In an early blog post titled ‘Debate and Dissent is Healthy’, part of my series on Al Gore’s movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, I explained how tabloid e-news site Crikey had started a list of global warming skeptics and was suggesting that we were a small and misguided ‘clique’.
According to their journalist Sophie Black I got on the list because I once wrote: “As a consequence of the burning of fossil fuels, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are currently increasing. There is no evidence, however, to suggest this will bring doom or that, by signing the Kyoto Protocol, Australia would make a significant difference to global carbon dioxide levels or to the rate of climate change.”
So it’s not so much that I deny global warming or climate change (and by the way I don’t), or that I deny that increasingly levels of carbon dioxide may drive some warming, but rather I have been labeled a skeptic because I don’t believe in Kyoto or that the current elevated atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide mean we are ruin.
Today Crikey has published the names of MORE so-called global warming skeptics. It includes: Miranda Devine (Sydney Morning Herald columnist), my colleague at the IPA Alan Moran, Prof Jon Jenkins, (NSW Parliament), blogger Tim Blair, radio broadcaster Alan Jones, the Prime Minister John Howard, Alan Oxley (Head of APEC Studies Centre at Monash University), Christopher Pearson (columnist with The Weekend Australian), The Australian Industry Greenhouse Network’s John Eyles and Christian Kerr (Crikey journalist).
But Christian was given the opportunity to immediately deny that he is a skeptics with the comment: “I’m not a climate change sceptic. I’m not a Chicken Little, either. Science shows us that global temperatures have varied throughout the earth’s history. And science has also shown itself more than capable of overcoming remarkable challenges. Sorry if that disappoints the apocalyptically-minded.”
Come on Christian Kerr! If I am a skeptic you’re a skeptic. I also believe in science and technology and haven’t written anywhere that the sky is falling in.
The original global warming skeptics list published by Crikey on Friday included William Kininmonth (former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation), Ray Evans (once executive at Western Mining Corporation), Chris Mitchell (Editor-in-chief of The Australian), Terry McCrann (News Ltd business writer), Andrew Bolt (Herald Sun columnist), Hugh Morgan (head of the Business Council of Australia until 2005), Alan Wood (The Australian’s finance writer), Ian Castles (Former head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics), Ian Plimer (Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide), Bob Carter (A former director of the Australian Ocean Drilling Office, Professor of paleoclimatology at James Cook University) and me.
I am going to nominate a reader, commentator and contributor to this blog Paul Williams to the growing clique of global warming skeptics for his great contribution to dissent and debate by way of that blog post titled ‘Hockey Sticks & Ancient Pine Trees’.
And also, On Line Opinion editor and blogger, Graham Young, for suggesting Tuvalu and Kiribati still exist as Pacific Islands in his blog post of 8th May last year entitled ‘Antropophagai anyone’.
I invite others to nominate their favourite skeptic with a short justification by way of comment below.
You may also like to send your nomination and justification to Crikey with an email to boss@crikey.com.au.
————————————–
Today’s Crikey list include the following contributions from the named skeptics:
Miranda Divine for ‘Its the End as He Knows it’ published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 10th August, and
Alan Moran for ‘Alarm on Global Warming Just a Load of Hot Air’ published in the Age on 8th September.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer:” I don’t believe…that the current elevated atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide mean we are ruin. ”
Guess that humans will always survive climate change, they have adapted to live everywhere on this planet, but it’s worse for the environment and all animals…
Read just yesterday that polar bears had been found up in Svalbard drowned due to diminishing ice floes, yes, we have been through this before in another thread…
Considering this update, who is your leader?
Crikey’s List poses a dilemma for AGW fans. The longer the list becomes, the less it looks like there are only a few skeptics. It’s an exercise in spin, regardless.
The majority of world climatologists do not believe that anthropogenic CO2 is the main determinant of perceived warming–so the skeptics are already the majority.
Gavin, I am going to nominate Miranda Divine – because we need more women in leadership positions.
England’s warming ‘not natural’
The gatekeeper butterfly is moving north into Scotland
Temperatures in central England are about 1C higher than in the 1950s, and humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions are the reason, a new study shows
Excerpt from today’s BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5357606.stm
Bloody hell Ann, we know that it was warm enough in England to grow grapes in the Medieval warm period, so how can this study, which only goes back 350 years, be so certain that carbon dioxide is the culprit.
We know it is getting warmer, and we know that there is more carbon dioxide in the air, which means there is likely to be some causation, but managing to simulate the result using a computer model doesn’t amount to proof that it is entirely, or even significantly, due to greenhouse gases.
Anyone who talks in certainties on this issue rather than probabilities is talking through their hat, and should be disregarded.
Oh, and thanks for the nomination Jen, but I dobbed myself in to Crikey. Seemed like all the best people were on their list! I bet there’s a queue waiting to get on, just like you get outside exclusive nightclubs on a Friday night.
Maybe Crikey can make rationality sexy again.
Jen – your list of sceptics are a disgrace. What a bunch of semi-informed literate sceptics. We don’t want your wussy “I believe a teensy weensy bit coz that will stop most arguments but don’t believe in the apocalyptic hell and damnation bit coz I still need to get on the piss with my mining buddies” type of sceptics.
We want total religious fanatical denialism on every level with optional hatred and labelling of AGW types as flesh crawling scum commies – no worse flesh crawling scum urbanites. We want a level of scepticism that even denies the basic premises of physics (which are wrong BTW).
Not your half sensible “give you a run for it” with an interesting URL Paul Williams type of guy – far too nice.
Schiller is pretty good but still thinks the cold war is on and we’re not giving it to some yank are we. Go home sepos.
Rog – nah – pretty full-on historical sceptic of note – but getting much better dressed by the day and nicking out the back for a quick seasonal forecast by the looks. And he’s got the hots for Pinxi so can’t be trusted.
Warwick of course is close to excellent with a mega-web site to back him up. Scares the willies out of me and his own Cray running anti-GCMs in reverse from first principles with heat island removed and Jawocoughsky CO2 levels. And the guy goes fisticuffs with BoM one on one. But like John McLean – a drive-by rhetorical shootist. Too infrequent a contributor.
AND don’t give me your ex-Sydney quasi-bloody-cafe-latte-come bloody property rights groupie denialism. Motty actually tries to understand and re-interpret the science – the fool is playing with intellectual fire – there’s a chance he might actually learn something and be converted and we can’t have that.
My all time award for scepticism – actually the Royal Commonwealth Award for Global Vorming Scepticism goes to Louis Hissink esq. M Geol Sci. scholar and knight of the realm.
Louis – you are a God – we salute you. Your devotion to unadulerated all-out rabid denialism is awesome. I am personally devastated – you have made me question my entire being and have caused bipolar disorder. You are an inspiration to sceptics everywhere.
The CSIRO rings ASIS for intell when Louis is on the case and they quiver in their boots.
The rest of you are not a sceptic’s armpit.
LOUIS LOUIS LOUIS LOUIS !!
{and what a good bloke – you have a drink with him the pub at Kununurra and get an inside on a discount De Beers product to keep the little lady happy – who can top that ?)
Warwick Hughes, for his work on the surface temperature record, and general ferreting out of evidence.
Luke should be on the list too, he’s sceptical of any facts.
Graham, I think a professor at Harvard University is sexy enough…
John Holdren, in addition to his presidency of the AAAS, is director of the Woods Hole Research Center, and the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard University.
Top Harvard scientist’s fear for climate:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5303574.stm
Whats happened to Real Climate Phil, you used to read it 24/7. Aha, you avoid quoting because you are now Luke…not that it matters much but hey, who can blame people if they are sceptical after all your schizoid internet antics.
Where is the scientific evidence I keep requesting so I can make an informed sceptical argument? I’m starting to wonder if there is any. Of do you just tally scientists for and against so you can throw pies at each others faces?
Schiller Thurkettle says:
“The majority of world climatologists do not believe that anthropogenic CO2 is the main determinant of perceived warming”
Another war is peace moment, just boldy state the complete opposite of the truth and hope it sticks. Fact is this is the list of those who believe that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and well supported by sound science:
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html
Every major scientific institute dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions.
