Global Warming Debate: Refuting Common Arguments

[vanesch]

For me, the worst possible extinction is that of the skiing resorts close to me, and that by itself merits that the world changes attitude!

 

[DanP]

I know nothing about climate, but one thing bothers me, and I would like to know more:

How do we know that global warming is anomalous ? After all we had multiple glacial eras, and I am pretty sure that between said eras periods of global warming existed.

 

[sylas]

I know nothing about climate, but one thing bothers me, and I would like to know more:

How do we know that global warming is anomalous ? After all we had multiple glacial eras, and I am pretty sure that between said eras periods of global warming existed.

It depends what you mean by "anomalous".

Here's a quick summary of what seems to be pretty basic.

The rate of temperature increase at present is unusual, but most likely not unprecedented. (Although of course it is very hard to get accurate measurements of short term rates of change in the distant past.)

The amount of temperature change so far is a long way off much larger changes seen in the past.

The global temperatures being reached now are quite likely to be a new high for the Holocene, or at least for the last couple of thousand years, but still probably not quite as high as the most recent interglacial some 120,000 years ago or so.

The main driver for change in the present is something new; a change in atmospheric composition driven by human industrial emissions. That's a new factor.

If temperatures continue to increase (which by now seems to be no longer in any credible doubt) then the current episode of warming is likely to be a clear anomaly for an extended high rate of change, with few credible equivalents in the past. The actual temperatures likely to be reached are still very uncertain, however. It is quite likely to see a new high mean global temperature that beats out anything for several million years; but still not up to temperatures likely to have been in place in the early part of the current Cenozoic Era, say, 50 million years ago.

Definite answers, however, are not really possible, given inaccuracies in measurements of climate in the past and uncertainties about how temperature will behave over the next century.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Sorry!]

It depends what you mean by "anomalous".

Here's a quick summary of what seems to be pretty basic.

The rate of temperature increase at present is unusual, but most likely not unprecedented. (Although of course it is very hard to get accurate measurements of short term rates of change in the distant past.)

The amount of temperature change so far is a long way off much larger changes seen in the past.

The global temperatures being reached now are quite likely to be a new high for the Holocene, or at least for the last couple of thousand years, but still probably not quite as high as the most recent interglacial some 120,000 years ago or so.

The main driver for change in the present is something new; a change in atmospheric composition driven by human industrial emissions. That's a new factor.

If temperatures continue to increase (which by now seems to be no longer in any credible doubt) then the current episode of warming is likely to be a clear anomaly for an extended high rate of change, with few credible equivalents in the past. The actual temperatures likely to be reached are still very uncertain, however. It is quite likely to see a new high mean global temperature that beats out anything for several million years; but still not up to temperatures likely to have been in place in the early part of the current Cenozoic Era, say, 50 million years ago.

Definite answers, however, are not really possible, given inaccuracies in measurements of climate in the past and uncertainties about how temperature will behave over the next century.

Cheers -- sylas

Well, we have been in an interglacial period of the Ice Age for close to 12,000 years. In the last say 100 years we have noticed a dramatic increase of temperature.
What's unusual I believe is the rate of change not the change itself.

It's almost impossible to say that humans do not contribute to the greenhouse effect which is known to raise temperatures of the planet. (Yes, the greenhouse effect exists even without humans, so to argue that there's no such thing as a greenhouse effect isn't exactly the best method.)

 

[DanP]

Well, we have been in an interglacial period of the Ice Age for close to 12,000 years. In the last say 100 years we have noticed a dramatic increase of temperature.
What's unusual I believe is the rate of change not the change itself.

Meaning that you can compare current rate with any other local rate (lets say over 50 years)which occurred during the last 2 ice ages ?

 

[sylas]

Meaning that you can compare current rate with any other local rate (lets say over 50 years)which occurred during the last 2 ice ages ?

