouse emissions are drastically reduced before then. ”
As this was not bad enough there is a group of escaped lunatics that want to use these methane hydrates to extend the party.
http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis106/ch4106.html
I will leave you to judge the wisdom of this.
Thanks Ender, it seems very speculative at this stage, I guess more research will help clarify it.
Future risks may also involve increasing frequency of fire in some high high biomass systems. Most rainforests have charcoal indicating a low frequency of fire even in quite wet systems. Relative small increases in dry spells in major rainforest systems could see them change into into savanahs with a large loss of stored carbon as the result of increased fire frequency. Indonesia (?).
The Congo area contains grass land patches apparently left over from a previous dryer period!.
However in a generally warmer wetter world with more CO2 and fire supression there may be increase in forests in some areas “woodland thickening”. I would suspect that in many areas the need for agriculture will constrain development of new forests that would otherwise offset carbon lossed from drying high biomass systems. I suspect it will be difficult to predict where vegetation * climate * land use interactions will lead us in terms of carbon balance.
See also Brazil
North American, European and Russian forests near limit of CO2 sequestration.
Melting permafrost and tundra.
Some say there might be 300ppm in it.