On top of that list, see also this joint statement that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report, issued by
РAcademia Brasiliera de Ci̻ncias (Bazil)
– Royal Society of Canada
– Chinese Academy of Sciences
РAcademi̩ des Sciences (France)
– Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
– Indian National Science Academy
– Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
– Science Council of Japan
– Russian Academy of Sciences
– Royal Society (United Kingdom)
– National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
and this one that includes the above signers plus:
– Australian Academy of Sciences
– Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
– Caribbean Academy of Sciences
– Indonesian Academy of Sciences
– Royal Irish Academy
– Academy of Sciences Malaysia
– Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
– Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619
But clearly you are not one to let facts get in your way on this, or on the scientific case.
Graham Young, the problem with the “it was warm enough in England to grow grapes in the Medieval warm period” argument is that grapes are now and have always grown in England.
http://www.english-wine.com/index.html
You must think these things through, that is what it really means to be a sceptic, to be a sceptic does not mean grasp at every straw trying to avoid a particular conclusion.
For those non-sceptics who shun the dark side, there is an interesting post up on Climate Audit about a conference in Stockholm which turned out to be a bit of a sceptic fest. Some interesting attitudes were displayed.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=820#more-820
A few more candidates for your sceptic list there, Jennifer.
Thanks Paul,
And Bob, now back from Sweden, has just been published by OLO : http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4938 .
So Jen – Bob and the Ruskies being so confident should whip over to James Annan and put a few dollars down for a charitable bet. It seems most of the contrarians won’t bet.
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/06/betting-summary.html
I could comment about the “not warming since 1998” but why bother – it’s all been said before. I think quoting this stuff without context as he does does little to enhance Bob’s credibility.
Better add Exxon to the corporate sceptics list – looks like the Royal Society are less than happy with them.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf
So what? Some sceptics attending a conference in Stockholm at the Royal Technical Institution. This is a quite mediocer University, according to my neighbour, Mr Gröndahl , who is a Dr of Technology at the same Uni.
The Uni is only ranked as the 201 best Uni in the world, ranking based on number of Nobel Prizes and articles published in peer reviewed journals.
Ranking:
1) Harvard
2) Cambridge
3) Stanford
4) Berkley
5) Massachussets’s Inst. Tech
Personally I would only trust opinions from scientists from any of these Unis. See my above post on Harvard’s Professor John Haldren.
You keep mentioning that betting thing, Luke. Can’t you tell no one is interested?
I wonder what it would look like if the Russians are right and global cooling has begun? There might be, say eight years or more where temperatures sort of stayed the same. Not that that could happen, of course, seeing as how CO2 is rising every year. I guess we’ll never see a cooler world in our lifetime.
Ann, Haldren is predicting annual sea level rise of 40mm per year, according to that link. This warming is going to have to start lifting its game!
I think this quote gives us a hint as to where Haldren is coming from ;
“He blamed President Bush not only for refusing to cut emissions, but also for failing to live up to his rhetoric on harnessing technology to tackle climate change.”
I heard the pixies at the bottom of the garden were suggesting a cooling too. This Russian stuff is bolsh – on the basis of what mechanism and says who? It’s just window dressing nonsense.
Pinxi thinks it’s going to get colder!!!! I’m flabergasted!
Oh, sorry. PIXIES, not Pinxi.
Well, I assumed you’re in close communication with them.
I’m sure you can find skeptics on most issues. Fluoridation? Smoking and cancer? The striking thing about the climate debate is the high level of support for it among scientists and the growing list of conversions among decision makers.
The only credible approach (given the high stakes) is to hope like hell that the skeptics are right but to act like they are wrong.
So many comments- so little time to trash them.
1. There is a profound difference between being able to grow grapes (re the UK), and grapes being so easy and abundant as they are a suitable cash crop with poor agricultural techniques. The UK was NOTED for its wines in the Roman and Medieval warm periods.
2. Re the lists of universities, does one wish to get into a controversy over the ether, phlogiston or any other debate that required careful ongoing enquiry into misguided extrapolations of theory? Debate is not to be shirked and it also should not be shunted aside as too important to have doubts. That is the subtext of much of the precautionary principle crowd. It is always THIS case that must be the exception to scientific debate and scepticism – what ever cause is popular this week. I have vague memories of lab benches and being told that observation and scepticism were the two main tools of scientific enquiry.
You guys may be interested in a bit more information on Mauna Loa where the CO2 numbers for the past half century are always quoted. It seems the great beauty of this site is that it is at 4000m above sea level and supposedly free from vegetation contaminants etc. And while it is actually on top of a volcanoe it is always claimed that, in the event of eruptions, these unrepresentative readings will be discarded.
But things are not quite as they seem. For a start this is no steep cone that only measures mid strata atmospheric layers. It is a shield volcano with generalised slope of only 1:7.2 which is gentle enough to allow surface layers to ride up the slope rather than go round it.
But more importantly, while Mauna Loa has not erupted since 1984, the same cannot be said about Kilauea, the worlds most visited volcanoe, only 24km away which has been erupting continuously since 1983.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilauea
Further more, Kilauea is located to the NW of Mauna Loa and is in the most likely path of the North East Trade Winds that are the predominant wind direction. It is also in the path of the normal on-shore winds as they head towards the centre of the main island.
And even though the methodology used by the station at Mauna Loa requires 6 hours of less than 0.5m/min winds to qualify as a valid reading, the stronger winds before the reading is taken could very easily be contaminated as they pass over Kilauea and then linger at the summit. As these winds slow down in the evening they would also accumulate a greater composition of CO2 than would a faster wind.
Further more, the more populated island in the chain, up to 300km away, are regularly subjected to what the locals call “Vog” or volcanic smog so there seems little doubt that emissions are emanating from somewhere.
We would need a lot more information on the composition of vented gases and the composition of the wind rose before one could conclude that the Mauna Loa data is less than what it is claimed. But there is certainly sufficient room to justify a much closer examination.
That doesnt make sense Ann, are you saying that you trust the opinion of Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas because they are from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics?
There was also that study from Stanford that said that trees cause global warming.
“We know about three new islands this year that have been uncovered because the glaciers have retreated,” said Rune Bergstrom, environmental adviser to the governor of Svalbard, a Norwegian archipelago about 1,000 km (600 miles) from the North Pole.
“The Arctic is likely to warm more than any other part of the world” because of global warming, said Dowdeswell. Darker water and soil, once exposed, soaks up far more of the sun’s heat than mirror-like ice and snow.
Ian Stirling, a researcher with the Canadian Wildlife Service, said polar bears were finding it harder to find food, threatening their ability to reproduce.
“In 1980 the average weight of adult females in western Hudson Bay was 650 pounds (300 kg). Their average weight in 2004 was just 507 pounds,” he said in a report this week. Numbers in the Hudson Bay region dropped to 950 in 2004 from 1,200 in 1989.
Above comments from Planet Ark.
Even if I am personally afraid of climate change I enjoy warmer weather, it has been an unusually warm autumn this year.
Well, we know the catastrophic scenario with climate change, but are there any good aspects at all?
Some indications show that some fisheries will increase and melting in the Arctic will open up for oil drilling. For an environmentalist however this is not very good news.
Melting of Arctic may also open up the Northwest Passage, that is a sea route connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through the Arctic Archipelago of Canada.
The link from Planet Ark:
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/38124/newsDate/18-Sep-2006/story.htm
Ian – all very fascinating on Mauna Loa – but why not compare the various CO2 measuring stations around the world instead of theorising into hyperspace. Perhaps there’s more than one station?
But I’m sure you’ll find fault with all of them. Have you checked their chemical procedures too? Perhaps their IT systems also need auditing?
“… but rather I have been labeled a skeptic because I don’t believe in Kyoto or that the current elevated atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide mean we are ruin.”
This is a deceptive misrepresentation of the quote Sophie Black based her decision on because you used the word “will” rather than “has”; the former being future tense and the latter past tense.
You mention Bob Carter a lot. Do you concur with his views on global warming?
Thanks to Rog for reminding me about RC – the most inconvenient aspect for contrarians is a very good piece of work measuring the change in flux over a network of Swiss radiometers.
RC says: “The authors then subtract off the part of the downward infrared radiation increase attributable to temperature and water vapor increase, and thus estimate the part due directly (as opposed to via feedbacks) to the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases such as CO2. They estimate this to be about one third of a Watt per square meter. This is not in bad agreement with estimates from detailed radiation models run by the authors, which say that the change in surface radiation due to the 12ppm CO2 increase between 1995 and 2002 should be about one fourth of a Watt per square meter. It is striking that the changes in the Earth’s surface radiation budget due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases are so profound that they can be directly observed on a regional scale, over such a short time period.”