Yes, as long as you have some suitable data to use. However, the comparisons are limited in accuracy. Your best bet is a comparison with rises coming up out of the last glacial maximum and into the Holocene, since this is the most recent, and does include some rapid changes. Unfortunately, it is particularly hard to look at a genuinely global rate of temperature rise in the past.

Never-the-less, a possible comparison is the Younger Dryas, a short (1,200 years) return to glacial conditions on the way from the glacial maximum to the balmy conditions of the Holocene. The end of the Younger Dryas seems to have been particularly abrupt.

One problem is that it is not clear how abrupt the global change might have been; but the local change in Greenland, which can be estimated from ice core data. An estimate from 1989 suggests 7 degrees increase in fifty years in Southern Greenland. That is a lot more rapid that what we have at present. Reference: Dansgaard, W. et. al. (1989) The abrupt termination of the Younger Dryas climate event, in Nature 339, pp 532-534 (15 June 1989).

The impact was felt more widely, but may not have been that abrupt in other regions. Others may have better references for this event.

This is why I say the current rate of change is anomalous... but not unprecedented. There have been other times with an anomalous rate of change.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Integral]

We are discovering tons of new species all of the time.



http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/08/11/eco.himalayas.newspecies/index.html#cnnSTCText



http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/09/26/mekong.species/index.html#cnnSTCText



http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/12/16/rat.mekong/index.html#cnnSTCText

The list goes on and on.

This is a huge red herring.

What does the discovery of new species have to do with anything. One could argue that a changing climate would create new niches into which new species would evolve to fill. Meanwhile the species adapted to the old climate would expire. So it would not be to far fetched to expect a blossoming of new species in time of a climate change.

Yep, no peer reviewed links, but then, Evo, I do not see any peer reviewed links of yours showing the link between new species and climate change.

I do not think there is anyone who thinks that climate change will threaten life on earth, or for that matter even the human race. Short of a major catastrophe, life on Earth and man will continue no matter what the climate does in the next millennia. What is at risk is life as we now know it. The question is not whether man will survive, but whether our civilization will.

 

[Integral]

New estimates have been coming out that show there's more oil than once thought. We're developing the technologies to actually get this oil. OPEC can just say there's xxxx oil left when there's actually yyyy oil left. There's an interview with an OPEC representative on YouTube that I'm trying to find.

...

So the message I get from you is, don't worry there is an infinite amount of fossil fuels and we will never run out.

What does it matter what the latest discovery is, it does not change the fact that there is a finite amount of fossil fuels available. It does not change the fact that every new discovery is deeper and harder to get to with lower overall yields. If we want to ensure that our grandchildren and their grandchildren have a technology driven lifestyle we need to start developing renewable sources of energy. We simply cannot assume that we will always find more fossil fuels.

 

[DrClapeyron]

If we want to ensure that our grandchildren and their grandchildren have a technology driven lifestyle we need to start developing renewable sources of energy. We simply cannot assume that we will always find more fossil fuels.

Are grandchildren that hopeless that they cannot figure how to heat their homes or fuel their cars? I remember being told by my father that necessity is the mother of invention, not inconvenience.

The day will come when people blast 20 billion solar pannels up into space and use microwaves to beam back energy, but I think we are far from that time.

 

[Integral]

Are grandchildren that hopeless that they cannot figure how to heat their homes or fuel their cars? I remember being told by my father that necessity is the mother of invention, not inconvenience.

The day will come when people blast 20 billion solar pannels up into space and use microwaves to beam back energy, but I think we are far from that time.

Sure they can, the question is whether they heat their home with electricity or cow dung.

This is not an impossible outcome if by some weird accident the AGW camp is correct.

 

[vanesch]

Well, we have been in an interglacial period of the Ice Age for close to 12,000 years. In the last say 100 years we have noticed a dramatic increase of temperature.
What's unusual I believe is the rate of change not the change itself.

