News Legendary Climate Scientist Says Last Chance to Stop Global Warming

[OrbitalPower]

Legendary Climate Scientist Says "Last Chance" to Stop Global Warming

WASHINGTON - Exactly 20 years after warning America about global warming, a top NASA scientist said the situation has gotten so bad that the world's only hope is drastic action.

James Hansen told Congress on Monday that the world has long passed the "dangerous level" for greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and needs to get back to 1988 levels. He said Earth's atmosphere can only stay this loaded with man-made carbon dioxide for a couple more decades without changes such as mass extinction, ecosystem collapse and dramatic sea level rises.

"We're toast if we don't get on a very different path," Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences who is sometimes called the godfather of global warming science, told The Associated Press. "This is the last chance."

Hansen brought global warming home to the public in June 1988 during a Washington heat wave, telling a Senate hearing that global warming was already here. To mark the anniversary, he testified before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming where he was called a prophet, and addressed a luncheon at the National Press Club where he was called a hero by former Sen. Tim Wirth, D-Colo., who headed the 1988 hearing.

To cut emissions, Hansen said coal-fired power plants that don't capture carbon dioxide emissions shouldn't be used in the United States after 2025, and should be eliminated in the rest of the world by 2030. That carbon capture technology is still being developed and not yet cost efficient for power plants.

Burning fossil fuels like coal is the chief cause of man-made greenhouse gases. Hansen said the Earth's atmosphere has got to get back to a level of 350 parts of carbon dioxide per million. Last month, it was 10 percent higher: 386.7 parts per million.

Hansen said he'll testify on behalf of British protesters against new coal-fired power plants. Protesters have chained themselves to gates and equipment at sites of several proposed coal plants in England.

"The thing that I think is most important is to block coal-fired power plants," Hansen told the luncheon. "I'm not yet at the point of chaining myself but we somehow have to draw attention to this."
...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080623/ap_on_sc/sci_warming_scientist

 

[Evo]

I was watching a show on Earth's climate the other night. They were basically saying that global warming of a couple of degrees would put the Earth back to one of it's healthiest periods, the time when the Earth was covered by lush tropical forests. The climate that human's have been enjoying for the past 10,000 years is what "we" like and know, not necessarily what is healthiest for the planet.

They said that what would be devastating to the planet would be a global temperature drop of 1-2 degrees, this would cause the planet to be thrown into a premature ice age. This would be very damaging. Ultimately, we are heading into another ice age, we just hopefully won't see it happen soon.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Yes, as I understood it (of course, I am not trained at all in the atmospheric sciences) the next ice age is years away. In the centuries.

Hansen also said something I agreed with, and that is that corporations should be held accontable for their externalities. He even called for trials for some of the leaders of oil companies. And I agree with that logic. I think if our industries' producers are deliberately withholding better techniques in order to save profits they are committing a crime. If people have to suffer for actions they don't even participate much in, esp. some peoples in the third world, that is a crime. (A lot of people don't drive for instance, but of course suffer the consequences which can lead to death. The deaths attributed to environmental degredation is actually quite large.) So I think there should be tougher penalties for cutting corners and breaking the law in these industries.

I'd take it further, though, and note that if alternative methods are being withheld, with no evidence showen that they will be "worse" for the economy, that is a crime as well.

Hansen's comments actually remind me of something I heard Richard Stallman say, and that is that patents in third world countries that prevent generic drugs from getting is also a crime, esp. for diseases that can be cured for pennies on the dollar.

If we are entering a "better period," then I think everybody should get their basic needs taken care of, such as food and water and basic health care. Even 75% getting this would be good, as right now the people who are suffering from the lack of basic needs is far greater than 25% of the world population.

Anyway, I respect Hansen as a scientist and admire his courage. I have no problem with scientists "getting political," esp. if it relates to work they've spent decades studying.

 

[lisab]

Yes, as I understood it (of course, I am not trained at all in the atmospheric sciences) the next ice age is years away. In the centuries.

Hansen also said something I agreed with, and that is that corporations should be held accontable for their externalities. He even called for trials for some of the leaders of oil companies. And I agree with that logic. I think if our industries' producers are deliberately withholding better techniques in order to save profits they are committing a crime. If people have to suffer for actions they don't even participate much in, esp. some peoples in the third world, that is a crime. (A lot of people don't drive for instance, but of course suffer the consequences which can lead to death. The deaths attributed to environmental degredation is actually quite large.) So I think there should be tougher penalties for cutting corners and breaking the law in these industries.

I'd take it further, though, and note that if alternative methods are being withheld, with no evidence showen that they will be "worse" for the economy, that is a crime as well.

Hansen's comments actually remind me of something I heard Richard Stallman say, and that is that patents in third world countries that prevent generic drugs from getting is also a crime, esp. for diseases that can be cured for pennies on the dollar.

If we are entering a "better period," then I think everybody should get their basic needs taken care of, such as food and water and basic health care. Even 75% getting this would be good, as right now the people who are suffering from the lack of basic needs is far greater than 25% of the world population.

Anyway, I respect Hansen as a scientist and admire his courage. I have no problem with scientists "getting political," esp. if it relates to work they've spent decades studying.

OK, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here.

First, to put someone in jail, they have to break a law. I don't like the way oil companies are screwing us, but as far as I can tell the companies aren't breaking any laws by creating a legal product.

Second, if you really believe that the leaders of oil companies should go to jail, why stop there? After all, technically, the product they make doesn't contribute to climate change -- burning it does. And we're the ones burning it - we're the ones creating the CO2.

You state, "I think if our industries' producers are deliberately withholding better techniques in order to save profits they are committing a crime." But the public is delibertely not changing its behavior, out of convenience (e.g., I could ride my bike to work but it would take too long). Yet we can't start jailing people for driving cars.

 

[D H]

OK, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here.

First, to put someone in jail, they have to break a law. I don't like the way oil companies are screwing us, but as far as I can tell the companies aren't breaking any laws by creating a legal product.

I agree. This whole notion is ludicrous and dangerous. We can't start putting people to jail for breaking non-existent laws.

Continuing the game of Devil's Advocate: Why does this guy still have a job? He is obviously in violation of the Hatch Act, and that is a real law, not a pretend one.

 

[Evo]

He is definitely more about politics and what people want their idea of an "ideal world" to be. If one looks back on world climate you will see that when the planet was warmer, the Earth was at it's lushest period of forestation and life forms.

"Global Warming" is about how humans want things to be. The fear that climate won't always be our "ideal", that some species will die out and others will flourish, that coastlines will change. Well, it always has and it always will. Seriously, the world is not going to be destroyed with the predicted temperature increase, if it ever comes to pass, we know this because the Earth has already experienced it and the planet flourished.

Why can't we just say that we should curb pollution because it's a good idea and we need to find alternative energy sources because we are running out of fossil fuels?

If you want to learn more about the Earth's history, this is a good condensed page to read.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

 

[Evo]

OK, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here.

First, to put someone in jail, they have to break a law. I don't like the way oil companies are screwing us, but as far as I can tell the companies aren't breaking any laws by creating a legal product.

Second, if you really believe that the leaders of oil companies should go to jail, why stop there? After all, technically, the product they make doesn't contribute to climate change -- burning it does. And we're the ones burning it - we're the ones creating the CO2.

You state, "I think if our industries' producers are deliberately withholding better techniques in order to save profits they are committing a crime." But the public is delibertely not changing its behavior, out of convenience (e.g., I could ride my bike to work but it would take too long). Yet we can't start jailing people for driving cars.