So we have EXCELLENT agreement of observations and models. Flux component confirmed. With the CO2 increase futher amplifying water vapour feedbacks – so stuff your Medieval grapes and Jabba the Hutt nonsense – there is empirical evidence confirming the greenhouse effect.
Furthermore no comment on the Harries paper showing the CO2/NO/CH4/CFC emission windows closing as expected.
Interesting that you guys keep chosing to overlook the empirical evidence and complete confirmation of the physics involved.
But its easier to argue the anecdotal than specific isn’t it.
And even most interesting accumulating evidence that greenhouse is directly involved in the European warming and heatwaves – not circulation changes.
“Since 1980, surface temperature over land in Europe increased considerably faster
than the northern hemisphere average. Detailed month-by-month analyses show large
temperature and humidity changes for individual months that are similar for all Europe.
These changes well correlate with Potsdam recorded weather patterns, which
apparently influence temperature uniformly over large scales. However, superimposed
to these changes a strong west-east gradient is observed for all months, which is not
related to circulation but rather due to non-uniform water vapor feedback. Surface
radiation measurements from the Alpine Surface Radiation Budget (ASRB) network
in central Europe were used to investigate effects of radiative fluxes and forcings on
changes of temperature and humidity. Clouds strongly modulate individual shortwave
and longwave fluxes but show little net effects on the total surface absorbed radiative
flux. Solar radiation rather decreases since 1980 except for the large but short increase
during the summer 2003 heat wave. However, high correlation between cloudfree
longwave downward radiation and increasing temperature and absolute humidity,
demonstrates greenhouse forcing with strong water vapor feedback. Overall our analysis
indicates that heat waves are driven by strong but short-term shortwave forcing,
whereas the rapid warming in Europe over the last two decades is primarily related to
longwave greenhouse forcing and a strong water vapor feedback.
Correction: “and short-term shortwave forcing for heatwaves”
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181
Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming [excerpted]
Alarmist ‘consensus’ does not exist
Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: June 1, 2005
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
The London Times then reported on Professor Dennis Bray, of Germany’s GKSS National Research Centre. Bray surveyed hundreds of international climate scientists, asking the question, “To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?” Bray received 530 responses from climatologists in 27 different countries.
With a value of 1 indicating “strongly agree” and a value of 7 indicating “strongly disagree,” Bray reported the average of the 530 responses was 3.62, almost right down the middle. More climatologists “strongly disagreed” than “strongly agreed” that climate change is mostly attributable to humans.
Luke, you do a good job of obscuring the real issues. It is not whether CO2 causes warming – of course it does. The real issue is so what.
Rational debate isn’t helped by people presenting speculation as fact. If you were genuine you’d be having a conversation about the science, and sharing with us your doubts as well as your convictions, rather than throwing around quotes like molotov cocktails.
A generalisation I’ve found useful in the past is that understanding of an issue by an author generally runs in inverse proportions to the use of quotes from other authors. Now, I wouldn’t be so rash to infer that in your case this coincidence could be proof you’ve got no idea, but it’s the sort of logical leap that climate modellers make all the time, so it would be apt!
I sort of wonder if you “Sceptics” might like to give a little thought to what might happen if people like Al Gore and Tim Flannery were at least a little bit right? Why don’t you have a little think to yourself and consider the implications of increasing droughts, water shortages, far more “dramatic” weather events, and so on. Also remember that climate change does not proceed evenly and has “tipping points” of sudden change.
I am a farmer so I have noticed the changes in the weather over my life time (I hate droughts and El Ninos) but atleast I live at 1000 metres in a place that has so much water we never have water restrictions.
Anyway wake up and engage your brain for a while, you could try doing a little reading and perhaps listening to the “Science show” on radio national. I find the more I learn about climate change the more concerning it is … my children have to live in the world we leave them so I can’t believe your smug little self satisfied take on this.
Yet more evidence that AGW skeptics are far more common than some would suggest:
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm
The letter Science Magazine refused to publish
First Author Name: Benny J Peiser
Address: Faculty of Science
Henry Cotton Campus
Liverpool John Moores University
On December 3rd, only days before the start of the 10th Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-10), Science Magazine published the results of a study by Naomi Oreskes (1): For the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to show an unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming.
These objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15 December 2004, she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords “climate change,” but on “global climate change”
The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes’ findings and essentially falsify her study:
Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 1%) explicitly endorse the ‘consensus view’.
Quite a number of papers emphasise that natural factors play a major if not the key role in recent climate change (4). My analysis also shows that there are almost three times as many abstracts that are sceptical of the notion of anthropogenic climate change than those that explicitly endorse it (5, 6, 7).
Schills – Heartland Institute and popularity surveys – really come on. Peiser – what a totally discredited hack – move on for heavens sake. Don’t worry about popularity contests – get your brain out of first gear. Don’t you find Swiss evidence of empirical evidence of the effect somewhat bristling !
Graham – what you have written is incredible really. This blog is not up to that the CO2 causes warming. Most of the sceptical AGW regulars are far from there on the fundamentals. Is Jen there. Most of the people she quotes? Ian? Rog ? Louis? Warwick ? You tell me. Frankly I don’t you do either – on what hand you’re saying it’s obvious and on the other “rash to jump to conclusions”. Mate I put it that you haven’t thought about it seriously either. Given the interest in surveys – I suggest that a quick survey of commentators here would reveal that most of you guys are not even be able to describe the theory that they’re railing against. i.e. the don’t even know the fundamentals of what they’re complaining about.
In terms of sharing doubts a swell as convictions – well that style of discussion requires you consider “more damage” risks as well as “less damage” risks. This blog is firmly and a priori always on an assumption of beware of alarmism. And only selects potentially alarmist environmental issues. The sample is already biased.
There are plenty of doubts but we’re not even close to debating those if we’re engaged in endless stupid debates about fairly evident basics.
Luke, Phil, David Vader, Fletcher Jones …
Please stop misrepresenting what I and others say and think on the AGW issue. And furthermore, regarding commentary at this blog,
as ‘a group’ you have probably made more comment than anyone else always pushing your own opinion in the most aggressive way.
Graham has probably driven Luke into a difficult corner. Yes, the excess use of references on all blogs avoids us giving up our personal position and observations away from the thread.
I notice too there is a hand full dogmatic contributors on several popular blogs causing havoc in good debate over AGW and climate science. Most are blog owners or have loads of stuff elsewhere on www dedicated to their view on the topic. This may distort a more general perception of our modern predicament.
If you stop depending on scientific advice from elsewhere in looking for evidence then use your own head for a bit (that may be difficult for some) and start analysing our situation based on personal experience on issues like resource development, energy, transport and so on, the picture must be clearer.
It does not take a geologist to measure all the big holes we put in the ground or some other trumped up wisdom on all things natural to guess what muck remains in the sky even on a clear day.
I mowed the front yard yesterday with my abused Victa. My dust storm was embarrassing when it covered the contractors working next door. The water table is so low here now I dare not bring the old tree roots up with surface soaking. I removed what dried debris I could pick up in the catcher since its also embarrassing in a breeze. After filling the wagon it went to ‘green’ recycling. There is no way of salvaging the old garden either.
Depending entirely on measurements like moisture content from a man made device to predict our future on this land is another stream of nonsense. Research based on computer models likewise, using our wits is much more reliable for those in the know.
Lets illustrate with a common example; expecting any one using your average late model digital point and shoot digital camera to produce perfect pictures every time. Although these things are a composite of our most developed technology today they are still only a compromise for expert photographers used to using more basic tools. No amount of modelling in complex issues beats on the job practical experience.
Sceptics theorising outside their discipline beware!
Predicting outcomes from models built into control of large scale and complex operations was a very hazardous business indeed. When feedback depends only on the power in the system the kickback can be enormous. Earthing a power grid suddenly at any point is one such case. Hunting derived in out of phase relationships is another.
We now have the capacity to upset the balance of many things way beyond the power in our light globe. One of my odd jobs in industry was convincing various managements to turn everything off when their automation failed. All that which could not be controlled by manual means could not be controlled anyhow. Another more common example is our private motor car.
Those outside looking in who don’t understand the difficulties for modern climate sciencetists should bugger off.
Well Jen it’s OK for you to put aggressive post propositions but you care not to debate those propositions. As for aggression I would suggest you are most one-sided with very strongly worded material from Ian, Louis, Schiller, Rog – actually many of us find the comments offensive. It appears that you do not wish to debate any facts.
I suggest you are most considered and guarded in what you say on AGW. You take the topic to the edge in a propositional post then back off. Then you protest how that is represented. You obviously wish to have it both ways.