In fact, even that doesn't really matter. What matters is what change (and rate of change) is expected in the near future and how we think that our society can cope with that. It could for instance very well be that we are facing a change that is "natural" (or that has more or less "natural" rates of change or values), but with which our modern society cannot cope. Maybe our current society (or the society that will be current 50 - 100 years from now) will be too sensitive to even a "natural" climate change. Or maybe our society will be robust enough to cope with even a very "unnatural and anomalous" change. In fact we don't really care in how much the change humanity might cause with industrial emissions is causing larger-than-natural changes or not: what we might care about is whether our society can cope with whatever is the change that we are causing (or even that we are not causing but undergoing).

But all this is part of the political and societal debate, but not of the scientific inquiry into climate dynamics itself.

From a scientific PoV, it shouldn't matter whether the climate change is induced by humans or not, or whether it is "dramatic" or not, or whether it is "anomalous" or not. One should just try to understand the dynamical system that describes all of this, as a function of atmospheric composition and other "external" conditions, and try to find ways to measure this. In a way, scientists shouldn't be involved too much in the political debate, but concentrate on getting the model right.

 

[Sorry!]

In fact, even that doesn't really matter. What matters is what change (and rate of change) is expected in the near future and how we think that our society can cope with that. It could for instance very well be that we are facing a change that is "natural" (or that has more or less "natural" rates of change or values), but with which our modern society cannot cope. Maybe our current society (or the society that will be current 50 - 100 years from now) will be too sensitive to even a "natural" climate change. Or maybe our society will be robust enough to cope with even a very "unnatural and anomalous" change. In fact we don't really care in how much the change humanity might cause with industrial emissions is causing larger-than-natural changes or not: what we might care about is whether our society can cope with whatever is the change that we are causing (or even that we are not causing but undergoing).

But all this is part of the political and societal debate, but not of the scientific inquiry into climate dynamics itself.

From a scientific PoV, it shouldn't matter whether the climate change is induced by humans or not, or whether it is "dramatic" or not, or whether it is "anomalous" or not. One should just try to understand the dynamical system that describes all of this, as a function of atmospheric composition and other "external" conditions, and try to find ways to measure this. In a way, scientists shouldn't be involved too much in the political debate, but concentrate on getting the model right.

Point taken.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is a huge red herring.

What does the discovery of new species have to do with anything. One could argue that a changing climate would create new niches into which new species would evolve to fill. Meanwhile the species adapted to the old climate would expire. So it would not be to far fetched to expect a blossoming of new species in time of a climate change.

Yep, no peer reviewed links, but then, Evo, I do not see any peer reviewed links of yours showing the link between new species and climate change.

It is worse than that. What does the fact that we discover existing species have to do with anything? The articles clearly state that these species already existed, not that new species evolved and were then discovered. That these newly discovered species are endangered by climate change is also referenced.

 

[Evo]

It is worse than that. What does the fact that we discover existing species have to do with anything? The articles clearly state that these species already existed, not that new species evolved and were then discovered. That these newly discovered species are endangered by climate change is also referenced.

It was to do with BW's posts of species listed by the WWF and in response to the previous posters question about species. Did neither of you bother to read the thread? Not to mention I made no claims, so I don't know what supposed claims you are seeing that aren't there.

 

[Andre]

Was it ever recorded how many species are endangered by the http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/19/do-first-generation-biofuels-spell-doom-for-tropical-rainforests-global-climate-worlds-poor/ to battle global warming?

 

[mheslep]

Was it ever recorded how many species are endangered by the http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/19/do-first-generation-biofuels-spell-doom-for-tropical-rainforests-global-climate-worlds-poor/ to battle global warming?

You read Romm Andre? Bad for your mental health. That guy will end up living in cave in Afghanistan sending out 'Death to Deniers!' press releases.

 

[Sorry!]

Was it ever recorded how many species are endangered by the http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/19/do-first-generation-biofuels-spell-doom-for-tropical-rainforests-global-climate-worlds-poor/ to battle global warming?

