Since people are wanting to talk about the latest events on the Antarctic Peninsula, this is a post for that discussion.
The imagery from ESA (animation here) tells the recent story quite clearly – the last sliver of ice between the main Wilkins ice shelf and Charcot Island is currently collapsing in a very interesting way (from a materials science point of view). For some of the history of the collapse, see our previous post. This is the tenth major ice shelf to collapse in recent times.
Maybe we can get some updates and discussion of potential implications from the people working on this in the comments….?
Walt Bennett, you’re missing two things by thinking that what’s happening is within natural variation.
1) the physics of adding CO2 to the atmosphere, trapping heat
2) the rate of change, far faster than anything in the past short of an asteroid impact
You’re saying everything has happened before. True.
It’s been hotter and colder on Earth.
CO2 has been higher and lower.
No previous event has burned carbon as fast as we’re doing.
No previous warming has happened anywhere near this fast.
The exceptions to natural rates of change are catastrophes.
So is the present rate of change.
Asteroid impacts or flood basalts caused the past catastrophes.
Human fossil fuel burning is causing the present catastrophe.
Catastrophe — as in math — meaning you can’t back up and simply reverse the course of events.
You don’t like the fact that people can’t see what’s happening.
Can you do anything for ‘Global Cooler’ who can’t see the trend in a chart? There are far more people like her or him out there who need your help.
Reality, as P.K. Dick said, is what’s still here when we wake up, what doesn’t go away when we quit beieving in it.
The rate of change is real.
Address it please.
______________________________
“CURSE WPIX” says ReCaptcha. ?
Yes, in all caps.
Theo Hopkins #339:
Wouldn’t John Tyndall’s original experiment do? I seem to remember (but cannot now find any link) that he did demonstrations for the general public. He was famously a great popularizer.
It would be nice if my tax dollars were going to people that could get along long enough to meet and discuss these issues in a civilized manner.
I guess you missed that thing called the first amendment to the Constitution to the United States of America.
My suggestion to you is to read that document, and if you don’t like what it says, go ahead and try to amend it.
Steve, the objection to the approach of Lindzen is that he publishes his diatribes not in the peer-reviewed literature, but in forums frequented by unsophisticated laymen–e.g. on blogs and in the editorial pages of various rags. Spencer, to his credit, does still publish technical papers (albeit not influential ones). However, there is a distinctly more militant tone in his nontechnical pieces. This has hurt his credibility pretty severely in the eyes of serious scientists.
It certainly is not essential to agree with the consensus to be a well respected member of the community. Hell, look at Einstein and quantum mechanics. However, if you treat the consensus view dismissively, this will hurt your credibility.
Back in Grad school, I had a prof who didn’t believe in quarks. He was still respected for his contributions and taught graduate classes, but he was not allowed to teach particle physics or modern physics courses. It doesn’t matter which subdiscipline of science you are in, there are ways of doing things in science, and preaching your pet theories to a less sophisticated audience is a good way to diminish the esteem in which you are held.
Walt Bennett wrote: “Allow me to say I can find quotes where Dr. Hansen says we must immediately stop building coal plants that do not CCS. That idea is politically dead on arrival, and Dr. Hansen has no place even saying it.”
First of all, I am not so sure that a moratorium on building new non-CCS coal-fired power plants is “politically dead on arrival”, or if it is, that it will long remain so. There is growing, widespread opposition to building new coal-fired power plants (and the non-CCS ones are the only kind that exist right now) and some proposed plants have been canceled due to that opposition.
Nor is there any need to build them, for example in the USA, given the rate at which wind power is being built. Indeed, the dubious economic viability (i.e. profitability) of new coal-fired power plants may contribute more to a de facto moratorium as will the political opposition, as has been the case with nuclear power plants.
Second, who are you to say what Hansen’s “place” is, or what he as a profoundly well-informed citizen can or cannot say about this issue? He understands the science, and the danger, better than most, and has every right, and even the responsibility, to advocate the proposals that he thinks are needed to address the problem.