Gavin,
You are suggesting that to be a skeptic you need to an expert on what meteorology? But its OK for the x-politician Al Gore to have an opinion?
GAvin, you obviously think a bit about the future. But we have elevated CO2 levels right now.
A lot of skeptics hear people like Al Gore say we already have a climate crisis and then study the climate data and/or look out the window and say ‘bullshit’.
They look at the economics of Kyoto and compare it to what AP6 is offering and ask why would anyone even consider Kyoto as a solution. It is expensive and will achieve virtually nothing.
Luke,
That’s your opinion. I don’t agree with it.
And from experience I don’t bother engaging in discussion with you anymore because I don’t feel I learn anything … I just come away feeling bullied.
BTW Luke,
You and others are more than welcome to send me a guest blog post on ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and any other aspect of global warming and chances are I will post it…
I repeatedly make the general offer to post stuff your perspective.
Look right into their eyes Jen: Al Gore is an opportunist like our Steve Irwin was when it comes to exploiting the media however I doubt many would dare question either’s sincerity about their chosen cause.
Steve’s little girl is up before the whole world now. I hope it doesn’t crush her.
Gavin,
I am sure Al Gore and Steve Irwin believe in their respective causes. But neither have promoted viable solutions.
I have a modest question for Luke particularly.
He and others frequently refer to links predicting more extreme climatic events etc. But there hasn’t been any numeric examples given, and particularly for my locality. As I find it easier to deal with numeric examples for management, I pose the following question:-
From the historic rainfall record for Mitchell Queensland Australia (which date from 1884), what sort of extreme rainfalls are projected to occur should these more extreme events happen?
Let’s restrict it to the month of May to limit the required number of envelopes, and to one site for the same reason.
The figure can’t be lower than the zero which is already on record, so we must be looking at the high side, and if it is to be events, then it isn’t just monthly totals.
Engaging in discussion ??? – you must have dreamed that – Jen you never started. And my memory is dull on the issue of guest post invitations. Anyway last on bad vibes as it’s irrelevant to the thread and you shouldn’t backchat the teacher.
Ian Beale – I haven’t got a clue off the top of my head. If you think it works likes that you’re bound to be disappointed. For a start there’s the issue of scenarios not predictions and nobody knows the exact future CO2 growth rates – economic, population and technologically dependent. And you’re after a degree of resolution that isn’t there. You can get broad statistics for the wider region if you know a friendly climatologist (and they’re all very angry) who might pull the stats out of various model runs.
If you want an debate on frequency of extreme events in the current context search Jen’s archive for the many discussions on cyclones/hurricanes. Tedious to rewrite – best to search.
So a bunch of Swiss guys got data that matched their expectations, Luke. So tell us how, exactly,
“The authors then subtract off the part of the downward infrared radiation increase attributable to temperature and water vapor increase, and thus ESTIMATE (my emphasis) the part due directly (as opposed to via feedbacks) to the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases such as CO2”.
My problem with this is that they are attempting to measure the effect of a change of 12ppm from a level of about 360ppm. And as water vapour is 96 to 99% of greenhouse gas, they were seeking to get hard numbers from a process that seeks to calculate the impact of 3.3% of 1% of greenhouse gas.
To do this they would need to “estimate” the water vapour content to much less than an error margin of 0.033%. At this level of error they could either overstate the effect of CO2 by 100% or completely negate it altogether.
This kind of research sounds plausible to the gullible but it won’t wash here. No matter how technical the spin, it is still three tenths of sweet FA.
might be helpful if the sceptics clarified the nature of their scepticism, eg they could hold varying views on:
* natural climate change v’s AGW – happening or not, accelerating or not, causes
* need for adaptation
* invest in mitigation?
* UNFCCC & Kyoto & other mechanisms
* look out for Aust only, or consider impacts on poor countries
Ian – you’ve been told 3 times already and you have the papers. You’re very good on the “oh that’s all bull*”- don’t underestimate your complete ignorance on this topic. Don’t forget the Harries paper too. And believe me (which you don’t) you really haven’t a clue mate. As Richard D has also informed on transpiration efficiency your imagination is also running riot there too. Incidentally checked the other CO2 stations yet my highly aggressive blog pal? And Jen wonders why one might be a tad piquey with this sort of engagement.
Ian isn’t it aslo interesting that in your view the entire AGW literature is wrong and you and your envelope are prepared to take them all on. So this is very interesting that one man can triumph over a whole literature. Truly impressive.
Didn’t I just see a post on a survey that indicated that the climatologists were evenly divided on AGW, Luke? So it is hardly just “my envelope against the world”. Nice try at isolating an opposing view but you are still only getting 1.5 out of 10 for content.
So once more on a specific, Luke. Did the Swiss study have an error margin better than 0.03% in calculating water vapour? I bet they didn’t even bother to advise what their error margin was.
And for the record, I nominate Louis, Rog, Warwick, Schiller, Ian B and Myself for inclusion in the Sceptics list.
Professor Mike Young (Adelaide Uni) just said on ABC radio “we are running on empty”. When asked where our leadership on water should come from, his response was “the community”.
From my window Jen, the rural show is not looking good.
Ian – it’s Peiser’s stuff so I wouldn’t be able to vouch for it and I’ll say no more as Jen will give the rounds of the kitchen for being aggressive and a bully. But I wouldn’t be surprised if a number of climate scientists have varying opinions. But what’s a climate scientist? This may sound arrogant but it’s a question “how up with the science they are” or just kooks/ideologues/disaffected like me.
On a more positive note for the sceptics list – it would be interesting to know “how sceptical” and “on what aspect” i.e. everything including the kitchen sink is wrong, accept warming but don’t know about CO2 bit, accept the CO2 warming bit but think the future is overly alarmist, reckon we’ll tech our way out; OR the climate hit is worth it as the economy is more important OR I’m worried the parameterisation of the flux coupler myself.
Therefore you may find that all of us have some degree of scepticism. So is it a question of fair dinkum scepticism vs b/s scepticism.
Luke, Gavin, Whoever else,
What we’re talking about here–bearing in mind the invitation of our kind host, Jennifer–is the population of skeptics and the listing of them. A completely mistaken skeptic is still a skeptic. An informed skeptic is a better skeptic. And my citations show that AGW skeptics are the majority in “the debate.”
Now let’s talk about cassowaries. It looks like they prefer to have reproductive fun in a human-managed habitat. It might even be part of a golf course. Fore!
Skeptics are not arguing that CO2 does not absorb IR or that burning fossil fuel does not add CO2 to the atmosphere. In essence the AGW debate is about whether increasing CO2 by a few hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere will have catastrophic consequences on global climate. AGW proponents claim scientific certainty that it will and cite as proof a 0.6 degree C increase in average global temperature over the past century, a putative increase in extreme weather events and predictions of ongoing future warming based on computer models of global climate. Skeptics find significant uncertainty in the amount, causes and consequences of any warming and in the accuracy of the models. They point to major doubts regarding the amount and cause of recent warming, past extremes that equal or exceed recent ones, benefits of CO2 enrichment, plus numerous simplifications, guesses and omissions in the models as well as wide discrepancies between them.
No amount or strength of argument seems likely to resolve this debate before reality irrefutably intrudes. Barring a major global recession anthropogenic CO2 emissions will continue to increase for at least the next few decades and the truth or fantasy of AGW will become increasingly apparent. On the skeptic side a good case has been put forward in a number of independent studies for an important role of solar variability on climate via an effect on cloud cover. This theory fits well with past climatic fluctuations as well as recent satellite observations. Most importantly, it predicts future ones. Of the latter, the most significant is a minimum around 2030 which is predicted to be comparable to the LIA. Whether anthropogenic CO2 is forcing global climate toward catastrophic warming or solar cycles are the dominant control should become strongly indicative in the next decade and near conclusive over the following one.
When confronted by the many unknowns involved in the theory of global warming true believers always resort to the precautionary principle as their irrefutable defense. This argument goes that even though there may be some uncertainties the possible consequences are so dire we must act now to curb the use of fossil fuel. This reasoning may appear un-assailable to the GW faithful but its dangerous fallacy is that it fails to apply the same standard of caution to the possible consequences of the precautionary measures themselves. Prevention of further growth in atmospheric CO2 would require drastic reduction in the use of fossil fuels, most probably to near pre-industrial levels. To do this quickly starting with current technology would result in extreme economic recession, probably make our major cities unsustainable and render it impossible to produce and distribute sufficient food to prevent widespread famine. In short, we would be trading a highly uncertain possibility of some future catastrophe for the certainty of an immediate self -inflicted one.
