Climate loonies
Short of in-depth knowledge of the relationship between climate change and hurricanes, I didn’t want to try and make the link, lest I be accused of trying to make political capital out of an awful situation in the United States.
However, I am more than happy to quote an eminent British scientist on this very issue. Sir John Lawton, chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution which advises the British Government, told the Independent newspaper last week:
The increased intensity of these kinds of extreme storms is very likely to be due to global warming. If this makes the climate loonies in the States realize we’ve got a problem, some good will come out of a truly awful situation…
If what looks like is going to be a horrible mess causes the extreme skeptics about climate change in the U.S. to reconsider their opinion, that would be an extremely valuable outcome. There are a group of people in various parts of the world … who simply don’t want to accept human activities can change climate and are changing the climate. I’d liken them to the people who denied that smoking causes lung cancer…
Increasingly it looks like a smoking gun. It’s a fair conclusion to draw that global warming, caused to a substantial extent by people, is driving increased sea surface temperatures and increasing the violence of hurricanes.
We should not forget that we have our own - to use Sir John’s term - “climate loonies”. Step up Donald Brash, Rodney Hide, and the National and Act Parties.
September 26th, 2005 at 1:29 pm
This “smoking gun” looks a lot more like a random blip if you consider that hurricane frequency has actually dropped over the length of the 20th Century. http://www.pewclimate.org/hurricanes.cfm#5
It’s interesting that Sir John Lawton characterises the anthropomorphic climate change skeptics as “loonies”. After all, it is the advocates of such theories that still have no way of ruling out naturally induced climate variability and change. The link between CO2 levels and global warming is highly contested, and far from clear - with some studies even showing CO2 levels *follow* periods of global warming, not the other way around. So, they’re calling people who don’t take that part of the argument on faith loonies. And these are scientists?
I look forward to seeing if the Russian climate scientists’ predictions about a global temperature drop in the next 10 years holds true.
September 26th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
The reality is that you cannot make the link without historical climate data to back it up. Accurate climate data has only been recorded for maybe the last 40-50 years which is a mere drop in the pond of the earths age. I am not saying that climate change is not occurring but pointing out that the ferocity of the Hurricanes as the smoking gun proof of climate change is disingenuous without the historical scientific data.
There are ancient recordings of weather phenomenon’s throughout the history of humankind with one of the most extreme ones involving a fellow called Noah and his Arc. The Aztecs measured the weather cycles and found extended periods of heating and cooling. Throughout the Pacific there are tales of the gods blowing whole villages out into sea. It has even been said that the population of NZ by Polynesians was the result of weather phenomenon in the pacific. My concern is that the Greens are so focused on proving manmade climate change that you refuse any other evidence.
Finally the smoking analogy is not a good one as physicians have measured the negative effects over generations of smokers.
September 26th, 2005 at 2:01 pm
frog, Dunhill is going to be pouting because you left him out of your list of loonies. Since United want to build a four-lane highway from Kaitaia to Invercargill they deserve to be included.
mugwump, yes hurricane/storm frequency hasn’t increased. But hurricane/storm intensity has increased in the last 30 years. At least according to research published in Nature, which is probably the most authorative/prestidegous scientific journal in the world. And you don’t need any faith to believe in climate change, the evidence is clear, if you open your eyes and stop repeating the party line.
September 26th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
I enjoy this (predominantly male?) “logic”. Presumably the academic argument about possibilities will continue as we disappear under the rising waters or whatever…
I prefer to accept the idea of human contribution to global warming (while also recognising the evidence that it is historically cyclical on this planet) and work to reduce the human impact upon the current warming, and prepare our communities world wide to cope with its impact upon us (and other species).