As I mentioned above, I strongly disagree with Hansen’s advocacy of “fourth generation nuclear power plants” as a useful or needed investment for reducing emissions, and given the opportunity I will happily argue why that’s a wrong-headed idea, but I would certainly never say that it is “not his place” to advocate them.
When scientists are talking science, they should scrupulously stick to the science. But they have every right — just as anyone else does — to talk about other things, including their ideas about what we need to do to deal with the realities that science has revealed to us.
Walt Bennett asks, “So – where has all this advocacy gotten us?”
Well, people are actually discussing meaningful action now, including cap and trade, increased funding to alternative energy, conservation and so on. What is more, Hansen may be right. It may be that CO2 sensitivity is toward the upper range of the 90% CL, as he believes. It may also be that there are tipping points not currently included in the models. It may be that the consequences of 1.5 to 2 doublings would be catastrophic–perhaps the end of human civilization. In that case, it would be irresponsible not to call attention to the threat. Certainly, this view cannot be precluded given current uncertainties. In fact it is a lot more likely that would be a universe in which CO2 sensitivity is below 1.5 degrees per doubling. If we look at it from a risk mitigation perspective, it is a severe-consequence outcom with nonvanishing probability, so we can’t ignore it.
If you think that science does not involve advocacy, you are naive. The thing is that usually the advocacy is confined to scientific meetings. On some occasions, though, science has important consequences. Doesn’t the scientist then have a duty as a citizen to call attention to those consequences and advocate the policy most likely to lead to the best outcome. Why should a scientist stop being a citizen?
Hank Roberts: “No previous warming has happened anywhere near this fast.”
I think the warming rate during the thawing of Snowball Earth should have at some time been faster. Not really relevant to the current situation, but no one ever seems to consider this when making such sweeping statements.
Re: steve #392
Ray Ladbury wrote in 387 in response to Walt Bennett:
Trying to take advantage of the disagreement between Walt Bennett and Ray Ladbury, the gentleman known only as steve writes in 392:
Well, it really isn’t your money which is at issue. It’s Exxons. Just given the names that you’ve mentioned (specifically, Christy, Lindzen and Spencer) and the organizations with which they are directly associated, I put the total at $4,800,000 since 1998.
Here is a map.
Here are the three individuals I am focusing on, the organizations they are directly associated with and the roles that they play — then links to further information…
John Christy: Competitive Enterprise Institute – Contributing Writer; Cato Institute – Conference Speaker; Indepedent Institute – Panel on Global Warming; George C. Marshall Institute – Author; Heartland Institute – HeartlandGlobalWarming[Dot]org Expert
SourceWatch | DesmogBlog | ExxonSecrets
Richard Lindzen: Annappolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy – Member of the Science and Economic Advisory Council; Cato Institute – Contributing Writer; Techn Central Science Foundation – Contributing Writer; George C. Marshall Institute – Author; Heartland Institute – HeartlandGlobalWarming[dot]org expert
SourceWatch | DesmogBlog | ExxonSecrets
Roy Spencer: Tech Central Science Foundation – Roundtable Member; Heartland Institute – Contributing Writer; George C. Marshall Institute – Author; Interfaith Steward Alliance – Co-Author
SourceWatch | DesmogBlog | ExxonSecrets
… and here I have listed each organization, the amounts given to them by Exxon since 1998 (from the ExxonSecrets site), as well as links to further informaton:
Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy
$973,500 since 1998
DeSmogBlog
CATO Institute
$125,000 since 1998
SourceWatch | DeSmogBlog
Independent Institute
$85,000 since 1998
SourceWatch | DeSmogBlog
Competitive Enterprise Institute
$2,005,000 since 1998
SourceWatch | DeSmogBlog
George C. Marshall Institute
$840,000 since 1998
SourceWatch | DeSmogBlog
Heartland Institute
$676,500 since 1998
SourceWatch | DeSmogBlog
Tech Central Science Foundation
$95,000 since 1998
SourceWatch | DeSmogBlog
Given all the money involved, the Union of Concerned Scientists has complained that Exxon is waging a tobacco-like campain of disinformation with regard to global warming.