On the other hand, if we simply maintain course there is good reason to expect technological advances spurred by increased cost of fossil fuels to provide much improved energy efficiency and development of alternatives. Such advances combined with below replacement birth rates in developed countries may well mean an AGH disaster will never eventuate even if it is physically possible (which it may well not be). Should the threat clearly begin to manifest the means to address it will be more advanced and the degree of sacrifice necessary will be less in the future than they are now. At present renewable energy is a hypothetical solution to an imaginary problem. In a few more decades it may well become a practical solution to a real need but trying to mandate a change to it with current technology would be a bit like starting to take chemotherapy as a precaution when no cancer has been found.
Indeed there is a risk but risk is inherent in life. No matter what we do the mortality rate remains 100%. So far so good, seems a better strategy than self-destructing now to avoid the possibility of a future problem, especially when in reality the consequences may even be more of net benefit than of detriment.
None of this is to say that humanity should waste enormous quantities of energy, pour pollutants into the atmosphere or not seek to develop other sources of energy (both renewable and nuclear). However there are a number of other good reasons to not do these things. The current GW hysteria is simply unnecessary, poorly founded, and a distraction from many more certain and urgent problems.
Anyone who claims that the science is settled and the evidence overwhelming can only be either ignorant of a huge body of evidence or committed to a belief they find satisfying for other reasons.
To Paul,
It seems like Professor Holdren of Harvard is not alone in his predictions.
Yesterday Nature published a new study from Greenland, indicating that Greenland’s massive ice sheet is melting much quicker than scientists had estimated and the pace has accelerated lately, since 2004.
The ice sheet is now shrinking by about 248 cubic kilometres each year which is equivalent to a rise in sea level around the world of 0.5 millimetres.
If all of Greenland’s ice will melt it will rise sea levels with about 7 metres globally.
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/38186/story.htm
I really believe Professor Holdren and this new article published in Nature are trusthworty and we should take them seriously, and not just say the temperature has “only risen 1 degree and will rise another 2 or 3 degrees, so what!”
Walter – I would agree the science is far from settled on some issues. However I suggest there is no serious solar driver evidence and the recent review of the issue in Nature (this month)says such (paper in previous posts). Above I had presented a number of rigorous independent empirical/modelling studies that quantifies the effect quite well. I’m putting to this blog that a thorough examination of the pro-CO2 radiation model case has not been undertaken and that we have not advanced over the trivial.
There is also good evidence to suggest that many related changes are occurring in the world’s climate and ecosystems that agree with effects being manifest.
However what to do about the issue socially, globally, economically and technologically is much more complex.
However if you put all the CO2 up there and decide then it’s an issue – sorry probably too late. The system’s momentum is set full throttle full forward. Adapt or otherwise. And that’s why this issue is much more difficult than others.
You seem to be saying let’s wait another 20 years and see how we go?
Ann, Professor Holdren is quoted saying this,
“He added that if the current pace of change continued, a catastrophic sea level rise of 4m (13ft) this century was within the realm of possibility; much higher than previous forecasts.
To put this in perspective, Professor Holdren pointed out that the melting of the Greenland ice cap, alone, could increase world-wide sea levels by 7m (23ft), swamping many cities.”
It’s now 2006, he’s saying that within the next 96 years, sea level could rise 4 metres, or 4000 mm. That’s more than 40 mm per year, every year from now until 2100.
To put THAT into perspective, the tidemark at Port Arthur shows that the average sea level rise since 1841 is .8 mm per year, or one FIFTIETH of what Holdren says could happen this century.
Of course, more recent measurements show higher rates of rise. I have read that the yearly rise last century was 2mm per year. I’m sure there are higher measurements available to be quoted.
The IPCC gives a range of 11 – 77 cm for sea level rise by 2100. Perhaps we should include Professor Holdren in the list of sceptics?
curious, is anyone skceptical about thinning of ozone or about the role of industrial chemicals causing ozone hole? Will anyone admit to originally being sceptical but now believing this is a real problem? Was scientific modelling involved?
Motty if Aust ratifies Kyoto or similar you could get PAID for not logging.
Jennifer what will AP achieve, realistically?
Do the sceptics that criticise Kyoto only believe in markets that have physical limits, not manmade conceptual limits? Ie not cap &trade systems?
The Asia Pacific climate agreement will lack teeth, therefore it can’t create markets like Kyoto can because there would be no enforceable limit (cap) on trade. Therefore if the sceptics are against cap & trade markets Kyoto-style but support AP style action, what mechanism are they promoting? Govt investment (direct to industry & indirect via public institution R&D etc) to encourage investment new technologies for climate mitigation? ie some of the market-friendly socialist-critical sceptics are actually lobbying against markets and for command and control regulations, ie direct govt intervention? Please explain
Don’t want to be disrespectful, but why are the scientists from the highest ranking Unis and scientific institutions mostly supporting the anthropogenic global warming theory?
Is the only exception Willie Soon from the Harvard-Smithsonian??? Of course this guy was also funded by some petrol institution according to Wiki.
And the cheerleader for the anti Kyoto movement is the badly reputated Lomborg.
So how can we really trust you guys? Sorry, but in my eyes you don’t have any credibility…
Is anyone sceptical about acid rain?
Is the science sound & reliable on ozone thinning or on acid rain impacts?
Ann, who gave Lomborg his bad reputation? It was a smear campaign by the green movement, who didn’t like his message, for some reason. Have you read his book?
Do you think 40mm a year sea level rise has credibility?
Pinxi, still reading and digesting. It takes time.
When Paul asks “Do you think 40mm a year sea level rise has credibility? I expect he can tell us why its not.
I just sent some recent pics to a policy boss of some very flat beaches far side of Bass Strait. One has a viewing platform just above the high tides.
Reckon it will soon be in the action Paul?
Anne,
You really need to try to do better than that.
Who someone works for has nothing, NOTHING, whatever to do with the validity of their views. There are as many fine scientists, and as many mediocre ones, working outside your vaunted Ivy League institutions as are working within them.
It would be nice if you could try to address some of the relevant facts in a meaningful way, instead of this tedious “the Pope says ….” stuff.
(I would say that “Nobody cares what the Pope thinks”, except that the last few days have rather given the lie to that.)
Science does NOT operate on the basis of either authority or snobbery, but logic.
Cathy
Gavin, no I don’t think 40mm a year for the next 96 years is credible. I thought that would have been obvious from my post of 2.37 pm above.
Cathy, yes, I have a great faith in those Ivy League scientists, sorry…
I know how hard and what great knowledge you got to have to get that title and position. Well, especially when we know how easy it is in some countries, no, I don’t mean Australia, to acquire a PhD grade , you can almost buy a doctor’s grade .
Jen, can you please clarify one point? When you say “global warming” do you meant that term in the general sense of higher temperatures or do you mean it in the sense defined by the IPCC, to wit, temperature increase caused by human activity?
The problem that I have is that it is impossible to deny the former because that is what the near-ground temperature data shows (ignoring for a moment the relatively flat tropospheric temperatures). On the other hand it is perfectly reasonable to be sceptical of global warming under the IPCC definition because temperatures still fluctuate regardless of the levels of GHGs which means that climate forces greater that GHG must exist.
Some people will try to tell you that El Nino events are just the product of a “store and release” mechanism but the Southern Oscillation Index has been a pretty good indicator of subsequent global average temperatures for more than 50 years so I am a bit worried here because something quite natural just might be responsible for that increase in temperature.
Also I have this tiny problem that a lot of the increase in GHGs, specifically carbon dioxide, can be attributed to warmer temperatures in the northern hemisphere from October to May. It would seem that if it wasn’t for the temperature carbon dioxide levels would be lower.
All this only increases my problem of how to apply that pesky definition. Jennifer, your clarification of the definition of “global warming” would be much appreciated.
Ann Novek wrote:
“Read just yesterday that polar bears had been found up in Svalbard drowned due to diminishing ice floes, yes, we have been through this before in another thread… ”
indeed this is the thread
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001398.html
…and there is still no update on polar bear statistics promised us for this spring (Northern hemisphere that is)
http://pbsg.npolar.no/pop-maps.htm
To Hans,
On a trip this summer “We saw a couple of polar bears in the sea east of Svalbard — one of them looked to be dead and the other one looked to be exhausted,” said Julian Dowdeswell, head of the Scott Polar Research Institute in England.