Absolutely. I've noticed that even though the price of gas has doubled over the last year, there are as many cars on the road as there has ever been. The majority of people aren't changing their habits.

 

[D H]

Why can't we just say that we should curb pollution because it's a good idea and we need to find alternative energy sources because we are running out of fossil fuels?

Continuing with the Devil's Advocate game, because saying that doesn't conform with the environment movement's irrational beliefs that humans are the scourge of the planet. Wishing that humanity was gone is what conforms with these beliefs. Some of the more wacko elements of the environmental movement get downright rapturous (pun very much intended) on the subject. Exactly how well life would fare without humanity choking it down is the subject of

• A best-selling book, "The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman.
• The TV documentary "Life After People" on the History Channel.
• The TV documentary "Aftermath: Population Zero" on the National Geographic Channel.
• Articles in Discovery, Scientific American, New Scientist, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and on and on.

Simply saying that global warming is bad for people, whether or not humans are the root cause, has a lot more credibility with me than saying it is bad for life. Those completely wrapped up in the green movement don't say that because they do not care about people. As Evo noted, global warming is not bad for life. Those nasty, 100% organic fossil fuels that the environmental movement so despises came from a time when the world was a lot warmer and life was much more prolific than it is now.

If a river floods and kills a lot of people, we look for ways to stop that from happening in the future. It does not matter if the flooding is our fault or nature's. Similarly, assuming global warming is true, it will cause a lot more human damage and suffering than any puny little flood will, so perhaps we should do something to prevent it. It does not matter if the warming is our fault or nature's.

 

[DrClapeyron]

It's official, NASA hse completely run out of funds and are now having to stoop to extortion to get whatever they can. They will never make it back to the moon much less continue the ISS for very long with this kind of propoganda to boost (or lower) their public image. What a waste.

EDIT: They need to keep guys like this Hansen locked away in the basement.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The climate that human's have been enjoying for the past 10,000 years is what "we" like and know, not necessarily what is healthiest for the planet.

Isn't the point what's best for humans and our way of life?

Ask Katrina victims or the folks in Ohio what they think of GW-like events.

 

[Gokul43201]

If one looks back on world climate you will see that when the planet was warmer, the Earth was at it's lushest period of forestation and life forms.

But that does not mean that getting back to the same temperature would again be a good thing. Even if all other conditions are identical, you have a very incomplete and misleading picture without looking at time derivatives of the temperature and thermal drivers.

For instance, I am more comfortable at with my feet on the ground than when I'm weightless in the air. But if I had to choose between falling off a building, finding myself crashing into the sidewalk and just slipping off the edge of the roof, I think I'd definitely pick the latter. In other words, I am most comfortable at ground level, but only if my downward speed is very small, or my upward acceleration is large enough to save me from breaking my legs, or...

Likewise, the Earth may be most comfortable with roughly today's temperature, but that may also need other conditions/derivatives to be "good". For instance, from your link, the CO2 levels during the mid/late carboniferous period changed by less than 1ppm over a million years. The sharpest spike in CO2 levels was during the Cambrian, at a rate of about 200ppm every million years. Now look at our present rate of CO2 accumulation, which is over 1ppm/year or more than a 1,000,000ppm in a million years. There's just no comparison whatsoever!

It's like comparing the difficulty in landing safely when you jump off a foot stool with the difficulty you might have if you jump out of a cruising airplane.

 

[OrbitalPower]

OK, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here.

First, to put someone in jail, they have to break a law.

I didn't say anything about jail. The word "jail" isn't even used in my post. Please read more carefully. I said they should be subjected to a trial. A tribunal can take place without the participant even knowing what's going on. Numerous war crimes tribunals were set up during the Vietnam war, for example.

If you actually read the post I made, I specifically state that the laws against monopolies, pollution, and externalities be made tougher, and that they engaged in crimes against humanity.

For something to be a "crime" doesn't necessarily mean it has to be illegal. By that ridiculous standard, the US overthrowing democratically elected governments in the third world to help protect our economic interests wouldn't be a "crime" in any meaningful US interpretation of the law.

I would consider some of the worst crimes to have taken place in history to be ones that were entirely legal. You might disagree on whether it is a crime or not, but to imply that something isn't a crime just because it's not "illegal" is absolutely ludicrous. No one believes that.

I don't like the way oil companies are screwing us, but as far as I can tell the companies aren't breaking any laws by creating a legal product.

Second, if you really believe that the leaders of oil companies should go to jail, why stop there? After all, technically, the product they make doesn't contribute to climate change -- burning it does. And we're the ones burning it - we're the ones creating the CO2.

I said that people in the West should take more responsibility for their negative effects on the environment, in the same way smokers paid the price in the 1950s and 1960s, and they continue to pay in the forms of higher taxes on cigarettes and so on.

Second, the pollution that comes from oil refineries is enormous, and the Clean Air Act requires state and local governments to meet various benchmarks for reducing pollution.

You state, "I think if our industries' producers are deliberately withholding better techniques in order to save profits they are committing a crime." But the public is delibertely not changing its behavior, out of convenience (e.g., I could ride my bike to work but it would take too long). Yet we can't start jailing people for driving cars.

The public isn't changing its behavior drastically because alternatives are deliberately made more expensive by oil company monopolies and the government the backs them to the tune of billions of dollars a year (more crimes in my opinion).

People claim that's it's wrong to use the government to invest in new technologies, but they conveniently leave out the fact that the government spends more money overseas protecting the oil abroad than it's worth and billions of dollars protecting them at home (another crime), while they continue to sit on oil refineries at home.

But your statement isn't even true. The public are changing their behavior somewhat, and they would continue to do so if encouraged by the government.

 

[OrbitalPower]

As Evo noted, global warming is not bad for life.

And can you show me a scientific study, published in a scientific journal, that I can access (i.e., one that can easily be found in a search of journals for University students, such as EBSCOhost) that confirms all this?

It has to be relevant, with credentials that are on par with Hansen's (i.e., I don't want an economists opinion, or something).

I've read a few studies, and have heard the opinions of a lot of scientists. Their concerns are often as dire as Hansen's. Few note that the consequences won't be disasterous, but severe. None I've seen shows it will actually be good and lead to a greater time for humans.

So, I'd be interested in seeing the study that helpfully explains how Global Warming is good for poor people.

 

[Gokul43201]

So, it'd be interesting in seeing the study that helpfully explains how Global Warming is good for poor people.

D H said that global warming is good for "life", not poor people. However, that assertion is also unsupported.

 

[drankin]

I didn't say anything about jail. The word "jail" isn't even used in my post. Please read more carefully. I said they should be subjected to a trial. A tribunal can take place without the participant even knowing what's going on. Numerous war crimes tribunals were set up during the Vietnam war, for example.

If you actually read the post I made, I specifically state that the laws against monopolies, pollution, and externalities be made tougher, and that they engaged in crimes against humanity.

For something to be a "crime" doesn't necessarily mean it has to be illegal. By that ridiculous standard, the US overthrowing democratically elected governments in the third world to help protect our economic interests wouldn't be a "crime" in any meaningful US interpretation of the law.

I would consider some of the worst crimes to have taken place in history to be ones that were entirely legal. You might disagree on whether it is a crime or not, but to imply that something isn't a crime just because it's not "illegal" is absolutely ludicrous. No one believes that.




I said that people in the West should take more responsibility for their negative effects on the environment, in the same way smokers paid the price in the 1950s and 1960s, and they continue to pay in the forms of higher taxes on cigarettes and so on.

Second, the pollution that comes from oil refineries is enormous, and the Clean Air Act requires state and local governments to meet various benchmarks for reducing pollution.