Please see:
Scientists’ Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science
January 3, 2007
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
I believe some weight is added to their claims by the fact that the CATO Institute, the Independent Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute and Heartland Institute were all involved in the defense of smoking.
“Where does your “17 trillion tons” of carbon come from? No one technology is going to solve the problem. I quote from the IPCC’s 2007 report on CCS (p.12 of the Executive Summary):”
OK, it was 17 trillion kilos.
#403 Thomas
I’m sorry I didn’t mean to say they should all be sent to the gulag if they couldn’t get along. I meant to say it would be nice if they could. I have no desire to trample on anyone’s first amendment rights.
ref #408 Timothy that argument is just plain lame. It is as lame as the argument that people are corrupted by grant money. I will ignore both thank you. Until someone can actually prove otherwise I will assume that people mean what they say and aren’t being bribed to say it. Also, out of curiousity, how many people that agree with you recieve money from energy companies and why do they get any if they aren’t properly responding to the bribe?
ref #404 Ray, I understand your point of view. The entire situation has become entirely too personal. I read their blogs and everyone here is manipulating data, liars and fools. I read the same sort of things here about them. At some point in time the animosity has to start getting ratchetted down.
Oh and Timothy, I have decided to use only my first name because I have a practice to run and would prefer that the level of animosity shown on the web does not find it’s way to my office door.
On a lighter note I have read portions of the last NOAA attribution and find what I have read to be quite compelling, mainly because it matches closely to my preconcieved opinions. Is this going to be a topic of discussion here?
“On a lighter note I have read portions of the last NOAA attribution and find what I have read to be quite compelling, mainly because it matches closely to my preconcieved opinions.”
Not unless you say what your preconceived notion was. And why you arrived at that before receiving confirmation (else wmanny will shiv you for confirmation bias).
Why? Because your past history of posting hasn’t shown much critical thinking. People don’t want to waste time trying to work out what you’re saying. It didn’t help much in the past. So to rectify that, be clear, concise and explicit.
Greg, got any source on an estimate of a warming rate at the end of a ‘snowball Earth’ event? I looked but didn’t find one. I know there are suggestions the onset was rapid, e.g.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0012-821X(03)00197-3
(nothing like the return to 280ppm in 10 years someone wanted to claim in the other thread).
PS to 408
I knew there was something I was forgetting. (My apologies — it was a spur of the moment sort of thing.) Each organization should have had a third link beneath it making available the following information…
Exxon Secrets Factsheets on Organizations
Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=13
CATO Institute
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=21
Competitive Enterprise Institute
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=2
George C. Marshall Institute
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36
Heartland Institute
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41
Independent Institute
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=46
Interfaith Stewardship Alliance
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=142
Tech Central Science Foundation (aka Tech Central Station)
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=112
*
As for Roger Pielke, I am still trying to figure that one out.
I’m sorry I didn’t mean to say they should all be sent to the gulag if they couldn’t get along.
I didn’t say they would, and I didn’t say you said they would. That happens to be the first thing that comes to your mind though, why would that be? Your prejudices are easily discerned through their thin veil of rhetoric.
Greg, I don’t think so. Looks like the termination of the snowball may have coincided with an evolutionary surge of photosynthetic plankton, but that takes longer than a century or so.