None of you guys will be around to gloat about the fact that you were right and “they” were wrong … but our descendants hopefully will be …
Let’s take the pragmatic option. If in doubt, do something about it anyway.
eredwen
September 26th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
“The reality is that you cannot make the link without historical climate data to back it up… Finally the smoking analogy is not a good one as physicians have measured the negative effects over generations of smokers”
True, but we’ve only got one planet to experiment on. We waited for millions of smokers to get lung cancer before making that link, we don’t have thousands of Earths to experiment on. Few scientists are willing to say the CO2 emmisions will cause global warming, but they see enough possible links to say hey, if this is right we are going to be in a whole lot of trouble.
I don’t necessarily agree that the worst predictions of global warming are true. But if (IF!) they are, we’ve already seen examples of the kind of devestation we can expect to experience.
Remember, by the time we figured out the link between CFC’s and the ozone layer it was too late to prevent the problem - even though the offending chemicals were banned (20 yrs ago? i forget) the ozone layer is projected to get worse for another few years before regenerating. And it is New Zealand specifically that suffers as a result.
“I look forward to seeing if the Russian climate scientists’ predictions about a global temperature drop in the next 10 years holds true.”
I hope so too. I hope the climate change advocates are wrong. But by the time we have definitive proof that makes everyone happy it will be too late to act.
Ignoring this potential problem is short-sighted, dangerous and selfish.
September 26th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
oh and mugwump, don’t you think it’s a bit ironic that you write a post that denies the reality of climate change and for evidence you link to a website that says:
“Global warming poses an extraordinary challenge. The world’s leading atmospheric scientists tell us that a gradual warming of our climate is underway and will continue. This long-term warming trend poses serious risks to our economy and our environment. It poses even greater risks to many other nations, particularly poorer countries that will be far less able to cope with a changing climate and low-lying countries where sea level rise will cause significant damage.”
And Toa, the world does have centuries of accurate climate data. For example that website that mugwump linked to also contains:
“The years 1998, 2002, and 2003 were the three warmest years recorded in the instrumental record (which dates back to the mid-1800s).”
September 26th, 2005 at 2:18 pm
(thanks eredwen, I spent so long trying to accuratly express my frustration at the aforementioned head-in-the-sand attitudes that you bet me to it, far more succinctly I might add :D)
September 26th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
It’s what all those other loonies (who say “Global warming? I wouldn’t mind it being a bit warmer around here” or “Global warming? Rubbish: it’s been all wet and stormy recently”) ignore.
Retaining more energy in the troposphere doesn’t just mean that it all gradually gets nice and warm and you can have a barbecue in July (and even if it were the case, the change to crop distributions will be devastating). The entire global weather system acts to redistribute energy, and storm systems (including hurricanes) are an important part of that redistribution. More heat in the system provides more fuel for storms.
Also, hurricanes need a sea surface temperature over 26.5 degrees C to spawn, and they weaken when they travel over cooler seas. It’s a fairly sharp threshold, so even a small increase in overall sea temperatures could result in large areas of the oceans becoming conducive to hurricane formation.
Unfortunately, the term “Global warming” sounds far too benign. We need a phrase to capture the increasing instability, unpredictability and storminess that climate change will bring. “Global storming”?
September 26th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
Unfortunately, actual historical meteorological data is near useless for this argument. My understanding is that the original predictive models showed that greenhouse gases etc. may cause the natural climatic oscillations to be shifted up by a few degrees - which would be no big deal.
However, more recent modelling is indicating that a stretch of the climatic oscillations is more likely and more dangerous. For example, modelling of processes which affect the Gulf Stream show that the system is very stable up to a critical value (I think of sea temperature change) but beyond that level there is a “switch” to a new stable state, one where the Gulf Stream switches off. If this was to occure it would be impossible to reverse, occur over a very short space of time and be potentially catastrophic. These dynamical system models are probably the most reliable information we have at the moment.
P.S. despite my acceptance of oral traditions and cultural references to give us important scientific information, a few historical incidences of extreme events worth remembering from the Bible or the Pacific are really neither here nor there as far as telling us about the change in frequency of extreme weather events. Similarly the 12th? century pacific voyages during a period of warmth does not contradict what we refer to as “global warming” which is probably more accurately described as “global increase of extreme and catastrophic climatic events - both hot and cold”
September 26th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
I also am a regular reader of “Nature”.