The public isn't changing its behavior drastically because alternatives are deliberately made more expensive by oil company monopolies and the government the backs them to the tune of billions of dollars a year (more crimes in my opinion).

People claim that's it's wrong to use the government to invest in new technologies, but they conveniently leave out the fact that the government spends more money overseas protecting the oil abroad than it's worth and billions of dollars protecting them at home (another crime), while they continue to sit on oil refineries at home.

But your statement isn't even true. The public are changing their behavior somewhat, and they would continue to do so if encouraged by the government.

What consequences would you suggest?

 

[gendou2]

For me, the important issue is biodiversity. The human species can survive in extreme climates of hot and cold. Increased weather severity and drought can kill people, but not cause human extinction. Many other species, on the other hand, live in very delicate ecosystems which can be easily disrupted by human activity including anthropogenic global warming. The argument that we are at a pivotal point in history for the biodiversity of the planet seems convincing.

However, based on what I've read, I don't agree that C0₂ concentrations in the atmosphere are the most immediate concern. Deforestation and pollution seem like much larger problems. Sadly, this view seems missing from the popular news media.

 

[Gokul43201]

The last major study I have read about in the context of biodiversity was C. D. Thomas et al, Nature 427, 145 (2004). I never got down to reading the paper itself because the last sentence of the abstract put me off.

You can read the paper here: www.fishclimate.ca/pdf/Extinction_risk_from_climate_change_Nature_2004.pdf[/URL]

 

[D H]

I didn't say anything about jail. The word "jail" isn't even used in my post.

You said

Hansen also said something I agreed with, and that is that corporations should be held accontable for their externalities. He even called for trials for some of the leaders of oil companies. And I agree with that logic. I think if our industries' producers are deliberately withholding better techniques in order to save profits they are committing a crime.

You are advocating putting people on trial for committing a crime. Since you used the word trial, you must have meant the legal definition of crime. From http://www.id.uscourts.gov/terms-cd.htm" : "Crime - An act in violation of the penal laws of a state or the United States. A positive or negative act in violation of penal law." The penalties from being convicted of a crime range from small penalties to time in jail to execution. We assumed you are not talking about slapping one of those evil oil executives with a $100 fine.

Since you are advocating putting people on trial for committing a crime, and since crime as far as the courts are concerned is a violation of penal law, what law have these evil oil executives broken?

A tribunal can take place without the participant even knowing what's going on. Numerous war crimes tribunals were set up during the Vietnam war, for example.

I thought the left was enamored with the constitution -- things such as the right to face one's accuser, right to legal council, a trial of one's peers, and all that. I guess not.

You might disagree on whether it is a crime or not, but to imply that something isn't a crime just because it's not "illegal" is absolutely ludicrous. No one believes that.

If you want to put people on trial for committing a crime that is the only definition of crime you can use. Most people on this forum, regardless of their political leanings, believe exactly that.

And can you show me a scientific study, published in a scientific journal, that I can access (i.e., one that can easily be found in a search of journals for University students, such as EBSCOhost) that confirms all this?

Did you read the article Evo sited? This is common knowledge, that the Earth's climate has varied a lot. That nasty oil and coal that you hate formed when the Earth was a lot warmer than it is now, the atmosphere had a lot more CO₂ than it does now, and life was much more prolific than it is now.

So, I'd be interested in seeing the study that helpfully explains how Global Warming is good for poor people.

That is a strawman argument, which is against the rules of this forum. Nobody here has said that.

 

[ehrenfest]

Which of the two main US presidential candidates (Obama or McCain) do you think will take more definitive action to curtail global warming?

 

[russ_watters]

Isn't the point what's best for humans and our way of life?

Ask Katrina victims or the folks in Ohio what they think of GW-like events.

Well, yes, that's kinda the point: it depends on who you ask. I rather suspect a large fraction of "environmentalists" are just as concerned (if not more) about the health of the planet than the health of its citizens. There are lots of examples (endangered species act, for example), but here's the idea itself:

It is a belief in biocentrism, that life of the Earth comes first...

http://www.earthfirst.org/about.htm

Personally, the prospect of the rising sea level is a concern to me. It will affect a lot of people. But some have mentioned extinction events and a potential loss of biodiversity. These don't concern me much at all.

 

[OrbitalPower]

You said

You are advocating putting people on trial for committing a crime. Since you used the word trial, you must have meant the legal definition of crime. From http://www.id.uscourts.gov/terms-cd.htm" : "Crime - An act in violation of the penal laws of a state or the United States.

I never said anything about putting people on trial in the sense of US law, nor would I even imply that, as a lot of the polluters aren't even from the US, but from other countries as well. Trial also means "an attempt or effort to do something," and I never I also never referred to the US usage of the word "crime." When you commit a crime against humanity you note the crime, and then you charge them.

I was clearly speaking outside of US law. If I had meant in the US sense of the word, you'd collect enough evidence that they're violating anti-trust laws or being virutual monopolies that sit on their oil refineries and effectively block competition, and that they're violating numerous Clean Air Acts.

The penalties from being convicted of a crime range from small penalties to time in jail to execution. We assumed you are not talking about slapping one of those evil oil executives with a $100 fine.

And why would you assume that?

If I was referring to US law, I said the "penalties should be tougher" - some people who are environmentalists simply call for higher taxation and taxing externalities.

I specifically mentioned that in my post.

I never said anybody should go to "jail."

Since you are advocating putting people on trial for committing a crime, and since crime as far as the courts are concerned is a violation of penal law, what law have these evil oil executives broken?

If I had meant that they were breaking US laws I would have named the laws and the laws they should be subjected to.

I thought the left was enamored with the constitution -- things such as the right to face one's accuser, right to legal council, a trial of one's peers, and all that. I guess not.

You're getting way off topic. And talk about a straw man argument.

But, a lot of the leftists who set up war crimes' tribunals would have very much liked to try war criminals under International Law, where they could answer for their crimes.

As far as I know, not much came out of them in terms of punishment: most people got off or had weak sentences even things like My Lai, but still, a lot of what we know about the Vietnam war came out of these, so we can see the benefits of a tribunal.

Did you read the article Evo sited? This is common knowledge, that the Earth's climate has varied a lot. That nasty oil and coal that you hate formed when the Earth was a lot warmer than it is now, the atmosphere had a lot more CO₂ than it does now, and life was much more prolific than it is now.

If it's "common knowledge" that Global Warming will return the Earth to a "healthier climate for life" and of one of the Earth's "healthiest periods" then it should be very easy for you to find a study that confirms this, in a scientific journal, specifically stating that Global Warming does this. And by life I assumed that you would put first and foremost human life, and if it leads to a better time, that would mean a better time for humans as well.

Furthermore, I'd like to know where you get the idea that the left is "enamored," as you put it, with the constitution.

The "left" in the US has generally been defined by people like William Lloyd Garrison, who publicly ripped up the US constitution as a pro-slavery document. Other leftists have opposed constitutions not because they disagreed with what they said, but only because they were constitutions in the first place, such as Proudhon.

The left includes people who generally opposed the constitution, such as anarchists and communists.

So, I don't know what you mean there, either, unless you're talking about Democrats or something, but that's not possible as they speak no more about the constitution than Republicans do, and aren't really "left" in the first place.

That is a strawman argument, which is against the rules of this forum. Nobody here has said that.

And show me where I said jail time? A lot of crimes, assuming I said under US law these people should be subjected to trials (which I never said), do not carry jail sentence. A lot of white collar crimes do not, for instance.

My whole line of discussion was that the crimes they were committing were against the world's poor.