Try this source; he refers to:
“… Quaternary cyclic high-amplitude orbital solar forcing (on a scale of 40 to 100 Watt/m/2 June insolation at latitude 65 deg. N)—triggering glacial albedo decline from melting ice sheets and CO2
-feedback effects from warming seas—resulting in glacial terminations. Lately a new factor emerged—a carbon-emitting warlike mammalian species. Since about 1750 305 Gigatons carbon (GtC) were combusted, compared to 750 GtC in the atmosphere, about 10 percent of the known global fossil fuel reserve of 4000 GtC, and about 12 percent of the terrestrial biosphere. The reserve compares with the release during the K-T impact event 65.10e6 years ago of 4600 GtC to the atmosphere, associated with mass extinction of species. Since the 19th century, and in particular from the 1970s, the growth rate of atmospheric greenhouse gases and global mean temperatures exceeds those of Pleistocene glacial terminations by one to two orders of magnitude. …”
http://www.zeroemissionnetwork.org/files/MILESTONES_19-6-07.pdf
1
MILESTONES IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE ATMOSPHERE
WITH REFERENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
Andrew Glikson
The gentleman known only as “steve” wrote in 411:
How odd… I don’t seem to have to worry about that sort of thing.
Chris S (310): Outstanding post.
A more recent global synthesis:
Rosenzweig, C. et al (2008) Attributing physical and biological impacts
to anthropogenic climate change. Nature 453:353-
One side submits their “manipulated” “fraudulent” data to the peer review process, the other doesn’t.
Why? Which do you think is more likely to yield fruitful results?
PS to the above
Just so you know, steve, I am just having fun with you — about the last name at least. I wouldn’t want others here to necessarily have to reveal their last names — particularly when they may have good reasons not to. And actually for a while I was a little concerned that someone might show up where I live. But as they say, to live is to risk.
THe Wilkins collapse fascinates because temperatures have not increase hugely, if a relatively small surface temperature boost with respect to average weather temperatures in the Peninsula gives this result (according to RC https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/state-of-antarctica-red-or-blue/langswitch_lang/po, +0,5 C), it would be nice to know by how much. I believe there is something else at play as well, in the Arctic, thinner ice appears to give warmer air, just above the surface, I am documenting this fact by using the sun as a fixed sphere of reference. If there is a better way to measure lower upper air temps over a wide area, I dont know it, and Arctic results show
without much of a doubt, a significant relation between thinner ice and warmer lower upper air….
367. Walt, because it goes without saying that the use of “idiot” should have been handled with an immediate apology, perhaps that is the reason others have not said so. Perhaps also because it appears Gavin did apologize in his way. -Walter
John,
It’s pretty clear that you made no sense whatsoever of my posts.
I assure you, to zero avail, that I am in sharp grasp of the science.
Most of you are not.
Hank,
We’ve both been here for several years. Surely you know by now that I accept basic AGW theory and that I consider much of the science to be well done. I have very little doubt that the planet is warming rapidly, due in part to human activity. Without human activity, the planet might be cooling. Hansen has said there will not be another ice age as long as man rules the planet. I believe that.
I believe that the evidence shows that some change is happening more rapidly than consensus projections have suggested. I believe that the IPCC process has produced conservative projections, especially as regards sea level rise.
None of that matters anymore, does it? We must begin the process of developing strategies that do not rely on reducing fossil fuel emissions, because that strategy was not embraced when it would have held off catastrophic warming. The place we are in now is being represented dishonestly, or perhaps ignorantly, by those who advocate cap and trade and other such schemes.
Such schemes will accomplish several things: 1) they will constitute a massive power grab by the political left; 2) they will dramatically increase the cost of energy, which will have severe economic consequences for many millions of humans; 3) they will cause a large shift of wealth from developed to developing nations; 4) they will create winners and losers. The losers will be those nations which apply the restrictions, and the winners will be those who don’t; 5) based on (4), nations will enter trade wars with each other, and everybody loses.
In other words, am a “warmer” and I want nothing to do with restricting carbon emissions. I suspect that greater quantities of atmospheric CO2 will have diminishing effects anyway, and I suspect that market forces will, within twenty or so years, accomplish much of the same thing. There is no way I can foresee this being solved via public policy at this late date.