As a result of the mounting evidence of Global Warming, our family has made big changes to the way we live … with two purposes in mind:
1. To make sure that individually (and collectively) we contribute as little as possible to global warming … and to encourage others to do the same.
and
2. To prepare for life when our whole community finally gets the message … and change is forced upon us all.
eredwen
September 26th, 2005 at 2:32 pm
Toa -
you make a good point about the aquisition of reliable data on climate.
You also make good points about the oral history of the pacific nations with regard to extreme climatic events.
There is moree than one way to look at history; which is mostly coloured by the social characteristics of the historian him/herself.
Climate change over millenia has been studied by geologists for some 150 years, since Darwin first started looking at paleontological material and making (r)evolutionary statements about what he thought had happened thousands of generations past.
None of this research is accepted by christian fundamentalists, so why would any theory about the effects of pollution, industrialisation, and the combustion engine in traffic jams ever gain hold - these are the same people who tried to deny that slavery was a bad idea, because a) the Bible mentions slaves (not positively, I should add) and b) they needed slaves to run their plantations at negligable cost.
Accepting climate change as a reality requires the political will to accept the responsibilty for the cost of one’s own contribution to the pollution of the planet.
The true cost of globalisation is evident in the removal of polluting industries to countries outside the borders of the country of consumption; in the denial of the rights of workers to living-wage pay rates in said industrial zones; and the denial of the fact of climate change occurring globally due to the unsustainable practices of the rich post-industrial countries.
Most of the argument about global warming is not about the science; it’s about protecting economic infrastructure, and pushing costs away from the centre of generation of those costs. Multi-National Corporations, not legislatures, are setting the agenda, and influencing first-world nations by using their enormous tax contributions as a lever on policy.
Big business does not want to see Kyoto ratified globally, because that would leave them without any exploitable industrial venues. Is that how we want NZ to be in the future, a destination for sweatshop industries with no commitment to sustainable labour or environmental practices? A place where huge polluting smelters can hold a country’s energy supply to ransom (no, wait, comalco already does that, so we can only modify, not prevent that from happening…)
Power brownouts, water shortages, fuel price hikes are all part of the same disregard for the sustainable use of resources, which is a result of the “I can afford this, screw you” policies of the very rich; so long as those who have power and wealth get their serving, at whatever price, the status quo is maintainable.
Thus did the empire of the caesars corrupt and decay in their wake; and those who ignore the evidence of climate change are likewise fiddling while Rome experiences hurricanes (that’s Rome, Texas, buddies…)
September 26th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
No doubt frog will/would’ve posted this:
Coal-fired power station gets go-ahead..
September 26th, 2005 at 2:56 pm
Thanks stymied !
I was pleased with that one ! (I usually get the feeling that what I write is pretty woolly … but this topic is very important.)
eredwen
September 26th, 2005 at 3:00 pm
Yes it is true that if there is a choice between an activity that you think might be dangerous, and one that you know is safe, then it is better to choose the safe path. For this and other reasons I am in general anti-petroleum, and for that reason that I walk or take the bus and do not keep a car.
However there are more pressing issues for environmentalists, such as destruction of bio-diversity from bottom trawling, pollution from *real* pollutants like PCBs, mercury, dioxins, etc, and the mountain of rubbish that we are creating through our short-sighted shortage of packaging regulations and best practice. These issues need to be addressed more urgently by environmentalists and the general population than a loose theory backed by a few decade’s worth of data and a hunch.
September 26th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
I am still not convinced over the link between Hurricane intensity and global warming. But it does not mean that I do not believe in global warming. Stueys facts of the warmest months being 1998, 2002, 2003 since the 1800’s is much more compelling than the Hurricane link. I once read some research on ice core samples from the Antarctica which supported the theories of recent global warming. The point I am trying to make is that you do yourselves a disservice by linking every single weather disaster to global warming and it just seems like politicking to score a few points in the global warming debate.