But forget the world's poor. Just show me the studies that claim Global Warming is good for "life" on Earth in general. It must be easy to find if it's "common knowledge."

What I've read, is that AGW will be clearly negative for life on earth, will throw the entire ecosystem out of balance, and will cause billions of dollars in damages because of floods and so on, that may already be taking place due exactly to global warming.

 

[Evo]

And can you show me a scientific study, published in a scientific journal, that I can access (i.e., one that can easily be found in a search of journals for University students, such as EBSCOhost) that confirms all this?

Pick up any peer reviewed journal or textbook on geology, there are literally thousands to choose from. This shouldn't be news to any out of high school.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Well, I'll look into and ask around. Again, what I've personally read is that it will disproportionately hurt the world's poor, that it will be a negative effect for life on earth, etc. etc.

Even critics like Lomborg claim Global Warming will benefit some places but will be diasterous for other places and he agrees with a lot of what the IPCC has said.

In high school (which was nearly a decade ago) the subject only came up when I took the "science" portion of the ACT. It had a pro and con article on global warming, and I remember it very well and the con article (against global warming), wasn't saying anything like that.

To me, it would a false analogy because the rate at which the temperatue is changing is occurring rapidly, faster than what's going on for as far back as we can accurately measure.

 

[D H]

Trial also means "an attempt or effort to do something,"

You said "Hansen also said something I agreed with, and that is that corporations should be held accontable for their externalities. He even called for trials for some of the leaders of oil companies. And I agree with that logic. I think if our industries' producers are deliberately withholding better techniques in order to save profits they are committing a crime."
If you meant something else you should not have used the word crime. Or even "crime against humanity". That phrase has a very specific meaning.

If I was referring to US law, I said the "penalties should be tougher" - some people who are environmentalists simply call for higher taxation and taxing externalities.

Fine. Change the laws. Just remember that you cannot charge people with violating laws (or assess taxes) for actions that occurred before the legislation is passed.

If I had meant that they were breaking US laws I would have named the laws and the laws they should be subjected to.

Then stop talking nonsense about putting people on trial.

You're getting way off topic. And talk about a straw man argument.

You are the one who brought up the idea of kangaroo trials:

A tribunal can take place without the participant even knowing what's going on.

If it's "common knowledge" that Global Warming will return the Earth to a "healthier climate for life" and of one of the Earth's "healthiest periods" then it should be very easy for you to find a study that confirms this, in a scientific journal, specifically stating that Global Warming does this.

That is not what I said. I said that life was more prolific in the past compared to the present when the Earth was warmer and the atmosphere had a higher CO₂ content.

 

[AhmedEzz]

I care about both people and the Earth. However, I won't trade the lives of thousands for a "better" Earth. If someone says he will, well I hope he/she would be the first to volunteer to die for the better Earth they are talking about.

 

[drankin]

I never said anything about putting people on trial in the sense of US law, nor would I even imply that, as a lot of the polluters aren't even from the US, but from other countries as well. Trial also means "an attempt or effort to do something," and I never I also never referred to the US usage of the word "crime." When you commit a crime against humanity you note the crime, and then you charge them.

I was clearly speaking outside of US law. If I had meant in the US sense of the word, you'd collect enough evidence that they're violating anti-trust laws or being virutual monopolies that sit on their oil refineries and effectively block competition, and that they're violating numerous Clean Air Acts.



And why would you assume that?

If I was referring to US law, I said the "penalties should be tougher" - some people who are environmentalists simply call for higher taxation and taxing externalities.

I specifically mentioned that in my post.

I never said anybody should go to "jail."



If I had meant that they were breaking US laws I would have named the laws and the laws they should be subjected to.



You're getting way off topic. And talk about a straw man argument.

But, a lot of the leftists who set up war crimes' tribunals would have very much liked to try war criminals under International Law, where they could answer for their crimes.

As far as I know, not much came out of them in terms of punishment: most people got off or had weak sentences even things like My Lai, but still, a lot of what we know about the Vietnam war came out of these, so we can see the benefits of a tribunal.



If it's "common knowledge" that Global Warming will return the Earth to a "healthier climate for life" and of one of the Earth's "healthiest periods" then it should be very easy for you to find a study that confirms this, in a scientific journal, specifically stating that Global Warming does this. And by life I assumed that you would put first and foremost human life, and if it leads to a better time, that would mean a better time for humans as well.

Furthermore, I'd like to know where you get the idea that the left is "enamored," as you put it, with the constitution.

The "left" in the US has generally been defined by people like William Lloyd Garrison, who publicly ripped up the US constitution as a pro-slavery document. Other leftists have opposed constitutions not because they disagreed with what they said, but only because they were constitutions in the first place, such as Proudhon.

The left includes people who generally opposed the constitution, such as anarchists and communists.

So, I don't know what you mean there, either, unless you're talking about Democrats or something, but that's not possible as they speak no more about the constitution than Republicans do, and aren't really "left" in the first place.



And show me where I said jail time? A lot of crimes, assuming I said under US law these people should be subjected to trials (which I never said), do not carry jail sentence. A lot of white collar crimes do not, for instance.

My whole line of discussion was that the crimes they were committing were against the world's poor.

But forget the world's poor. Just show me the studies that claim Global Warming is good for "life" on Earth in general. It must be easy to find if it's "common knowledge."

What I've read, is that AGW will be clearly negative for life on earth, will throw the entire ecosystem out of balance, and will cause billions of dollars in damages because of floods and so on, that may already be taking place due exactly to global warming.

Again, I'll ask: What consequences to "crimes against humanity" do you suggest? Can Joe Blow just be taken from his office in the US and put before an International trial when he hasn't broken any laws International or otherwise?

 

[OrbitalPower]

Well, your defnition of crime is ahistorical and incorrect in my opinion.

And when you say "Global Warming is good for life," and agreeing with those other assertions, what exactly do you mean?

Global Warming means the global warming hypothesis. Obviously, you can't say Global Warming will be good because at some other period in history it was warmer and life was better. The life had adapted to that kind of system.

And who do you mean when you say global warming (the hypothesis) will be good for life? Do you mean humans? Do you mean the ecosystem and specific animals? Or both?

Please explain. I'd agree it'd probably be good for a good climate for the spread of malaria and locusts, for example.

 

[D H]

Well, your defnition of crime is ahistorical and incorrect in my opinion.

Fortunately, this newfangled definition of crime as being whatever OrbitalPower wants it to mean has not taken hold yet. To all but an incredibly tiny minority in the civilized world, crime is synonymous with illegal behavior, and illegal behavior is dictated by law.

And when you say "Global Warming is good for life," and agreeing with those other assertions, what exactly do you mean?

This whole slightly off-topic segment of this thread started with Evil Evo saying

I was watching a show on Earth's climate the other night. They were basically saying that global warming of a couple of degrees would put the Earth back to one of it's healthiest periods, the time when the Earth was covered by lush tropical forests. The climate that human's have been enjoying for the past 10,000 years is what "we" like and know, not necessarily what is healthiest for the planet.

If past performance is any indicator, life will thrive in a warmer climate. So drop the silly "global warming will kill the planet" garbage. I am a lot more concerned with what it will do to humanity. If the predictions of the global warming crowd are correct, global warming most likely will be bad for humanity.

Humanity gave up on what is best for biodiversity 10,000 years ago or so. If the worst prognostications of global warming are true, global warming will be very, very good for biodiversity because these extreme prognostications have humanity collapsing. All the environmental damage that started when we first domesticated wheat and cattle will be quickly undone. It seems to me that the extreme environmentalists who hate humanity should be encouraging us to burn as much fossil fuels as possible to hasten our demise.