It is correct to begin the process of determining where to place public resources, and it is clear to me that the conversation must include mitigation, adaptation and geo-engineering strategies. As scary as that sounds, to me it sounds insane to plan for CO2 reductions and land management as successful strategies.
ref #416 Thomas, If I didn’t say that then I would suggest that you bringing up the constitution in reply to my remark was a bit melodramatic.
From the original post:
“This is the tenth major ice shelf to collapse in recent times.”
That says it all. The rest is conversation.
You still think nothing’s happening? What the #$%@*&* are we waiting for- another 10 ice shelves to collapse,followed by the land ice they hold back? More low lying land to be swallowed by the sea? More mountain glaciers receding or disappearing altogether? Mankind has to get off its collective backside asap. The time for pontification and naval contemplation should cease.
#413 Mark my past posts were not only not devoid of critical thinking they were also not very clear and concise causing you to miss my meaning. For instance in this last post I had no intention that my opinions be the topic but rather the paper itself. I would like to see professional discussion on the topic. I will say things to bring up topics that I don’t always intend to be the primary participant in. Perhaps you would feel less frustration with my posts if you chose to ignore them?
“Since records began, 50 years ago, mean annual temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula have risen rapidly [Turner, et al., 2005; Vaughan, et al., 2001; Vaughan, et al., 2003]. A total increase in mean annual air temperatures, of around 2.8 °C makes this the most rapidly warming region in the Southern Hemisphere – comparable to rapidly warming regions of the Arctic.”
from
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/our_research/topics/climate_change/our_world/antarctic_peninsula.php
#419 I have respect for the peer reviewed process especially when data bases and methods are available for scrutiny.
#421 Timothy, perhaps I am being too careful but you’d be amazed at how personal people take differing opinions on this topic. Or perhaps you wouldn’t.
Regarding Lindzen’s Dishonesty, Part I
steve wrote in 411:
dhogaza responded in 420:
Well, let’s see what some of the “animosity” is all about, why don’t we? I will consider Lindzen…
Richard Lindzen wrote:
When he states, “The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise,” this is clearly a strawman argument. We know that the current Holocene era of the past 10,000 years has been particularly stable compared to past eras, that this is the time during which humans developed agriculture and that human civilization arose. We know that this is what current populations, species and ecological systems are adapted to. And we know that it was during this time that all of our cities and current infrastructure was built. If the climate system changes a great deal, and particularly if it changes rapidly it will be a disaster the likes of which we have never seen.
When he states, “The current alarm rests… [also on the belief that] that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman’s forecast for next week,” he is equivocating between weather prediction (which is concerned with what is happening on a particular day in a particular place) and climate prediction (which is concerned with the statistical behavior of the climate over broad periods of time and over wide regions). He is deliberately omitting the fact that climatology can be more accurate given the law of large numbers. He omits the fact that it has been shown to be fairly accurate with projections two decades into the future (e.g., Hansen 1988). He ignores the fact that it has done quite well at modeling earlier periods of climate change which we know by means of the paleoclimate record.
*
Regarding Lindzen’s statement:
Gavin and Mike have said:
Regarding Lindzen’s Dishonesty, Part II
Regarding Lindzen’s pattern of dishonesty, Ray Ladbury wrote a while back:
*
Once you have identified a pattern of dishonesty, I believe it is entirely appropriate to turn to the question of its motive.
I wrote a while back:
*
Now Lindzen’s article includes the following disclaimer:
However, Gavin and Mike point out:
Lindzen is deeply involved in Exxon’s campaign against the science of climatology — and has been for some time — and as I have indicated in posts 408 and 415 above, this has been extensively documented.
If the topic is honesty, why are we still discussing emissions reduction as a potentially successful strategy?
Why are we discounting the risks and the unintended consequences?
Do you really, faithfully believe that the AGW community owns the patent on truth in this debate?