BTW, I once read an excellent SciFi book about aclimate change/over population called “The Last Gasp” by Trevor Hoyle (Author of Blakes 7 - woohooo !!!). It is science fiction but there is a lot of scientific fact in it that really demonstrates the importance of the worlds oceans. It is not often that you are entertained and educated at the same time.
September 26th, 2005 at 4:52 pm
Toa:
Have you seen recent photos of Greenland? They had hoped that the extensive ice depletion of last season would reverse this current autumn but apparently not. That leads next to sea-current change and the possibility of the Gulf Stream failing … (huge potential for human consequences with that one!)
I’ll look for the link I used to find this and write again … someone else may have it?
eredwen
September 26th, 2005 at 5:20 pm
mugwump said (apropos of a lot of good environmental causes):
“These issues need to be addressed more urgently by environmentalists and the general population than a loose theory backed by a few decade’s worth of data and a hunch.”
Ah. I see. We are to ignore the huge amount of scientifically generated, peer-reviewed work on climate change because it’s a “loose theory” and “a hunch”.
You are free to ignore it if you wish, but let’s hope you stay a million miles away from the policy reins in any government. I prefer to take the word of the world’s climate scientists, and treat this as an issue we cannot afford to ignore.
September 26th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
B.O.S.H:
Very well said! (Please come again.)
eredwen
September 26th, 2005 at 5:57 pm
Having undertaken to find a link to recent photos of Greenland, I was unable to find the source of my previous post.
However Google responds well to key words like: “climate change 2005 arctic” etc. AND I found the following link which is worth a visit … to add a thought provoking global and human view to this current conversation :
http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2535
eredwen
September 26th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
Katie
Very nice post.
Well said
September 26th, 2005 at 6:05 pm
Eredwen: logic so bad it should be written “logic” must be predominantly male? Picture it the other way round, sister. Would you like it?
I’m willing to take the word of climate scientists over ex-oil company executives too. But weather cycles can last centuries, so every time some idiot sees a bit of bad weather and starts squawking “Global warming - the smoking gun!” as though bad weather was previously unknown to mankind, the rest of us can only respond “Pillock!” and the oil company executives rub their hands together in glee. Arguing from anecdotes about floods rather than from scientific research is just giving the argument away.
September 26th, 2005 at 6:52 pm
mugwump et.al.
I have posted this before. I will post it again
.. and again and again until you all have read it and have it bookmarked and refer to it when this stuff comes back again.
The anthropomorphic CO2 is an established fact.
The CO2 level being in excess of any recent ( last 400 THOUSAND years ) level is also an established fact.
The climate sensitivity to CO2 is an established fact.
The burning of roughly half the accessible oil is an established fact.
The global change in temperature relating to the CO2 additions is an established fact.
The acidification of the ocean (which has been absorbing the CO2 and in the process forming carbonic acid ) is an established fact.
Now just WHICH of these facts are we taking issue with?
The only one which has no established science to back if of course is the one that Frog used to start the thread.
The Hurricane data is pretty sparse and random at present and is not at all indicative of warming, cooling or congealing… it is just weather. If there is a Global Warming component to the Hurricanes it is currently too tenuous to be discerned. Which makes Dubya no less a loon, but doesn’t do the scientific community a bit of good either.
Ah yes. The link.
http://www.realclimate.org/
If you scroll through, you will find answers to stop thrust the most ardent supporter of “press on regardless” eco-politics.
respectfully
BJ
September 26th, 2005 at 7:04 pm
psycho_milt:
I don’t know how to answer you, but feel I should try.
Reading your post, I get the feeing that you “came in at the end of a conversation and missed most of it” ??