 

[OrbitalPower]

So environmentalists who hate humanity because of Global Warming actually should be encouraging global warming because global warming means the eradication of humanity, while an increase in biodiversity.

Global Warming means continued extinction of species, so it's interesting to claim that all the damage will be "quickly undone." And man's damage to the environment is nowhere near what it has been since the industrial revolution, from a thousand years on back.

The hypothesis also does not predict a return to biodiversity, but, in effect, weakening it and throwing it completely out of balance.

 

[D H]

Get a grip! OK, I added a smiley to the last sentence of my previous post to aid the humor-impaired readers of this thread.

 

[Gokul43201]

Pick up any peer reviewed journal or textbook on geology, there are literally thousands to choose from.

Yet the only link you provided is the personal website of an engineer in the coal mining industry who has no background in climatology and zero peer reviewed papers! Besides, he's a well known crackpot whose fans have repeatedly attempted to quote in Wikipedia articles on GW and GHG and have been rejected by the community for being flat out wrong.

 

[Evo]

Life Flourished When Earth Was Warmer, Scientist Says

The threat of a global warming doesn't scare Judith Parrish, a geologist at The University of Arizona in Tucson and an expert on ancient climates.

She's seen the ghost of the distant past in fossil leaves from the mid-Cretaceous, about 100 million years ago. These long-dead leaves tell tales of a warmer climate, when forests grew in the now-barren polar regions.

"Life flourished when the climate was warmer," said Parrish, UA professor of geosciences. Her book, "Interpreting Pre-Quaternary Climate from the Geologic Record," is being released this month. The Quaternary represents roughly the last 2 million years, a time of recurring ice ages when continental glaciers sometimes stretched as far south as Illinois.

"The last 2 million years don't have anywhere near the full range of climate history," Parrish emphasized. "The lack of ice during the Cretaceous is typical. Having the great big ice caps is not typical."

The Cretaceous describes the period 113 million to 65 million years ago, when dinosaurs roamed the planet. Geological evidence indicates that during the Cretaceous, as during much of the Earth's history, the planet was much warmer than it is today -- and generally warmer than it is projected to be in the next few centuries as the result of a buildup in greenhouse gases.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/10/981015080740.htm

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

An Ancient Greenhouse Window Into The Future

Dr Patrick Moss, a lecturer in physical geography with the School of Geography, Planning and Architecture, is working on a research project that is unearthing what the world's climate was like 50-million-years-ago.

"We have been looking at how plants respond to warmer temperatures to give us an insight into what might happen if the Earth's temperatures continue to increase," Dr Moss said.

Dr Moss's research has focused on a particular area of western-Canada, where fossilised leaves, insects and pollen are revealing a vastly different landscape to that of today.

"50 million years ago western Canada was a sub-tropical rainforest," he said.

"We are finding evidence of palms as well as a mix of oak and redwood forests.

"And we have found a particular species of redwood that is now only found in a certain part of China."

He said the site in Canada was chosen because of such well-preserved fossil plants and insects as well as being at a similar latitude now as it was 50-million-years-ago, making it perfect for comparison with today's environment.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070222180019.htm

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

The Past Says Abrupt Climate Change In Our Future

"When we look at records of the past, climate often changed abruptly rather than smoothly," says Dr. Richard B. Alley, the Evan Pugh professor of geosciences at Penn State. "This is true wherever and whenever you look."

Alley, who is currently chairing the National Academy of Science Committee on Abrupt Climate Change: Science and Public Policy, told attendees today (Dec. 13) at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Association in San Francisco, that while studies of ice cores, sediments and other relics of the past indicate these abrupt changes, the models currently used by those predicting the future of climate change do not do a good job of simulating abrupt changes in the past.

"If we look at what we know about climate, there is much we don't understand," says Alley. "However, we do know that abrupt change occurred in the past."

The abrupt changes are especially notable in temperature near the north and south poles and in precipitation away from the poles. In the near term, nature sometimes changes smoothly, sometimes remains the same and sometimes changes all at once. In the long term, abrupt change appears to be the norm. Current models all tend to change smoothly and do not capture abruptness.

"It is possible that climate change in the future will include abruptness, even though the current models do not show this," says Alley.

The Penn State geoscientist suggests that climate change includes a process of approaching and crossing a series of thresholds. Climate forcing factors are like a tower of blocks. Building the tower, blocks can be added, and the tower remains stable, but eventually the block height crosses the threshold of stability and the tower abruptly topples. With climate, the thresholds in the past have sometimes been reached in as few as 10 years.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/12/011214081853.htm

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Overconfidence Leads To Bias In Climate Change Estimations

Just as overconfidence in a teenager may lead to unwise acts, overconfidence in projections of climate change may lead to inappropriate actions on the parts of governments, industries and individuals, according to an international team of climate researchers.

"One key question is which scenario is likely, which is less likely and which they can neglect for practical purposes," says Keller who is also affiliated with the Penn State Institutes of Energy and the Environment. "At the very least, the scenarios should span the range of relevant future outcomes. This relevant range should also include low-probability, high-impact events."

The researchers provide evidence that the current practice neglects a sizeable fraction of these low probability events and results in biased outcomes. Keller; Louis Miltich, graduate student; Alexander Robinson, Penn State research assistant now on a Fulbright Fellowship in Berlin, and Richard Tol, senior research officer, Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, Ireland, developed an Integrated Assessment Model to derive probabilistic projections of carbon dioxide emissions on a century time scale. Their results extended far beyond the range of previously published scenarios, the researchers told attendees today (Dec. 15) at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

The National Science Foundation supported this work.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061215122457.htm

Yet the only link you provided is the personal website of an engineer in the coal mining industry who has no background in climatology

He doesn't need a background in climatolgy to discuss the geological records. That piece I posted was, as I said, a short synopsis of that geological time period. It is well known fact.

 

[Gokul43201]

He doesn't need a background in climatolgy to discuss the geological records. That piece I posted was, as I said, a short synopsis of that geological time period. It is well known fact.

But he's not even a geologist - he's an engineer, he works for the coal mining industry and he's a crackpot!

If the only point was to show that the Earth was significantly warmer in the past, no one is going to dispute that. But if someone is going to claim that reproducing temperatures of the carbonaceous period will lead to an increase in biodiversity, that is in direct contradiction to the results of the Nature paper I cited above, and needs at least a peer reviewed reference to support it.

 

[Evo]

First, being called a crackpot by bloggers on global warming fear mongering blogs is meaningless.

Second, the information on the geologic time frames is absolutely correct.

Oh good grief, why didn't you say that earlier, I've been looking for accessible articles showing that what he posted was accurate. I've provided several of those.

Ok, I will shift gears, but my cooking show is about to begin. Here's one.

Species, Speciation and the Environment
Niles Eldredge

Conclusion

Speciation, then, is integral to the evolutionary process:

Natural selection shapes most evolutionary adaptive change nearly simultaneously in genetically independent lineages as speciation is triggered by extinction in “turnover” events.

When physical environmental events that go “too far too fast” start triggering regional, species-level extinction, then evolutionary change — predominantly via speciation — occurs.

In times of environmental normalcy, speciation and species-wide evolutionary change are comparatively rare.

Paleontologist Dr. Niles Eldredge, is the Curator-in-Chief of the permanent exhibition “Hall of Biodiversity” at the American Museum of Natural History and adjunct professor at the City University of New York. He has devoted his career to examining evolutionary theory through the fossil record, publishing his views in more than 160 scientific articles, reviews, and books. Life in the Balance: Humanity and the Biodiversity Crisis is his most recent book.
http://www.gc.cuny.edu/directories/faculty/E.htm

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/eldredge.html

@@@@@@@@@@@

Science & Nature Species Explosion
What happens when you mix evolution with climate change?