I don't think this article talks about what is currently happening but what will happen in the future if these sort of biofuels become more mainstream fuel source. It is a pretty real concern though. Not only does it indirectly effect us (by effecting the different ecosystems of the world) but these fuels directly effect us by raising prices of pretty much everything. Which is why I don't think biofuels will necessarily be our answer to either global warming or our rising needs for more resources.

 

[skypunter]

So the message I get from you is, don't worry there is an infinite amount of fossil fuels and we will never run out.

What does it matter what the latest discovery is, it does not change the fact that there is a finite amount of fossil fuels available. It does not change the fact that every new discovery is deeper and harder to get to with lower overall yields. If we want to ensure that our grandchildren and their grandchildren have a technology driven lifestyle we need to start developing renewable sources of energy. We simply cannot assume that we will always find more fossil fuels.

Are you familiar with the recent advancement in recovering natural gas from shale deposits?
It's not deeper and harder to get to and it has higher yields than conventional gas deposits.
We are using a technique called hydrofracing to extract massive quantities gas from the shale, and it's cheaper than conventional drilling.
Check it out, because the US dependence on foreign energy and peak oil are not just old news, they're debunked.
This is the result of a realistic and productive technological advancement. Not pie in the sky.

 

[Evo]

Are you familiar with the recent advancement in recovering natural gas from shale deposits?
It's not deeper and harder to get to and it has higher yields than conventional gas deposits.
We are using a technique called hydrofracing to extract massive quantities gas from the shale, and it's cheaper than conventional drilling.
Check it out, because the US dependence on foreign energy and peak oil are not just old news, they're debunked.
This is the result of a realistic and productive technological advancement. Not pie in the sky.

I wasn't aware of the advancements made in shale oil technology. I was of the understanding that it was environmentally unsound, (the previous process was) and it's still, IMO, only postponing the inevitable fact that we can not remain dependant on fossil fuels.

Still the article is interesting.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/30/magazines/fortune/Oil_from_stone.fortune/index2.htm

 

[skypunter]

It's not oil, but natural gas.
See here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124104549891270585.html

Rather than saying we cannot continue to rely on fossil fuel, I would say that we cannot continue to waste fossil fuels.

We have much to learn and discover.

 

[mheslep]

Are you familiar with the recent advancement in recovering natural gas from shale deposits?
It's not deeper and harder to get to and it has higher yields than conventional gas deposits.
We are using a technique called hydrofracing to extract massive quantities gas from the shale, and it's cheaper than conventional drilling.
Check it out, because the US dependence on foreign energy and peak oil are not just old news, they're debunked.
This is the result of a realistic and productive technological advancement. Not pie in the sky.

Indeed, the US now has the largest unproven gas reserves in the world due to the shale gas, some 1750 TCF. Even so, that's only 75 years of gas at today's US usage rates.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/164713-how-much-natural-gas-remains-in-the-usa

 

[hilo1222]

I feel that we should do something about the environment. However the campaign led by Al Gore and other people is misleading and definately costing us money

 

[Bored Wombat]

I feel that we should do something about the environment. However the campaign led by Al Gore and other people is misleading and definately costing us money

I think any change to a lower carbon economy will cost money.

But in what way do you think "the campaign" is misleading?

 

[Xezlec]

It's a little hard to believe that running out of fossil fuels is something we need to worry about now. When it starts getting scarce, energy will quickly become massively in demand, so some other power source will suddenly get a giant, flaming cash enema like the hand of God. I predict that the sudden rush of an oil-industry-sized chunk of money into alternative energy would produce 10 new or old-but-significantly-refined technologies close to the cost-effectiveness of fossil fuels within about the first week.

Let's stick to the question of climate change. That's the one that seems worrying.