Your first paragraph is directed at me, and it seems you (understandably) failed to see the point at the time it was written: that I was referring to the three males who were in the conversation at the time … (not a reference to males in general.)
I don’t recognise the content of your second paragraph.
OK?
eredwen
September 26th, 2005 at 7:26 pm
bj,
> “If there is a Global Warming component to the Hurricanes it is currently too tenuous to be discerned.”
I agree that the science is still new, but the idea gaining most support as I read it, is that sea surface temperatures are closely correlated with the nett power dissapated by a cyclone. It seems that their frequency of cyclones or peak intensity each one may reach may not change much, as these factors appear to be subject to other limits. However it is the nett power dissapation, ie the product of it’s mean wind speeds and duration (not accounting for precipitation) which determines the destructive potential, and it is this that is predicted to be increasing.
September 26th, 2005 at 7:52 pm
Eredwen, only the first paragraph was directed at you. I’m surprised you don’t see what I was getting at, because I suspect that if a right-wing commenter wondered whether the other commenters he found illogical were “predominantly female”, you’d see the point immediately.
September 26th, 2005 at 7:54 pm
Dear Mugwump,
You say you generally don’t use a car, yet you don’t accept global warming.
Well, at least you are ahead of those who don’t accept global warning and use the “lack of evidence” as an excuse to still drive their cars.
Cos, for sure, leaving global warming totally aside for a moment, we still need to cut down car emmissions as anyone who has lived in say, London Tokyo, Hong Kong, Houston, LA, Auckland, Christchurch could tell us.
September 26th, 2005 at 8:40 pm
psycho_milt:
Yes! of course you made yourself clear!
I understood immediately your point and your attitude to it. (On both occasions, your interpretation was different from my intentions.)
As this is a forum to discuss “Climate Change”, I believe it is inappropriate (and pointless) to pursue the matter further.
Kia ora!
eredwen
September 26th, 2005 at 8:46 pm
psycho_milt, none of the people, for or against, who were discussing this previously, cared.
Horay for commas.
chip: “The anthropomorphic CO2 is an established fact.” Huh?
Ok, sorry, I’ve gone off point, but everyone seems to more or less agree. Pity this is taking so long to translate into real-world action. No wait, there was Kyoto. Now who screwed that one up again??
Well, maybe there is some divine justice in those hurricanes. Or least there would be if the full force of Katrina was focused on the White House, the Capitol and a certain ranch in Texas.
(Disclaimer: I don’t actually wish this. Really. Nor do I dislike the US. Please don’t hurt me, internet overlords).
September 26th, 2005 at 9:27 pm
Eredwen: nae bother pal!
Stymied: comments pages are for making comments. Caring is optional.
September 26th, 2005 at 9:48 pm
Great stuff, stymied!
You said:
“It takes so long to translate into real-wold action” …
because … (take your pick):
. individuals and countries are in denial
. humans really believe they are in control of this planet (some say they were told this by God)
. everyone waits for someone else to take the first step(s)
. money is seen as something tangible “the longer I wait the more profit I can make” … “it makes fiscal sense” … etc. etc.
. only some humans are rational and then only to a certain level
. “why don’t “they” do something”
. “it won’t matter if I don’t join in”
. “what can I do anyway?”
(… please add to this list!)
I guess the real questions are:
how can we as individuals, as a group, and as a country, turn this into
“an idea whose time has come” ?
I intend to try, for the sake of my future Mokopuna!
eredwen
September 26th, 2005 at 10:24 pm
Touche, pm.
September 26th, 2005 at 10:27 pm
eredwen,
Why the vociferous denial of human induced climate change?
I would understand if these people who want to question the issue ask questions and proposed alternate models for the data, or at the least retained an open mind on the topic, but instead we get adamant denial and refusal to even look at the facts. Worse still they hold to fixed positions as if they were expert climatoligists with a lifetime of experience and judgement to call upon, and that they could back up their ideas with verified data, peer-reviewed papers and proven predictions derived from their models.