Already this year researchers have announced the discovery of a bunch of new species: 6 types of bats, 15 soft corals, thousands of mollusks and 20 sharks and rays, to name a few. If a report issued in 2006 by the Census of Marine Life—conducted by more than 2,000 scientists in 80 countries—is any indicator, we will see a bumper crop of new animals in the years ahead, too. These discoveries, from the Hortle's whipray to the Bali catshark, are partly the fruits of new technology like DNA bar coding, which allows scientists to use genetic differences to tell one species from another. But that isn't the only reason: Evolution actually speeds up in the tropics, research has found, and global warming is making it happen that much faster.

The planet is heating up at a very rapid rate; by the year 2100, scientists predict an increase of anywhere from 2 to 12 degrees. This is not the first time Earth has gone through a warming phase, however. About 50 million years ago—10 million years after the dinosaur's demise—the planet went through a period called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum in which temperatures rose 12 degrees in 10,000 years. That increase changed rainfall patterns and ocean acidity, causing a massive species extinction. But many species survived and evolved into their modern descendants. Right now might mark the very beginning of a similar period of every-species-for-itself, as plants and animals adapt to climate change with striking quickness.

The advantage in this evolutionary race goes to warm-weather animals, who are taking territory and precious food sources from their cool-weather cousins. "Species that typically would be restricted to the tropics or subtropics are increasingly found north of where they were," says evolutionary biologist Stephen Palumbi of Stanford University, author of The Evolution Explosion. Swordfish traditionally seen in the Gulf of Mexico and Mediterranean have been spotted off the coast of Norway; shallow-water squid that normally call California waters home have been found as far north as Alaska. As these and other species commandeer space and resources, they bring with them their arsenal of DNA, so that their descendants will be even better biologically suited for warmer conditions. Continued.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/species.html

 

[D H]

But he's not even a geologist - he's an engineer, he works for the coal mining industry and he's a crackpot!

So ignore him. Are the other articles Evo cited by crackpots? Geologists, geographers, meteorologists? Evo is not saying that global warming is "good". She is merely citing what should be common knowledge: That the Earth has been a lot warmer than it is now and that life flourished when the Earth was warmer.

 

[AhmedEzz]

So what's your point exactly? The Earth was warmer and was more biodiverse than today...so what, we are talking about the effects of GW on humans, how it will affect countries, etc...

 

[Gokul43201]

First, being called a crackpot by bloggers on global warming fear mongering blogs is meaningless.

I don't know what blogs you are referring to. But to make it clear, let's just say I, personally, am calling him a crackpot and I'll be happy to defend that assertion in a different thread, if required.

Second, the information on the geologic time frames is absolutely correct.

I don't think anyone was disputing that.

Oh good grief, why didn't you say that earlier, I've been looking for accessible articles showing that what he posted was accurate. I've provided several of those.

Ok, I will shift gears, but my cooking show is about to begin. Here's one.

Species, Speciation and the Environment
Niles Eldredge

Paleontologist Dr. Niles Eldredge, is the Curator-in-Chief of the permanent exhibition “Hall of Biodiversity” at the American Museum of Natural History and adjunct professor at the City University of New York. He has devoted his career to examining evolutionary theory through the fossil record, publishing his views in more than 160 scientific articles, reviews, and books. Life in the Balance: Humanity and the Biodiversity Crisis is his most recent book.
http://www.gc.cuny.edu/directories/faculty/E.htm

Science & Nature Species Explosion
What happens when you mix evolution with climate change?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/species.html

As long as we stick to reputable sources, I have no problems. Incidentally, the first quotation is missing a link to the actual article.

So ignore him. Are the other articles Evo cited by crackpots?

I have not argued against the claim itself - only against the faulty argument that conducive temperatures in the past imply conducive temperatures today. That and the use of poor sources - I'm sure Evo didn't realize that Hieb is a dubious source.

Geologists, geographers, meteorologists? Evo is not saying that global warming is "good". She is merely citing what should be common knowledge: That the Earth has been a lot warmer than it is now and that life flourished when the Earth was warmer.

But that alone is hardly proof that continued warming today will cause life to flourish, which is why reliable sources and good citations are important.

 

[Evo]

I don't know what blogs you are referring to. But to make it clear, let's just say I, personally, am calling him a crackpot and I'll be happy to defend that assertion in a different thread, if required.

Why is he a crackpot concerning what I posted about climate in the Carboniferous Age? I made it clear when I posted it that that was all I was posting it for. To try to throw doubt on it when it is indeed correct? He's not a "dubious" source for that information, you yourself have agreed it's correct. So what's up with that?

 

[Gokul43201]

Why is he a crackpot concerning what I posted about climate in the Carboniferous Age? I made it clear when I posted it that that was all I was posting it for. To try to throw doubt on it when it is indeed correct? He's not a "dubious" source for that information, you yourself have agreed it's correct.

I have not "agreed it's correct". I only said that I had no intention of disputing the geological record presented there. I am neither qualified to dispute it personally, nor am I sufficiently well read to know the details. The one figure I looked at is drawn from sources that I find reputable and so I accept it's veracity, but there's a whole bunch of other stuff, including the conclusions, that is not sufficiently cited or is his personal judgement.

So what's up with that?

What's up is that the author of that site is a clearly biased and highly dubious source, so anything he writes is unreliable, except for those specific things that are directly drawn from more reliable sources.

 

[vanesch]

When are people going to take climate science back to science and out of the political propaganda sphere ?


We have observational data which suggests that the CO2 rise in the atmosphere correlates with human CO2 exhaust. I don't think there's much dispute about that.

We have much less sure observational data that suggests that global temperatures have *slightly* been rising. Recently however (satellite data on ocean temperatures) this is not clear at all.

We have the *hypothesis* that CO2 increase is going to act as a greenhouse gas. Simple radiation transport models ("all else equal") show us that a doubling of the CO2 (about beginning 2100) will give rise to a global increase in temperature of about 1 degree.

And then we have a LOT OF MODELS that add feedback to this radiation transport mechanism: increasing temperatures will do "other things" (so no more "all else equal"), like changed land usage (different vegetation, ice cover...), changed atmospheric content (water vapor, clouds,...), changing ocean currents, changing ocean composition, changing atmospheric composition and profiles, etc... and depending on the guesses one puts in these models, one can obtain positive feedback which then predicts temperature increases for a doubling of CO2 of up to 6 degrees.

However, these models don't work as of now yet in a scientific way, in that they make falsifiable predictions, those predictions are then observed, and so on. Indeed, recently they made different predictions of the ocean temperatures from those observed.

So all this indicates that: 1) it is indeed physically possible that a CO2 increase COULD give rise to serious temperature increases - not that it WILL be the case. But the possibility exists, so we should be careful.
2) we are not yet able to say with any certainty what will really happen. If you read the IPCC full reports, that's pretty clear. But in the summaries, doubts have made place for affirmative statements.

If that's not yet sufficiently murky, then people are going to model what will happen, GRANTED that temperature will rise with 6 degrees. There are of course some obvious, simple, things: sea level rise of a meter or so, ice melting, etc... Much more difficult is the prediction of what the biosphere will look like WITH HUMANITY 100 years from now. It is as if one tried to predict, in 1900, what earth, its biotopes etc... would look like in 2000, from extrapolations of evolutions at the end of the 19th century.