He said that the bears had apparently been stranded at sea by melting ice. The bears generally live around the fringes of the ice where they find it easiest to hunt seals
As you might have read I posted a similar reply to the Polar Bear thread on Canadian Polar Bears that had been found drowned or exhausted due to diminishing ice floes.
The issue of Greenland melting is always discussed without proper perspective. And Ann’s post is no exception. If the total melt of the ice sheet will raise sea levels by 7 metres but the current rate of melting is 0.5 millimetres a year then, on current trends we have 14,000 years, give or take a century, to deal with the problem. Don’t we?
And unless I am sadly mistaken, it is a statistical certainty that we will have another ice age before that happens.
That folks, is hardly a trigger for the precautionary principle. I can die with a smile on my face knowing that I have not left my children with an insurmountable problem.
And Pinxi, I harvest my trees because it maintains higher productive, ecological and social values than neglecting it. If the IPCC wanted to pay me to not cut my trees I would refer them to an appropriate orfice. And my little furry friends would support me 100%.
Paul, I believe Professor Holdren must have pretty good evidence for his calculations, so it is no use that I try to make a calculation of my own…
So yes, I think a sea level rise with 4 metres within 100 years is fully possible, Holdren is not the only one with this calculation.
The Arctic is likely to warm more than any part of the world due to global warming. Darker water and soil, once exposed soaks up more of the sun’s heat than mirror-like ice and snow.
Paul and Ian,
In my opinion you are both making a fundamental error in your calculations.
I don’t believe the annual sea level rise is homogenous, I think it will accelerate with every year. Just my opinion guys!!!
Ann, there has been no increase in the rate of sea level rise see: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001641.html or Church et al. 2004 American Meterological Society, vol 17, pgs, 2609 – 2625.
And while we are all entitled to our own opinions, we are not all entitled to our own facts.
Fletcher Christian, My apologies for confusing you with ‘Fletcher Jones’ in an earlier comment made in this thread.
Hi John
By ‘global warming’ I mean that there has been a general warming trend over the last 10,000 or so years and also over the last 100 or so years.
It is unclear to me how much of this is due to us.
Ian – no ice age in 50-100,000 years. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
http://amper.ped.muni.cz/gw/articles/html.format/orb_forc.html
Any substantial increase in sea level would have involve melting of major ice sheets. So how likely is this.
Is this Professor Holdren who always has good evidence for his calculations the same expert who co-authored (with Paul Ehrlich) a damning review of “The Doomsday Syndrome” by John Maddox, who was the editor of “Nature” in the days when the editorial pages of that journal were worth reading? Here’s an extract from that review:
‘The most serious of Maddox’s many demographic errors is his invocation of a “demographic transition” as the cure for population growth in Asia, Africa and Latin America. He expects that birth rates there will drop as they did in developed countries following the industrial revolution. Since most underdeveloped countries are unlikely to have an industrial revolution, this seems somewhat optimistic at best. But even if those nations should follow that course, starting immediately, their population growth would continue for well over a century – perhaps producing by the year 2100 a world population of twenty thousand million. And that population would probably still be increasing by more than 100 million a year since there is every sign demographic transitions do not lead to stationary populations but to populations growing at 0.5 to1 per cent a year’ (The Times, 26 June 1972, p. 12).
The increase in the world’s population has never, and on present estimates will never, reach 100 million in a year. And the total probably won’t reach 10 billion, let alone 20 billion.
Holdren was just as noisily dismissive of Bjorn Lomborg’s “The Skeptical Environmentalist in 2002 as of John Maddox’s “The Doomsday Syndrome” 30 years earlier.
It isn’t necessary to be comprehensively wrong about everything in order to be elected President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, but the record suggests that it certainly helps.
There has been recent evidence to be at least of some concern with ice sheet break up.
Science 24 March 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5768, pp. 1747 – 1750
DOI: 10.1126/science.1115159
REPORTS
Paleoclimatic Evidence for Future Ice-Sheet Instability and Rapid Sea-Level Rise
Jonathan T. Overpeck,1* Bette L. Otto-Bliesner,2 Gifford H. Miller,3 Daniel R. Muhs,4 Richard B. Alley,5 Jeffrey T. Kiehl2
Sea-level rise from melting of polar ice sheets is one of the largest potential threats of future climate change. Polar warming by the year 2100 may reach levels similar to those of 130,000 to 127,000 years ago that were associated with sea levels several meters above modern levels; both the Greenland Ice Sheet and portions of the Antarctic Ice Sheet may be vulnerable. The record of past ice-sheet melting indicates that the rate of future melting and related sea-level rise could be faster than widely thought.
Science 24 March 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5768, pp. 1754 – 1756
DOI: 10.1126/science.1123785
REPORTS
Measurements of Time-Variable Gravity Show Mass Loss in Antarctica
Isabella Velicogna1,2* and John Wahr1*
Using measurements of time-variable gravity from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellites, we determined mass variations of the Antarctic ice sheet during 2002–2005. We found that the mass of the ice sheet decreased significantly, at a rate of 152 ± 80 cubic kilometers of ice per year, which is equivalent to 0.4 ± 0.2 millimeters of global sea-level rise per year. Most of this mass loss came from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
Science 24 March 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5768, pp. 1756 – 1758
DOI: 10.1126/science.1122112
REPORTS
Seasonality and Increasing Frequency of Greenland Glacial Earthquakes
Göran Ekström,1* Meredith Nettles,2 Victor C. Tsai1
Some glaciers and ice streams periodically lurch forward with sufficient force to generate emissions of elastic waves that are recorded on seismometers worldwide. Such glacial earthquakes on Greenland show a strong seasonality as well as a doubling of their rate of occurrence over the past 5 years. These temporal patterns suggest a link to the hydrological cycle and are indicative of a dynamic glacial response to changing climate conditions.
Reported in more detail in comments at http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001487.html#comments
Jennifer: ” Ann, there has been no increase in the rate of sea level rise..”
From March 2006:
In a report that also appears in today’s issue of Science, Robert Bindschadler, a glaciologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., wrote that Canadian and European satellites monitoring glaciers around the margins of both Greenland and Antarctica provide strong support for the new findings.
Radar aboard the satellites shows that for the past five years, in both the northern and southern regions, warmer waters have been moving into cold ocean layers 3,000 feet deep where the bases of many large glaciers lie, Bindschadler said. The warm waters are rapidly increasing the rate at which those glaciers, as well as deep-rooted sea ice around them, are melting — and thus are speeding the pace of the rise in sea level, he concluded.
Dr. Hansen(NASA):” The practical problem for humanity is that ice sheets disintegration starts slowly, but once it gets going fast enough it will be out of our control and there will be no way to stop it..”
Luke, I don’t spend a lot of time frequenting this blog, so I haven’t responded to your comments above to me. On the question of whether I understand the issues, reading your contributions when I do I suspect that your level of physics education is less than mine. I might be wrong on that, but in any event, I do have the intellectual tools to understand how CO2 radiates infra-red spectrum energy back to earth.
I also have the intellectual tools to ask rather obvious questions, such as, “If the increase in CO2 to the present is going to lead to a global catastrophe, how is it that the earth has thrived in the past with CO2 levels much higher than at present?”
Another question you might like to answer is that, as we know that CO2 has peaked after, not before, previous temperature rises, and as the temperature has subsequently fallen while the CO2 has still been high, why is it that CO2 should be seen as the dominant forcing agent?
I’ve stated before that I have some experience in modelling – it’s called constructing cashflows. I’ve found the hard way that the simple, back-of-the-envelope type of reasoning generally gives the best results because the nature of complex systems is that it is impossible to model their complexity in a way which simulates everything, and it is the things you leave out, or don’t anticipate, that often have the greatest effects on outcomes.
People like Bob Carter, who study what has happened in the past, are using the only model that really counts – Planet Earth. If your models can’t answer the questions that I have posed, then they shouldn’t be relied upon.
And don’t copy and paste some text you don’t understand – engage. According to other posters here you have the whole resources of government behind you. We’re all taxpayers, and we’re entitled to an honest answer from our resources. If you don’t know, find someone who does.
Graham – congratulations on your understanding of CO2 – it appears you are an exception. But I suspect what you’ve written is about the sum total of what you know on the topic.
Global catastrophe are your words which you like trying to put in my mouth and others.