Even if they wanted to take a conservative stance, one might imagine that they would admit to some element of uncertainty; that there was the possibility that they are wrong, and that the consequences of being wrong are severe indeed. But they seem incapable of even the simplest of risk analysis, prefering to project total denial of any possible downside to human impact on the climate (or indeed anything much else environmental).
This kind of response is not rational and signals to us that in reality all they are doing is echoing prejudices that they have picked up on the internet to serve as a smokescreen for something deeper.
Something is happening here at a spiritual level. There is something about the global nature of climate change, the universal scope of the problem, and the existence of the UN, Kyoto and similar efforts at a universal response that they are reacting to. I know many people are uncomfortable with change, but this strikes me as a deeper malaise.
September 26th, 2005 at 11:51 pm
Just a few thoughts.
Why bother identifying people and their logic with their gender?
Since we’re quoting a British sicentist, what are people’s feelings on their Prime Minister distancing himself from Kyoto? http://www.techcentralstation.com/091605JP.html
The logic of human emissions raising temperatures might be agreeable, but the real issues are quantitative, ie how much of what type of gas raises the temperature by how much comared to what underlying trends? Those questions are the critical and difficult ones.
Several people here have wheeled out the precautionary principle in various guises, arguing that we should be careful always and take the strongest action against any possible risk.
There are several problems with that:
What is the trade off, what will be the cost of reducing emmissions in terms of economic growth and therefore our ability to deal with other problems like poverty?
The root problem is epistemological. Unless one believes in absolute, unchallengable knowlege, one will never be able to take any action whatsoever due to uncertainty.
Interesting debate…
September 27th, 2005 at 1:47 am
A key aspect of the the global climate is the remarkable stability of mean temperatures over periods of thousands of years. This stability is reflected in all the models by control loops. As an engineer who implements control loops on a daily basis, this aspect is especially compelling to me. The effect of a control loop, (or negative feedback) is to maintain a controlled variable (in this case temperature) stable against variations in a process (in this case external solar irradiation and internal changes such as the Great Ocean Conveyor current).
Most of the loops I deal with are very simple to analyse and predictable to work with. For example, opening a valve will increase the flow of steam into a heating vessel and will normally increase it’s temperature in a predictable manner. In some cases however the material being heated exhibits an exothermic characteristic, and the temperature rise will be much harder to predict. The three big challenges to stable control are multiple variable interactions, non-linear responses, and time delays. In an industrial process we usually design the system to manage these three challenges. By contrast in the physical world, the nature of the processes that we are participating in are both complex and non-linear. And in many cases we are aware that our modelling is incomplete.
All attempts to analyse the global climate grapple with these challenges. One of the most alarming aspect is that mathematically we know that this class of process with these kinds of characteristics are prone to chaotic behaviour at the limits. The concept of “control limits” is crucial to this discussion. Going back to my simple steam heating loop. Normally if the temperature in the vessel is getting hotter than I want, all I have to do is close the steam valve somewhat and eventually the vessel will cool as desired. But if the process is behaving exothermically (ie it is generating it’s own internal heat from a chemical reaction) then I will need to close the steam valve a lot more to stabilise the temperature. In fact it is quite possible that even fully closing the steam valve may not stabilise the temperature of the vessel. In other words I have reached the limit of my control action, and I have lost control of the process. (At the Motonui Methanol plant this point would be closely followed by a large explosion.)
Of course this is only an example. The key point to take away, is that control loops always have limits, and that when those limits are reached, the loop ceases to control. In terms of the global climate, it is entirely reasonable to assume that human greenhouse gas emissions are curently being “controlled” by a complex of feedback mechanisms. For this reason the observed temperature rise in the face of these emissions may well be small, UNTIL one or more of these loops reaches a limit.