Now, all this can be an interesting intellectual exercise, but to go around the world fearmongering is the same as those preaching about the end of the world in the year 1000.

What climate science has shown is that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere can potentially give rise to a temperature increase, although how much has not yet been determined with any degree of certainty. That's about all we know. That should give rise to prudence, and to start thinking of how to get our CO2 exhaust down, just in case.

As to what value one puts to 1) future human generations, 2) biological life on Earth in the coming centuries 3) current human generations, that's not a scientific but a political and ideological discussion. Science should limit itself to telling people what it knows, what is plausible and possible and what is not clear yet.

 

[Integral]

I like Vanesch's post. He makes some very good points. What I have missed is any real discussion of the actual models used. I am sure they are at least as good as the models used by the weatherman on the local TV. Ok, let's hope they are much better! Even without direct knowledge of the models is it wise to reject their predictions just because I don't like the results? What is a stake here?

Yes, this is more a matter of a social and political decision then a scientific one. The Climatologists are saying that there is a reasonably good chance that GW will occur. Sure in the past the Earth was much warmer, What was the human population then? What was the state of civilization then? I am sure man could have lived just fine and civilization could have thrived then, that is not the problem.

The problem is the TRANSITION from our current climate patterns to perhaps a vastly different set of patterns. Since life on Earth is very robust I have no doubts that life will thrive under the potential new conditions, the question is can our civilization survive the changes? That is what we are gambling with the survival of our civilization, not life. How robust is our civilization? I do not think anyone can answer that question with anything other then idle speculation. I really seems that there is a LOT at stake, do we really want to continue on our current path when there exists a reasonable possibility as predicted that we are treading a dangerous path? Is it fear mongering to want changes to at least reduce our impact on the planet?

One has to ask what is the cost of being wrong?

If we act as if GW were real and reduced our consumption of fossil fuels, replacing them with "green" alternatives we could always burn the saved oil later, it would still be there waiting to be used.

On the other hand if we keep burning the oil as if it were an infinite energy source, clearly, since it is NOT an infinite energy source the day will come when the last drop is pumped out and burned, what then? Even if there is no such thing as GW if we have not prepared for the end of oil it will be an unmitigated disaster.

It seems to me that the ONLY prudent course is to act as if GW were real and imminent. Since to be wrong has no real ill effects. Being wrong on the other side, however, courts a major disaster for our way of life. Why gamble?

 

[Gokul43201]

When are people going to take climate science back to science and out of the political propaganda sphere ?We have observational data which suggests that the CO2 rise in the atmosphere correlates with human CO2 exhaust. I don't think there's much dispute about that.

We have much less sure observational data that suggests that global temperatures have *slightly* been rising. Recently however (satellite data on ocean temperatures) this is not clear at all.

I disagree with this, and I imagine, so would Andre. Over the last 30 years, there is an unarguable increase in the global anomaly, even if you look at only the least convincing dataset: the satellite data for lower tropospheric temperatures (MSU2LT).

I refer you to Andre's post with the linear regression fits for the different datasets: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1677418&postcount=42

The satellite data shows an increase of about 1.4K/century from 1979 to 2007. This is a greater slope than for any other dataset over the last 100 years, which give numbers like 0.5K/century. The other datasets have slopes greater than 1.5K/century for the last 30 years.

We have the *hypothesis* that CO2 increase is going to act as a greenhouse gas. Simple radiation transport models ("all else equal") show us that a doubling of the CO2 (about beginning 2100) will give rise to a global increase in temperature of about 1 degree.

And then we have a LOT OF MODELS that add feedback to this radiation transport mechanism: increasing temperatures will do "other things" (so no more "all else equal"), like changed land usage (different vegetation, ice cover...), changed atmospheric content (water vapor, clouds,...), changing ocean currents, changing ocean composition, changing atmospheric composition and profiles, etc... and depending on the guesses one puts in these models, one can obtain positive feedback which then predicts temperature increases for a doubling of CO2 of up to 6 degrees.

However, these models don't work as of now yet in a scientific way, in that they make falsifiable predictions, those predictions are then observed, and so on.

I'm pretty sure the last IPCC reports made falsifiable predictions saying (approximately): if we maintain a Z(t) CO2 emission rate (t=time), we will see an increase in temperature over the next X years at a rate of about Y degrees per decade*. I think the early predictions for the scenarios of constant/decreased CO2 emissions may be somewhat off because back then, there was a somewhat poorer quantization of the amplitude of multi-decadal oscillations compared to what has come from papers in the last 1-2 years.

For instance, compare Schlesinger & Ramankutty, Nature 367, 723 - 726 (1994)
and Zhen-Shan & Xian, Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 95, 115–121 (2007).

Indeed, recently they made different predictions of the ocean temperatures from those observed.

Could you provide a reference? I hope you are not comparing the measured deep sea temperature decrease in sub-Arctic waters with the predicted surface water temperature increase.

* Edit: Found it.

For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all GHGs and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. Afterwards, temperature projections increasingly depend on specific emissions scenarios in the TAR mainly because the broader range of models now available suggests stronger climate-carbon cycle feedbacks. For the A2 scenario, for example, the climate-carbon cycle feedback increases the corresponding global average warming at 2100 by more than 1°C. Carbon feedbacks are discussed in Topic 2.3. {WGI 7.3, 10.5, SPM}

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm

 

[vanesch]

Since life on Earth is very robust I have no doubts that life will thrive under the potential new conditions, the question is can our civilization survive the changes? That is what we are gambling with the survival of our civilization, not life. How robust is our civilization? I do not think anyone can answer that question with anything other then idle speculation. I really seems that there is a LOT at stake, do we really want to continue on our current path when there exists a reasonable possibility as predicted that we are treading a dangerous path? Is it fear mongering to want changes to at least reduce our impact on the planet?

I fully agree with you that given the state of knowledge of today, knowing that severe AGW is a possibility, one should err on the prudent side. But you make a very valid point: what is at stake is potentially our civilization and our way of life, NOT the biosphere, not "humanity", and not some or other biodiversity question.

So any "remedy" that would put "our way of life" more at stake than the potential danger that threatens it, would be a remedy worse than the illness. Fear is always a bad adviser. The exercise is to optimize somehow the quality of life now and in the relatively near future. We shouldn't take any drastic measures "to save the planet" that would endanger our way of life much more - but we should also not be reckless and not take into account the genuine risk for the near future. But all this should be thought over, and not decided in a kind of panic mood - which is the danger of the fear mongering.

Should we put work in switching away from fossil fuels ? Yes, and not only for the sake of "saving the planet". But should we do it in a drastic way, that puts whole populations in peril ? No, certainly not, that would be exactly the "remedy" that's worse than the "illness".

 

[Andre]

There is a tiny technical problem though; where is that global warming?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=239131

 

[Integral]

There is a tiny technical problem though; where is that global warming?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=239131

What difference does it make? The measures we need to take to control greenhouse gases are the same ones we need to take to free ourselves from the oil addiction. Your denial is counter productive, it serves no good purpose other then to put our civilization at risk. Let us take prudent measures to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels NOW.

I really cannot see the point of your arguments.

 

[Integral]

I fully agree with you that given the state of knowledge of today, knowing that severe AGW is a possibility, one should err on the prudent side. But you make a very valid point: what is at stake is potentially our civilization and our way of life, NOT the biosphere, not "humanity", and not some or other biodiversity question.

So any "remedy" that would put "our way of life" more at stake than the potential danger that threatens it, would be a remedy worse than the illness. Fear is always a bad adviser. The exercise is to optimize somehow the quality of life now and in the relatively near future. We shouldn't take any drastic measures "to save the planet" that would endanger our way of life much more - but we should also not be reckless and not take into account the genuine risk for the near future. But all this should be thought over, and not decided in a kind of panic mood - which is the danger of the fear mongering.