 

[Chalnoth]

It's a little hard to believe that running out of fossil fuels is something we need to worry about now. When it starts getting scarce, energy will quickly become massively in demand, so some other power source will suddenly get a giant, flaming cash enema like the hand of God. I predict that the sudden rush of an oil-industry-sized chunk of money into alternative energy would produce 10 new or old-but-significantly-refined technologies close to the cost-effectiveness of fossil fuels within about the first week.

Uh, you realize, I hope, that this already happened? Just before the economic collapse? It didn't require oil to get scarce either: all it required was for oil reserves to drop a bit below demand. The price inelasticity of oil did the rest. This resulted in massive profits for the oil industry.

The problem is that the switch to alternative fuels will take time. And that means price shocks and subsequent economic hardship if you just let the market deal with it.

Let's stick to the question of climate change. That's the one that seems worrying.

Well, I would have to agree with that. Though once the global economy gets back up to pre-collapse levels, we're going to be worrying about oil reserves once again.

 

[Xezlec]

Uh, you realize, I hope, that this already happened? Just before the economic collapse? It didn't require oil to get scarce either: all it required was for oil reserves to drop a bit below demand. The price inelasticity of oil did the rest. This resulted in massive profits for the oil industry.

Since you bring it up, sure, there was a brief surge in oil prices that did indeed shoot some money and extra political attention into the alternative energy world. I'm not convinced that was equivalent to a real, full-scale, long-term fossil-fuels-running-out scenario (I think various people with various fingers on various financial levers understood that it was temporary) but it's a decent example. That brief price surge was enough give us hybrids, kill the SUV industry, and (arguably) elect an environmentalist president, all very quickly. And we survived.

The problem is that the switch to alternative fuels will take time. And that means price shocks and subsequent economic hardship if you just let the market deal with it.

Aren't you likely to get economic hardship either way? And as for price shocks, is a long-term price squeeze necessarily better than a quick, but bad, shock?

 

[Chalnoth]

Since you bring it up, sure, there was a brief surge in oil prices that did indeed shoot some money and extra political attention into the alternative energy world. I'm not convinced that was equivalent to a real, full-scale, long-term fossil-fuels-running-out scenario (I think various people with various fingers on various financial levers understood that it was temporary) but it's a decent example. That brief price surge was enough give us hybrids, kill the SUV industry, and (arguably) elect an environmentalist president, all very quickly. And we survived.

The only reason that was temporary was because of the following economic collapse. If the world economy hadn't collapsed, then we'd still be faced with the same, or higher, oil prices.

Of course, this state of affairs is somewhat fortunate for global warming, but the problem is that our reserves of oil are only about half spent, meaning only about half of their impact for global warming will be felt. And coal is very, very far from being expended, so we really need to place an economic cost on CO2 production now, so that we don't end up waiting 50 years to start reducing our emission of coal. The nice thing about placing an economic cost on CO2 emission now is that we can get the same basic benefit of running out of fuel, but without the downside of major economic upheaval.

Aren't you likely to get economic hardship either way? And as for price shocks, is a long-term price squeeze necessarily better than a quick, but bad, shock?

Well, the problem is that the shock might be entirely too much to bear. It also would probably be far too late for global warming (for anything but oil).

Here's the real worry when it comes to limited fossil fuels: hoarding. Every nation on Earth right now is basically increasing its use of fossil fuels. At the same time, the supplies of fossil fuels are dwindling. At some point, the fossil fuel exporting nations of the world will realize that their own reserves aren't even going to support their own economy.

And when that happens? Well, we can expect nations to, one by one, stop exporting any oil at all. And later with other fossil fuels.

The large, but bearable, price shock that occurred a couple of years ago? That was only because the supplies of oil leveled off while demand continued to increase. What do you think will happen if there is a sudden drop in the supply of oil of, say, 2%? 5%? 10%? Not only would we be talking about a sudden, obscene increase in oil prices. We just wouldn't have enough oil around to run the economies of the world, guaranteeing a major economic collapse, even with a reduction of just a couple of percent. In a worst-case scenario, we'd be talking about a number of nations, one after the other, all stopping their exports of oil. In that situation, a worldwide economic collapse is guaranteed, and one far worse than even the Great Depression.