PS to 431
In “Regarding Lindzen’s Dishonesty, Part II,” I quoted Ray Ladbury towards the beginning, who said:
Now in all fairness to Ray, I believe this was covered earlier in the discussion he was participating in at the time, however, it isn’t entirely fair to others to imply that there is a problem with what Lindzen was trying to imply which is so obvious for anyone with Lindzen’s education that he couldn’t be honestly suggesting it — and not mentioning what that problem is. It is basically this: for there to be a significant warming in the outer planets (as far away as Neptune or Pluto — depending upon who you are talking to) and for this to be the result of increase solar irradiance, given the inverse square law as it applies to solar radiation, the increase in temperature on earth would have to be so great that we would already be wiped out as a species.
As we are still here, we know that an increase in solar radiation isn’t what is responsible for any significant change in temperature on either Neptune or Pluto.
In fact, Neptune is warming as the result of a highly elliptical orbit, where it has been entering its summer — and the same applies to Pluto, if I remember correctly. Mars on the other hand has experienced some global warming due to darker dust being kicked up into the atmosphere due sand storms. Meanwhile, but for the quasi-periodic ups and downs of the solar cycle, solar irradiance on earth was flat to slightly declining from 1950-present — right through the modern period of global warming from 1975 forward.
*
Captcha fortune cookie agrees with the logic of my first two paragraphs, stating “survive known.”
#423/424 Walt Bennett
My apologies for you clearly have a grasp of ‘some’ relevant things here. But I content that your contexts are not, or may not, be as relevant as you seem to think. Also the idea that you would ‘stick’ to an opinion is odd. In science or in life, I don’t think sticking to an opinion in the face of contravening evidence that is reasonable, or even overwhelming, is wise.
It falls apart for me when you say things like “I want nothing to do with restricting carbon emissions.”
The reason is the future costs of not restricting/reducing carbon emissions. There is an economic lag to the lag effect of CO2 in this case. Waiting for market forces to handle everything merely makes it more costly.
It also fall apart for me in your grasp of the relevant when you say things like “And another thing: all contrary evidence (evidence which does not seem to support AGW theory) is just as instantly dismissed, or cloaked in very careful language.”
Scientists don’t just dismiss things unless they have already been reasonably dismissed.
Your contention of understanding also weakens in my view when you say things like “All evidence needs to be treated equally. I feel sorry for some poor scientist out there who just wants to do his work and not worry how well it fits a theory which has grown to ridiculous proportions.”
and
We clearly need to reduce coal burn in order to reduce CO2 output and this has tremendous economic advantage to it. In the process of doing so we need to learn to be more conservative and less wasteful. this also has advantage to it economically and in quality of life.
You seem to overgeneralize in some of your statements without reasonable context. So, while you admit global warming is happening, I’m not confident you fully comprehend the ramifications, unless of course you are arguing that humans won’t do anything until the world begins to fall apart? But that is not what you said, you are just against stopping burning coal as you have clearly stated. So in that respect I don’t think you clearly grasp the science, ramifications, economic needs and policy requirements to achieve a healthier economy and future.
I think I’ve made some sense at least of your posts, but I don’t think everything you say makes sense. I’m sure you feel that same about me though and I doubt I make sense all the time anyway.
If I didn’t say that then I would suggest that you bringing up the constitution in reply to my remark was a bit melodramatic.
Since apparently you aren’t yet aware of it, our constitution represents the LEGAL BASIS of our nation, and provides US with the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to criticize your beliefs as harshly as we desire. That indeed is quite a melodramatic concept. I suggest you inure yourself to it, because I find your reference to free speech gulags to be revealing at the very least, particularly with respect to open and free expression in the areas of science and government, and revolting at best. Nobody here is questioning your right to express your demonstrably trivial skepticism on this forum, on the contrary, at least my patience for civility is beginning to wear thin.