Earth may have thrived in broad terms – but with what life forms and without 6 billion humans. Evolution will pick cockroaches if that’s what works. Configuration of oceans and alignment of continents were way different in distant geological time. You think they’re relevant to current situations. Evolution suggests our rise to fame as hominids was more a lucky combination of circumstances than some inevitable grand design. I put it to you that very often when we have a climate wobble in our current world – droughts, floods, hurricanes and heatwaves people die – sometimes in big numbers, economies and ecosystems get hurt. Current climate variability ain’t that much fun. Worse will be less fun. Major changes historically resulted in big losses for some species including extinction. Reefs may have survived geological time but 10 years of Qld reefs in bad condition would end the tourism industry (if that ever happens).
On your CO2 peaking and declining – Milankovitch – which makes me doubt your physics education completely when you would have already done the straw argument. Read some of the other side and the literature Graham instead of contrarian central – it might help. Chase down both sides of the argument – not one side.
If you’re going to rely on Bob Carter on meteorology – well good luck to you.
I can assure you that no text I cut and paste is random. All hand selected for a point. You would like me to plagiarise it for your comfort of an anecdotal folksy chat where all can play?
And I don’t have the full resources of any govt behind me at all – it’s a private debate for truth and a good database. Anyway that’s a really crap comment when it’s about 20 contrarian commentators to one. You guys have no resources either? It’s just words and ideas Graham – just words and ideas. However I am encouraged by writers suggesting I continue to point out some facts against a fair share of misrepresentation. Thought evidence based was the general blog vibe – you would like everyone to hold hands and agree. Anyway enough argy-bargy – or I’ll be black-flagged twice in one day.
Luke, you’ve been putting up a good show here. I can’t believe all the standard and completely vacuous (and really, they are completely vacuous) arguments that are getting trotted out over and over.
Here are some well supported answers to the ones I recall off hand (true sceptics do not embrace illogical and empirically contradicted positions just to avoid a particular conclusion, that is just denial):
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/global-warming-is-nothing-new.html
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/geological-history-does-not-support.html
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998.html
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/medieval-warm-period-was-just-as-warm.html
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/whats-wrong-with-warm-weather.html
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/mauna-loa-is-volcano.html
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/there-is-no-proof-that-co2-is-causing.html
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/01/water-vapor-is-almost-all-of.html
Seriously, there is no credible way to hold the positions debunked above. People who do so are not serious scientific sceptics by any stretch of the imagination. Go ahead, someone provide some substance to support one of those, no one eer does (that does not include an unsupported assertion about how good English wine was in the MWP that even if true would not imply anything significant about today)
I would like to state for the record that I do believe there is legitimate scientific controversy in the global climate change issue, especially about what the future will bring. But the commenters and blog owner here do not address these issues at all, prefering to recycle long ago and thoroughly debunked positions.
Perhaps the biggest problem in this thread and the general public conversation is the polarising use of labels and the lack of definition for common terms. When I say “sceptic” and mean it in an unflattering way, I mean only those who deny any of the following: the earth is warming, the warming is rapid and potentially dangerous, the warming is primarily caused by anthropogenic CO2. Legitimate sceptics may argue about how much more warming will come and what exactly the consequences will be, but there is no legitimate scientific question remaining on those points. Those points constitute the “consensus”. The consensus does not include predictions of “climate catastrohpy” or the notion that CO2 is the only factor in climate change.
Both sides need to be very clear about what they mean by “consensus” and “sceptic” when using those terms in anger.
Jennifer, I would be thrilled to expand on that theme, (what is the consensus, what is a sceptic) as a guest post if you are sincere in the offer you made above.
Coby what you call sceptics I call contrarians or denialists.
I’d say the “concensus” is IPCC TAR.
Ann,
“and thus are speeding the pace of the rise in sea level”
“There is no evidence for any acceleration of sea level rise in data from the 20th century data alone”
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/425.htm
ATTENTION sceptics: Do you accept that the science is sound & reliable on ozone thinning or on acid rain impacts? Or should we be highly sceptical of that too?
Pinxi,
I have no argument with the campaign against CFCs and the Montreal Convention appears to have been a great success: http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/TG/PI/POLICY/montpro.html .
I am not across all the ‘acid rain’ science but I understand the sulfur trading scheme in the US has been a success in the US but not the UK: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/spru/publications/imprint/sewps/sewp19/sewp19.html .
I’m curious about the comparative reliability of the science for each issue. Is modelling involved?
Pinxi, why don’t you work that out for us and send me a guest post on the issue – why the montreal convention has been a success but kyoto so divisive.
Hans – see above http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001641.html#comments
It appears we now have an acceleration?
Jennifer I can tell you now, quickly: it’s less to do with the science but more to do with vested interests and the distribution of costs & benefits.
The impacts of ozone thinning & acid rain fall predominantly onto temperate zones – industrialised nations – AND because there are some business market opportunities (eg CFC substitutes for the exact same companies that initially provided the offending technologies). So, little arguing over the science of the models because of the concentration of the costs & benefits, and business opportunities for new market development.
applying the same approach – govts & businesses are coming around to climate change mitigation & adaptation as they find incremental business opportunities in the same. as I’ve said before, it matters less if there is a genuine need for the technologies or other efforts, despite many people on this blog protesting on that basis. Our consumption economy is powered by demand and investment in loads of useless or unnecessary guff. Our economies are also largely powered by faith. As long as market demand exists, the science becomes less relevant.
Pinxi, if you decide to write such an article you may be interested in the research of Eban Goodstein. Goodstein’s work would appear to demolish the argument espoused by the IPA, Marohasy and other corporate lobbyists that tackling global warming would be cost prohibitive. See http://www.prospect.org/print/V8/35/goodstein-e.html
Goodstein shows that in almost every single case the corporate shills drastically overestimate the economic cost of environment protection measures. Here is a typical example:
“CFCs in automobile air conditioners. In 1993 car manufacturers estimated that the price of a new car would increase by $650 to $1,200 due to new regulations limiting the use of CFCs. In 1997 the actual cost was estimated to be $40 to $400 per car. ”
Can anyone explain why the ozone is thinner over the Antarctic than the Arctic? I assume most of the ozone depleting chemicals are released in the Northern hemisphere.
Before I get accused of being a corporate shill, I’m just asking, okay.
http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_1/
Does this help?
Thanks, Luke. I was sort of hoping for a two paragraph summary that would allow me to dismiss all you CFC alarmists as stooges for the eco-mental fascist collective. Instead I get a bloomin’ textbook!
Nifty site, thanks.
thnx steve, good link. I’ve read a host of other research that shows economic benefits from addressing envrtl issues (if you have markets, demand and technological innovation to meet that demand then you have economic growth right, so all we need to do is keep increasing public awareness & general concern and then the whole business of AGW mitigation & adaptation becomes a profitable pro-jobs endeavour – that’s all John Howard etc are waiting for). Other than the reply above tho, I’m due for retirement from this blog again so wont be writing no guest piece
I note none of the scientific sceptics have indicated scepticism over acid rain or thinning ozone though. they must find this science rock solid then eh? No objections to modelling?
Or is the protest over Kyoto predominantly due to nationalistic capitalist greed in US & Aust – not giving a hoot over the poorest most vulnerable countries on the low-lying arid end of our GHG emiisions cos we’ll be right thanks mate for the time being, we expect we can adapt & screw the buggers who can’t
Actually I’m sceptical on acid rain and CFCs/ozone. If I knew more about those topics, I might not be. Scepticism is a good default position.
Luke,
When using the same observation method (harbour guages)there is no accelleration) When using a different method (sattelite Topex/Poseidon) the rate of rise is higher, but there is no acceleration within the data.
Gauges measure near coast, sattelites measure middle of ocean.
Based on short term observations a model is calculated for the future. Will there be future sea lever rise accelleration? This depends on the accuracy of the model and the input data.
Answer: perhaps.
Similar for sea ice.
Sea ice data from sattelites (1972-present) is spliced with aeroplane data (1950-1972) and iceberg data (pre-1950) During the hotter 40’s there was allegedly more sea ice than present.
Do you know now why?
Graham, Luke has consistently wimped out on that one every time.
What a cop out, Ann. We have enough ice in Greenland to raise sea levels by 7000mm and we have a melt rate of only 0.5mm a year and you try to claim that some rapidly compounding increase will melt the lot in a century or two not the 14000 years that the numbers indicate.
To do that you would need a compound rate increase of about 10% a year, supposedly forced by claimed annual increases in CO2 of 0.3%pa. Give us a break. Even at a 1% annual increase in melt rate it will take 70 years for the annual melt to reach the equivalent of 1mm annual rise in sea level.
