News Legendary Climate Scientist Says Last Chance to Stop Global Warming

[vanesch]

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%).

I know. But it works in 2 ways: if we can't say anything over less than 30 years, then we should wait 30 years before looking at predictions, and not start shouting right now that the data prove (or disprove) this or that model, and hence that the world is FOR SURE facing this or that tragedy or on the other hand, that this or that prediction was wrong and hence that all that is BS. As the "experiment" takes at least 30 years, you cannot say ANYTHING right now with any affirmative certainty, that was my point.
The possibility exists. We are not sure. That's the real scientific statement right now.

But people don't like uncertainty. They don't like to say that they don't really know (but just have some suggestive evidence) ; they don't like to hear it and to deal with the uncertainty in the decision making. However, that's how things really are.

Imagine it was a certainty that if we go on this way, then in 100 years, Earth would be 30 degrees warmer. We would for sure almost all die. So, what do we do ? Take still a few decades of good life and then plan some kind of painless collective suicide ? Bomb all coal plants, bomb all petrol infrastructure right away ? Try to kill humanity immediately, so that the giant ants after us will still have a chance ?

Imagine that it was sure that if we go on this way, Earth would warm with, say, 7 degrees. What do we do now ? Still take a few decades of good life and to hell with future generations ? Or sacrifice half of the current world population and dump it in misery by stopping one way or another (with a global war, I presume) the consumption of oil and coal ? Or try to switch slowly to less CO2 producing technologies ?

Imagine that it was sure that if we go on this way, Earth would warm, by say, 1 degree. What do we do now ? I'd say: solve our current problems and try to enjoy life !

Imagine that it was sure that if we go on this way, Earth would enter a new ice age ? What do we do now ? Produce a lot of CO2 more than we are currently doing ?

Point is, we aren't sure. So we have to weight in the uncertainties with the risks for the future and the well-being of today.

 

[Gokul43201]

I know. But it works in 2 ways: if we can't say anything over less than 30 years, then we should wait 30 years before looking at predictions, and not start shouting right now that the data prove (or disprove) this or that model, and hence that the world is FOR SURE facing this or that tragedy or on the other hand, that this or that prediction was wrong and hence that all that is BS. As the "experiment" takes at least 30 years, you cannot say ANYTHING right now with any affirmative certainty, that was my point.

I don't think I've ever said that we know anything with a great certainty right now. Even by my earlier post on the IPCC prediction, we must wait at least about 20-years for them to gain scientific credibility. Given that multi-decadal oscillations are a big factor, I would typically (for a purely scientific purpose) like to wait for at least a few more oscillations to match predictions, and that would mean waiting a couple centuries.

I will be most glad to wait, with you, for the data to match the calculations. Maybe on some warm January evening, when we're old men, we can share a pitcher of beer, as we look at the numbers together in a seaside Parisian cafe, the warm waters of the English Channel swirling by our feet. We could even make jokes about the giant ants living on the Eiffel Tower.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Me personally, I am highly skeptical of global warming, but even if it is true, I have no problem acknowledging this and working to try and handle it or curb it some, what I am staunchly against is using global warming as an excuse to greatly increase the power of the state in our lives (and in the minds of the extremists, bring down capitalism and Western civilization).

I am against things like heavy carbon taxes, carbon cap-and-trade, greatly increasing regulation, controlling people's thermostats (no joking, California tried to pass legislation where the State could adjust people's temperatures in their homes), etc...

 

[Andre]

Given that multi-decadal oscillations are a big factor, I would typically (for a purely scientific purpose) like to wait for at least a few more oscillations to match predictions, and that would mean waiting a couple centuries.

Disregadring tongue in cheek but we might be able to settle things sooner, if we would manage to keep it purely scientific, doing the homework, banning politics, passion and personal agenda's.

Now, firstly, the actual temperature data do not suggest a high CO2 sensitivity as posted earlier.

Secondly, radiation models like MODTRAN cannot produce a high CO2 sensitivity in the IPCC range of thinking, nor can the theory, then where is that high sensitivity with the tipping point stories coming from?