Unless, of course, we can get off of our dependence upon oil. And this is where it makes good economic sense to pursue global warming with a vengeance: it puts us in a much more stable situation all around. We would no longer have to worry about our economy depending upon a specific, finite natural resource whose supply could be suddenly reduced by a significant fraction.

Never mind the dire consequences of letting global warming continue unopposed.

 

[mheslep]

Here's the real worry when it comes to limited fossil fuels: hoarding. Every nation on Earth right now is basically increasing its use of fossil fuels...

Not every. Mainly just the developing nations.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbblpd_a.htm" , million bbl/day
2005:20.8
2006:20.7
2007:20.7
2008:19.5
2009:18.7

Western Europe is seeing similar declines in overall use.

...so that we don't end up waiting 50 years to start reducing our emission of coal.

US coal consumption is also slightly declining in the last couple of years.

 

[Chalnoth]

Not every. Mainly just the developing nations.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbblpd_a.htm" , million bbl/day
2005:20.8
2006:20.7
2007:20.7
2008:19.5
2009:18.7

Western Europe is seeing similar declines in overall use.

Because of the economic collapse. Without significant legislation to combat fossil fuel use, it will start increasing again (if supplies allow) once the economy begins recovering again.

US coal consumption is also slightly declining in the last couple of years.

For the same obvious reason.

 

[mheslep]

Because of the economic collapse. Without significant legislation to combat fossil fuel use, it will start increasing again (if supplies allow) once the economy begins recovering again.


For the same obvious reason.

The decline goes back to 2005 as shown. Efficiency improvements and and wind power are starting to have an effect. Yes as the economy starts to recover there will be an increase from this big a dip, but it's very arguable that developed nations won't increase beyond pre recession levels.

 

[Chalnoth]

The decline goes back to 2005 as shown. Efficiency improvements and and wind power are starting to have an effect. Yes as the economy starts to recover there will be an increase from this big a dip, but it's very arguable that developed nations won't increase beyond pre recession levels.

Well, technically they probably won't be able to, because world oil supplies probably aren't going to be capable of increasing beyond pre-recession levels.

But I don't think you can call that a measurable decline.

 

[mheslep]

Well, technically they probably won't be able to, because world oil supplies probably aren't going to be capable of increasing beyond pre-recession levels.

But I don't think you can call that a measurable decline.

Can't call what measurable? The time span of ~5 years? EIA numbers are bad?

Edit, more:
US Oil consumption back to 1995, from EIA:

That's about 1% per year from 97 to '07, and flat or decreasing from '03 to '07

World wide:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/emissions/usa.dat
World, European and US carbon emissions (ie roughly equivalent to all fossile consumption). European and US have declined since peaking in 2005.

 

[Andre]

Just an observation,

There are two different subjects here, the (in)sensitivity of climate to variation of concentrations of greenhouse gasses and the political-economical features of energy management. There is a lot to say for the reasoning: 'we must manage our resources better, politically and economically, hence therefore AGW must be true. I believe that this fallacy is called 'wishful thinking'. Truth is not going to adapt to what we desire.

 

[mheslep]

Just an observation,

There are two different subjects here, the (in)sensitivity of climate to variation of concentrations of greenhouse gasses and the political-economical features of energy management. There is a lot to say for the reasoning: 'we must manage our resources better, politically and economically, hence therefore AGW must be true. I believe that this fallacy is called 'wishful thinking'. Truth is not going to adapt to what we desire.

Agreed. If the real common ground goal is to get off imported oil, let us simply say the goal is to get off imported oil.

 

[Chalnoth]

European and US have declined since peaking in 2005.

By your own numbers, emissions leveled off in 2005, but didn't really decline until the economy started to contract.