Civility is not a requirement for good science, on the contrary, uncivil debate often enhances it greatly, especially when it sieves out the nonsense that wastes the valuable time of people who really care about issues and easily recognize the motivations of those who don’t.
On any other forum, I would verbally eviscerate you.
Hank Roberts: “Greg, got any source on an estimate of a warming rate at the end of a ’snowball Earth’ event?”.
The Earth went from being covered in ice to being super tropical, all with carbon dioxide estimated as 350 times (per Wikipedia) the current level. At some point in that process, the Earth must have been in a similar situation to today, but with a much larger greenhouse effect. It’s hard to see how that wouldn’t mean faster warming.
Greg, As with any main-sequence star, the Sun has gotten significantly brighter as it has aged. So, I don’t think you can take for granted that we’ve ever seen faster warming.
Walt Bennett (434) — Yes.
As for risks and unintended consequences, roughly speaking the past provides some guidance if emissions cease and net (intensional) sequestration begins. The risks and unintended consequences of continued and increases emissions are less well understood, but all signs are towards a globe with significantly less agriculture.
[reCAPTHCA agrees, entoning “and remedy”.]
Walt Bennett, perhaps you can be more specific as to which mitigation and geo-engineering strategies you would favor. Certainly, conservation is a mitigation strategy, as it decreases CO2 emissions and buys time. How about increased use of renewable energy resources? Nuclear power? Certainly, these must happen in any case eventually, as fossil fuels are a finite resource.
At present, I know of no geo-engineering strategies I would term feasible. It seems to me that development of mitigation and geo-engineering strategies will take time, and I don’t see how we will buy time without serious conservation measures in any case.
As to CO2 reduction efforts causing a shift of power to the left, it would seem to me that that would depend on whether the right continues to be in denial. Or do you think there is something about this problem that makes it particularly immune to market-based solutions? As to a shift of money, increased costs, etc., again, that is not obvious to me in the medium or long term. I think it is distinctly that the new energy infrastructure could be cheaper as well as cleaner.
It is certainly not new to assert that we could screw up development of any new infrastructure, but at the same time, I would not say it is a foregone conclusion that we have to screw it up. Could it be that I have more confidence in markets and democracy than you do?
From today’s New York Times, and directly relevant to the issue of honesty:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/rich-poor-divide-still-stalls-climate-accord/
BONN, Germany — Little concrete progress was achieved at the climate talks that ended here this week, but the fault lines that will divide the world as its attempts to negotiate a new climate treaty by the end of this year became vividly clear in the corridors of the Maritim Hotel Conference Center.
A host of developing countries, from China to Bolivia to the Philippines, took to the podium to insist that developed countries cut their emissions very rapidly by far more than they had planned. Most said the appropriate figure would be at least a 40 to 50 percent reductions compared to 1990 levels by 2020.
“The U.S. talks about ambitious targets and we would have liked to see a reduction of at least 45 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 –- we think it is possible,” said Amjad Abdulla, the lead negotiator from the island nation Maldives.
South Africa’s plan must have had a number of industrialized countries squirming: It proposed specific emissions reduction targets for 41 industrialized countries for the periods 2013-2017 and 2018-2022. For example: the United States should drop 76 percent during that first period, Ireland by 79 percent, Australia by 82 percent.
The United States did not specify any target for itself at this meeting, which saw the debut of the Obama administration in climate negotiations ( to applause). But President Obama has previously only mentioned returning to 1990 levels by 2020. The European Union is committed to reductions of 20 percent by that time, but has said it might go up to 30 percent.
Negotiators from developed countries tended to dismiss the steep emissions reductions demanded by poorer nations as a negotiating strategy — and also absurd.
But delegates from poorer countries were adamant and united on the issue, aggressively collaring reporters in the hallways to say that huge reductions were required, fast. They talked about the “carbon debt” they were owed by the industrialized world.