Should we put work in switching away from fossil fuels ? Yes, and not only for the sake of "saving the planet". But should we do it in a drastic way, that puts whole populations in peril ? No, certainly not, that would be exactly the "remedy" that's worse than the "illness".

Unfortunately I have little or no confidence in the politicians of the US or any other country. How can we find the correct path to survival when there are so many questions and so few solid answers?

 

[vanesch]

I disagree with this, and I imagine, so would Andre. Over the last 30 years, there is an unarguable increase in the global anomaly, even if you look at only the least convincing dataset: the satellite data for lower tropospheric temperatures (MSU2LT).

I refer you to Andre's post with the linear regression fits for the different datasets: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1677418&postcount=42

The satellite data shows an increase of about 1.4K/century from 1979 to 2007. This is a greater slope than for any other dataset over the last 100 years, which give numbers like 0.5K/century. The other datasets have slopes greater than 1.5K/century for the last 30 years.

Ok, now let's take the numbers from that post:

Period:...1979-2007...1998-2007
GHCN:...0.193...0.199
NOAA:...0.170...0.127
HADCRUT:..0.170...0.041
MSU2LT...0.142...0.057

If I understand well, the numbers are degrees per decade for 4 different estimators of global temperature. Now, what do we see ? 3 out of 4 of them have a LOWER value of the set 1998-2007 than for the set 1979-2007, which means that the slope is DECREASING. If the CO2+feedback+whatever panic scheme were right, then the slope should be INCREASING, as in the mean time, the CO2 level has been increasing, and all the positive feedback had more time to act.

Simple maths: if between x1 and x3, the slope is s1, and between x2 and x3, the slope is s2, then we have: total increase is d3 = (x3-x1) x s1 ; increase between x2 and x3 is d2 = (x3-x2) x s2, so the increase between x1 and x2 is d1 = d3 - d2 = (x3-x1) x s1 - (x3-x2) x s2
or the slope between x1 and x2 is: s3 = [ (x3-x1) x s1 - (x3-x2) x s2 ] / (x2 - x1).

If you do that naively to the numbers above, then we find as slopes between 1979 and 1998:

GHCN:...0.190
NOAA:...0.190
HADCRUT:..0.231
MSU2LT...0.182

Now, I know that we are talking about regression coefficients with a lot of noise and so on, but it seems clear from these data that the temperature increase between 1979 and 1998 was stronger than between 1998 and 2007. So it's getting hotter less fast between 1998 and 2007 than between 1979 and 1998. That's absolutely not in agreement with "more CO2, more warming".

I'm pretty sure the last IPCC reports made falsifiable predictions saying (approximately): if we maintain a Z(t) CO2 emission rate (t=time), we will see an increase in temperature over the next X years at a rate of about Y degrees per decade*. I think the early predictions for the scenarios of constant/decreased CO2 emissions may be somewhat off because back then, there was a somewhat poorer quantization of the amplitude of multi-decadal oscillations compared to what has come from papers in the last 1-2 years.

Was there a clear prediction of a *slowing down* of the increase of temperature between 1998 and 2007 BEFORE these data were available ? In other words, a *real* prediction ?

Because if not, then the increase between 1979 and 1998 which was then enhanced by any kind of oscillation might otherwise have been taken as "calibration" and justification for the "flat" response.

Could you provide a reference? I hope you are not comparing the measured deep sea temperature decrease in sub-Arctic waters with the predicted surface water temperature increase.

Well, have a look at Andre's post: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=239131
and then there is http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A4.pdf

EDIT: just not to be misunderstood, I'm NOT saying that AGW is not a potential issue. And I DO think that there are many reasons to get away from fossil fuels. But I'm against all this irrational fear mongering. It can only lead to irrational decisions, and a lot of unnecessary problems. I'm also claiming that these things are far less understood than the fear mongerers (and also the negationists) claim. The real answer is that we really don't know what's going to happen 100 years from now, and that there is a potential for warming.

 

[D H]

What difference does it make? The measures we need to take to control greenhouse gases are the same ones we need to take to free ourselves from the oil addiction.

I disagree. While freeing ourselves from the oil addiction may reduce emissions somewhat, I doubt it does so to the extent some claim we need to reduce emissions. We still have a lot of coal, after all. If we switch the majority of the vehicles on the road from gasoline-powered internal combustion vehicles to coal-powered battery driven vehicles, we will have taken a big step to reducing our oil dependence but a only small step to reducing our carbon footprint.

 

[Gokul43201]

Sure in the past the Earth was much warmer, What was the human population then? What was the state of civilization then?

Over the last 5 years, we have been about 0.5C warmer than the temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period[1,2] according to most published sources. Even the most skeptical estimates (those which eliminate tree-ring data) say that we now at similar temperatures to the MWP[3]. Before that, the last time we had temperatures that were comparable or slightly higher than today's temperatures, was about 125,000 years ago[4]. The last time that the Earth was significantly warmer was most likely several million years ago[5].

Civilization began less than 8,000 years ago. The really warm temperatures were probably during the time of australopithecus[6].[1] A. Moberg et al, Nature, 443 613-617 (2005)
[2] J.H. Oerlemans, Science, 308 675-677 (2005)
[3] C. Loehle, Energy & Environment, 18 1049-1058 (2007)
[4] Petit et al, Nature, 399 429-436 (1999)
[5] Paleomap Project
[6] http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/timeline.html

 

[Gokul43201]

Ok, now let's take the numbers from that post:
If I understand well, the numbers are degrees per decade for 4 different estimators of global temperature. Now, what do we see ? 3 out of 4 of them have a LOWER value of the set 1998-2007 than for the set 1979-2007, which means that the slope is DECREASING.

Actually, you can't really say that. When you look at the 10-year data, the error bars in the slopes (which are not included in that table) become larger than the change in the slope, so the 10-year slopes are mostly meaningless (i.e., 9-year and 11-year slopes are different from the 10-year slopes by over 50%). This is why I compared the 30-year trend with the 100-year trend (errors bars are smaller and a comparison becomes meaningful).

These large error bars in 10-year data are due to the small size of the dataset, but also importantly, due to the choice of end-points. 1998 experienced an anomalously high temperature and is a terrible choice of endpoint. Look at my follow-up post in that other thread for more on this.

Secondly, even if the "slope" is currently decreasing, which I suspect it is, we come to this:

If I understand well, the numbers are degrees per decade for 4 different estimators of global temperature. Now, what do we see ? 3 out of 4 of them have a LOWER value of the set 1998-2007 than for the set 1979-2007, which means that the slope is DECREASING. If the CO2+feedback+whatever panic scheme were right, then the slope should be INCREASING, as in the mean time, the CO2 level has been increasing, and all the positive feedback had more time to act.

Again, I must say I don't think so. The two biggest features observed in global temperatures over the last 130 years are an upward trend that correlates well with CO2 levels and a multi-decadal (50-70 year) oscillation (origin not well-understood by me). If temperature increases from GHG forcings (+some other things) is sufficiently positive and nearly linear in time, then the slope during an upswing of the multi-decadal oscillation will be greater than that during a downswing. Since we are currently starting on a downswing, it would be reasonable to see a decrease in the overall slope for the period 2000-2020 compared to the period 1980-2000. This is the same reason that the slope during the 1940-1975 period was much smaller than that during the 1915-1940 period.

Again, I refer you to the two citations in my earlier post (the one you quoted).