The answer is paleo climatology, told about, highly detailed, by Spencer Weart here

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/rapid.htm
etc

The focal point here is the water isotope variation (dD and d18O), which is interpreted as temperatures. The wild oscillations suggest things like ten degrees within a decade. So with in mind, the search is for the unkown climate factors like positive feedback.

But modern hydrography dealing with water isotopes proves to be very complex and the isotope interpretation is really only one dimension. There are more possibilities. Moreover, when really zooming in on the dirty details, things do not add up at all. There are other interpretations possible, working around those spectacular temperature changes. Without those, there is no case for dramatic tipping points type of global warming. But that's only when we manage to keep things scientific and run suppositions until it all matches, we don't need to wait for the non existing tipping points.

 

[vanesch]

I don't think I've ever said that we know anything with a great certainty right now. Even by my earlier post on the IPCC prediction, we must wait at least about 20-years for them to gain scientific credibility. Given that multi-decadal oscillations are a big factor, I would typically (for a purely scientific purpose) like to wait for at least a few more oscillations to match predictions, and that would mean waiting a couple centuries.

I will be most glad to wait, with you, for the data to match the calculations. Maybe on some warm January evening, when we're old men, we can share a pitcher of beer, as we look at the numbers together in a seaside Parisian cafe, the warm waters of the English Channel swirling by our feet. We could even make jokes about the giant ants living on the Eiffel Tower.

Now, THAT would be a great way to end my life ! I sign for it, immediately !

 

[DrClapeyron]

As long as people continue to imply the disasterous consequences of global warming, it will remain a political issue.

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

They actually are starting to change now...though it may be a while before we see anything drastic.

Americans drove 22 billion fewer miles from November through April than during the same period in 2006-07, the biggest such drop since the Iranian revolution led to gasoline supply shortages in 1979-80.

The numbers released Wednesday may reflect more than a temporary attitude change in consumers toward high gas prices, Transportation Secretary Mary Peters said. Previously, she said, "people might change their pattern for a short period of time, but it almost always bounced back very quickly. We're not seeing that now."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-19-drivingless_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

 

[edward]

Its ironic that the intelligence community and national Security agencies have been studying the effects of GW on national security for some time now.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=5242639&page=2

 

[Andre]

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.

I missed this one, but it requires addressing once more, because this is the core business and I could not disagree more. Why pointing out the flaws of the global warming issues, when humanity needs to convert to a sustainable energy system anyway? And reducing carbon emission would have the same effect, wouldn't it?

Suppose that the weather forecaster talks about nice dry warm weather in the next days but instead a cold wet spell arrives, he would be a bit embarrassed. But if it turns out that the forecaster was using bad science or perhaps even spun the data to arrive at that desired conclusion, then nobody would believe forecasters anymore and the branch would be down out.

Point is that science appears to be misused for politics and commits high treason against its main objective, to find the truth. If global warming is not the truth, it should be said in time before reality overtakes, in order to save a bit of its trustworthiness and its right to exist.

How long can you pretend global warming when the messages of cold spells wordwide, get more and more frequent? And if this branch of science doesn't purge itself in time, don't count on getting it a second chance.

From the practical point of view, limiting CO2 in the atmosphere, is not nearly the same as transiting into a sustainable energy society. The former would call for all kind of CO2 removal techniques for climate purposes, which would be a waste of time and assets, if it would not change anything. Also, it would obstruct the use of other carbon fuels reserves like oceanic methane hydrate, which would buy time to reach the sustainable society.

Trying to trick humanity into a necessary right direction for the wrongs reasons, will bounce hard:

A: "Trust me, nuclear power is now safe and adequate to solve all energy issues".
B: "yeah right, Go fool somebody else, look at the global warming debacle. I'm not buying anything from you anymore".

And to add my personal agenda: the suppositions about paleo climate during the ice ages, leading to the climate scare, are highly contradictory and cannot be right which obstructs finding out what really happened.