So once again, Luke gives us a url reference to material that corrects a minor part of my argument but avoids the main point. It doesn’t matter if the next ice age isn’t due for 50,000 years because the ice melt that we are being told will occur over the next century is unlikely to take place for at least 7 millenia.
Which would allow the kids more than enough time to come up with appropriate, low cost solutions to the ‘problem’, if it actually exists.
I repeat the oft mentioned analogy, would the kids have preferred that we handed down the residual debt from having mandated that everyone must buy the $4 million IBM mainframe that occupies an entire room or wait 20 years and get the $1000 laptop that does a better job fixing the real problem faster and cheaper?
No contest.
Ian – bolsh Graham was comprehensively answered – what are you now the cheer squad? But Graham buggers orf and doesn’t keep up the thread. His presence is a rare as a La Nina event at Esk.
And what was the main point of your argument? In all the excitement I’ve forgotten whether it was 5 shots or 6. Remember Ian a rhetorical 44 Magnum thoughtgun can blow your mind clean off. So do you feel lucky punk.
OK if it’s the Greenland/Antarctica stuff – you an have “acceleration” of trends and disturbance of the base of these systems. See above papers quoted by me from the excellent editon of Science on the matter earlier this year. Better get out your logarithmic envelope to keep up.
I suggest it’s all very interesting and unpredictable – I don’t really know – doesn’t seem safe to me though. And from kindy you would remember that doublings mean you have 1 day to save the pond once it’s half full of weed !
So Ian – you have to ask yourself knowing all this – do you feel lucky – do ya?
Ian,
I think you have misunderstood me a little bit…
I stated that Professor Holdren said that it was within the possibility that a sea level rise with about 4 metres might occur within the next century or so…This seemed to be the latest news.
OK guys, I know you are not any fans of Greenpeace, but their ship the Arctic Sunrise was up in Greenland last year together with independent scientists from Maine University and their predictions were that it will take about 1000 years to melt the Greenland ice sheet…
BTW, I saw the documentary from the expedition on the melting of the glaciers and trust me, it was a bit scary, the pace was indeed very fast…
Hey Ian, I try to not cop out but math calculations ain’t my strong side…
OK,found an interesting article that seems to support Holdrens position. Even Greenpeace’s and the Maine University’s study seems to be outdated.
It was thought the entire Greenland ice sheet could melt in about 1000 years, but the latest evidence suggest that could happen much sooner.
The new data will cut this timescale…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4720536.stm
Luke, yes, I tend not to spend a lot of time monitoring this blog. If you can’t answer a simple question straight, what’s the point in hanging around?
Your answer to my two questions appears to be that because continents were differently aligned in the past higher CO2 levels didn’t lead to higher temperatures. You’ve got to do a bit better than that. That’s not an argument, it’s an assertion.
Then you throw in a bit of nonsense about how there were different species then, so it would all be different now. Well, not really. It wasn’t the temperature that primarily caused there to be different animals then, it was evolution. And higher temperatures now, even of those in the order of the IPCC’s most likely scenarios wouldn’t kill off our wild life.
You didn’t even bother to answer the issue of CO2 peaking after temperature rises and declining after temperature falls, which arises from observations, not theories. But you did have a gratuitous go at smearing Bob Carter, which is par for the course with the Global Warming Alarmists – try to ridicule anyone who points out problems with your theories.
As a student of social behaviour, the group think and moral panic that this issue brings out is enthralling. Luckily, for those of us in the west it is unlikely to have any serious outcomes – we’ll be comfortable no matter what action is forced on us to counteract global warming. It could be more serious for those in the developing world. But anyway, we do need to find substitutes for carbon fuels some time in the next couple of hundred years, so perhaps it’s all just a harmless sideshow.
These NASA guys appear to be extrapolating from the rate of glacier melt which is much faster than the melting of the main ice body. We need to know what proportion of the total sheet area is taken up by glaciers before drawing any conclusions.
I do note, from reversing the maths back from total sea area of 362.5 million km2 multiplied by the 0.007km projected sea level rise that the assumed average depth of the 1.7m km2 ice sheet is a very neat 1.5km thick. If it were a number more like 1.63 or 1.42 it would have the ring of a properly calculated value but this neat 1.5km which is exactly half of the widely touted “up to 3km thick” indicates that it is merely an assumption.
But even if we accept the assumed depth of 1.5km we get a total ice volume of 2.5378 million km2, of which an anual loss of 220km2 is only 0.00867 of 1% a year which, on a straight line basis would take 11,535 years for complete melt.
The problem with extrapolating from glacier melting rates is that once they have melted the melt rate reverts to zero while the rest of the ice sheet just sits there as it has always done.
To use a rate based on a doubling of volume every 10 years, (ie 7% annual increment) and continuing at that rate in perpetuity, is so misleading as to constitute misrepresentation.
And it is worth noting that the article itself is guilty of exaggerating its own data, claiming that melt volumes doubled in five years when the actual period was 1996 to 2005.
Graham – you haven’t even bothered to put the brain in gear and consider my response.
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/co2-lags-not-leads.html
Of course you’ll have to hold two issues in your mind at once which might be a challenge.
There is more in the science literature.
The issue with continents in different configurations at different latitudes with vastly different ecosystems, flora and fauna with who knows what orbital arrangements of the sun/earth means simply that you have no real idea what prehistoric climate was really like. And we have had not had 6 billion humans with the world in its current configuration and current ecosystems exposed to vast quantities of atmospheric CO2 before. And you seem to forget that drought, floods, heatwaves and hurricanes already do us considerable harm. Your argument is utterly meaningless as any comparison with the modern day, and really quite stupid.
Perhaps you might argue that the world survived Krakatoa too – pity those sitting under it did not !
You might ask yourself what forces drive evolution – I think you’ll find climate is a significant factor. Climate effects from asteroid impact or other effects may have caused massive extinction events.
And the outcome of evolution does not have be something you “prefer”. Cockroaches are just fine if that’s what works.
It’s not the IPCC average temperatures that are an issue – it’s changes in the extremes of the distributions. That’s what causes problems with wildlife. Graham – where do you suggest a montane species near its thermal limit go to if it’s near the top of a mountain. Anyway – you know the examples of all this. you’re just being provocative.
Re Bob Carter – are you really serious ! He’s just a knocker not a researcher in the field.
http://timlambert.org/category/science/bobcarter/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=290#comment-11443
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998.html
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/04/a_picture_is_worth_a_thousand.php
http://timlambert.org/2005/07/bob-carter-yet-again/usand.php
No Luke, Profesor Bob Carter is an expert in his field while you and Mr Lambert just hang off every word from the better funded science manager.
That’s bloody insulting – it has nothing to with “better funded science manager” – it has all to do with logic and facts. As for “nasty” – Jen – take a serious read of the totally abusive style of you “contrarian” clique which you pander to. Utterly abusive in the main.
So you agree with the warming since 1998 ruse then? and the satellite ruse. You are blind to any fundamentals in the debate. Do you fully support Carter’s comments as discussed above then? Yes or no.
Carter is not commenting as some hack on a blog – but in national newspaper position pieces as a professor of a serious institution.
I find it interesting that you guys can serve it out – name calling BoM, CSIRO, the IPCC, Flannery, Lowe – a huge body of staff- with such venom but do the glass jaw routine if anyone say “boo” in return. Unimpressed.
Oh – his field – is that modern meteorology? or geology?
Luke,
I would prefer we stuck to the issues. But you seem incapable of it – when its not going so good with the argument you revert to personal attack of professional scientists who disagree with your position.
If qualifications are so important then please list your qualifications here or send them to me and i will post them as as a new thread.
Ian, a good post…
“These NASA guys appear to be extrapolating from the rate of glacier melt which is much faster than the melting of the main ice body. We need to know what proportion of the total sheet area is taken up by glaciers before drawing any conclusions.”
I haven’t studied this , but as I understand most of Greenland and Antarctica are an ICE SHEET. And an ice sheet is also a glacier.
Glaciers are classified based on their size and their relationship to topograhy. The smallest glaciers are valley glaciers or alpine glaziers.
Larger masses are called ice caps.
The largests of the world’s glacier’s are ice sheets. An ice sheet is a body of ice that covers an entire land mass or continent.
So the question arise , do coastal glaciers melt faster than the inland ice sheet, are there variations….
How NOT to Become a Global Warming Skeptic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.png
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png