“Developed countries have over-consumed their share of the atmospheric space –- they ate the pizza and left us the crumbs,” said Ambassador Anjelica Navarro Llano of Bolivia, hoarse because she had talked about the topic so much over the 12 days of the conference.
She added: “Developed countries have a historical debt – a historical responsibility. The more they pay now they less they pay later.”
John,
The simple fact is that you (and many others here) are trying to have yesterday’s conversations. Remember when Gavin famously made that point about Lindzen? It was certainly true.
Well, what to make of those who believe that public policy can reign in atmospheric CO2? I would have thought that one or two of you would find it interesting to critically examine the simple question, how much of a fallacy is such a belief as that?
But what we clearly see is that anybody (so far) who has engaged me on this topic sticks to his talking points and refuses to critically examine.
Who does that remind you of?
So you see, it’s the insularity that’s the problem. So busy making a case, too busy to make sense of new information.
You keep thinking you have to pound “It’s really happening!” into my head, which is why you can’t seem to hear what I’m actually saying.
Timothy Chase #408: The link between tobacco and anti-AGW science is tighter than most realise, as revealed by George Monbiot. I put some direct links to tobacco archival documents showing these links on my blog, from his book Heat. If anyone doubts there is a conspiracy behind this, read the sources.
Walt, If you look at the “about” button, you will see that Realclimate is devoted to “the science” not the politics. Did it ever occur to you that folks are here mostly to learn the science? I agree, it would be nice to have a place to engage in policy solutions, but Gavin et al. provide the expertise here–they make the rules.
[edit]
I will post this link to evidence that we are we not undergoing some unprecedented temperature change event.
Apparently posting this and commenting that statements, on this site, that say that the current observed warming of less than 1c in the 20th century is unprecedented in Earths history are ‘questionable’ to say the least,[edit]
http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/archive_articles/090216_Nature_dryas_haug/index_EN
[edit]
Alan
[Response: Try not to be tiresome. We’ve done lots of posts on the Younger Dryas or D-O events. What does this have to do with the radiative effect of CO2? – gavin]
Re: #426 :”I suspect that market forces will, within twenty or so years, accomplish much of the same thing.”
The question, Walt,is can we afford to sit around whistling Dixie for the next twenty years? Ya think! Sure there will be dislocations, but there is disagreement on whether energy costs will necessarily
rise. Power companies don’t own the Sun, the wind,or the tides(which may be part of the answer to their resistance to renewables). Once capital costs are covered, the “fuel” is free.
Look at what’s been happening in recent decades. .Since you’re familiar with the latest IPCC report. Check ,again, the section on Direct Observations of Recent Climate Change in the Summary For Policy Makers:”Eleven of the last 12 years(1995-2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).” ……”The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13C{0.10C to 0.16C}jper decade)is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.” Do you have reason to believe that this going to mitigate in the coming decades? Waiting around for the next 20 or so years,for the so called manic hand of the market, is a chancy way to approach this. There are too many danger signs,not just in simulations but in the actual observed data.
If we truly get runaway AGW in two or three centuries, ocean clathrates or permafrost methane releases en masse, and if rainfall patterns subsequently become too unpredictable or too weak to permit agriculture, which do you guys think is a more assured reservoir of freshwater with which to Eden civilization?:
1) Lake Baikal.
2) Eastern Antarctic Ice Shelf.
Walt, you’re at a science site.
You want to talk politics, apparently with climate scientists?
Is there a site that addresses policy discussions you recommend?
One that isn’t politicized but is interested in science policy?
Anyone else?
Walt, how about: http://www.climatepolicy.org/
Got a better idea? That’s the American Meteorological Society’s policy blog:
“ClimatePolicy is a commentary that explores aspects of climate change that relate to our policy choices. Policy choices will likely serve the interests of society most effectively if they are grounded in the best available knowledge and understanding. Therefore, we will promote objective understanding of climate change related issues rather than specific policy options.”