Here is the problem though. In the case of my steam valve I can quite readily predict when the limits will occur, they will happen when it is fully closed or fully open, or I run out of steam. In the case of the global climate, we not only know far too little about the nature of the total system, but we know even less about it’s control limits, and almost nothing about the likely behaviour at those limits. In fact the kind of linear loop analysis I am familiar with is totally inadequate to address this kind of problem…it is the specialty of mathematicians and numerical analysis experts who derive powerful and complex models using statistical methods to attempt these predictions. But however well evolved these models become, it is almost axiomatic however that chaotic and non-linear behaviour is an extremely likely consequence of unconstrained and rapid changes of the kind the human race has been indulging in over the last 50 short years.
September 27th, 2005 at 9:37 am
David, think you should read the original in context: http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/pdf/transcripts/plenary/cgi_09_ 15_05_plenary_1.pdf
(page 14+)
I don’t know that it’s true that Blair is exactly distancing himself from Kyoto, at least not in the scientifically based manner you seem to suggest (perhaps inadvertently) in your next paragragh. You also need to take his audience into account and realise that he always seeks agreement and ‘positivity’ or some such.
What I get from his comments is that, politically, an extension of Kyoto will be very difficult, because of the unwillingness of developing nations, like India and China, to be seen to slow their growth (fair enough, in many ways) and nations like Australia and the US (not quite so fair enough). I suspect he’s right.
He’s pushing for technological means of addressing emmissions. That’s not necessarily a rejection or distancing from Kyoto, that’s a shift of emphasis from the politically difficult ‘you have to cut emmissions’ to a politically more possible, perhaps, ‘how do we develop techonology to allow growth without fucking us all?’
I think the core of his argument, which seemed to be missed by TechCentral, was:
“And that really brings me to the third point, which is I think the point that you were really raising, which is, well, how do you create the forces that drive people then to develop the science and technology? How do you create the markets and the research and the development of this technology so that we can shorten the timeline so that we’re not waiting 25 or 30 years to develop fuel cell technology, so that, for example, in nuclear fusion, which is now a major issue as well we are developing the technology, so that you can bring those costs of wind power and solar power down?”
One way of doing that is through a Kyoto type structure that rewards low emmissions technologies through carbon trading etc. There may be other structures that allow you to do it. I’m not sure what. But hell, if he (or Gordon Brown, whose opinion I’d value more at this point) can get India, China, the US and Australia to real, solid action without having to say the politically difficult, “um, yeah, we’re cutting emmissions”, then all power to the little toad.
TechCentral is also slightly selective with their quotations:
TC: “no country is going to cut its growth”
TB: “no country is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in the light of a long-term environmental problem.”
TC: “They’re not going to start negotiating another treaty like Kyoto.”
TB: “I don’t think people are going, at least in the short term, going to start negotiating another major treaty like Kyoto.”
And if you read the 2004 Blair speech TechCentral links to, I reckon you’ll find there’s no real contradiction between what he said then and what he said now.
In short, my reaction to Blair’s ‘distancing’ from Kyoto is that TechCentral is over egging it.
September 27th, 2005 at 12:44 pm
bjchip - perhaps you have a better reference to back up your facts, all I found at that address was a blog.
Though I did find this post interesting, talking about variations in the Sun’s activity, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180 - especially the comment “The irradiance changes [of the sun] are assumed to be relatively small and the importance of potential amplifying mechanisms is still a matter of current debate.” Interesting that such a fundamental source of variation is simply ignored because we haven’t seen it vary in the last 20-40 years, despite knowledge of significant changes in sunspot activity recorded over history.
In fact, the time of the so-called “anomaly” on Sep 17 where the sea temperatures skyrocketed and caused Rita to start brewing (as reported in last night’s DomPost) was also about the time that a large ion storm hit the Earth, and the moon was also at its perigee (closest point, where it is moving the fastest), which is normally a time of high winds. Perhaps it was these two factors combined with the proximity to the solar equinox that created the conditions for Rita.
To answer your specific questions, the exact issues I am disputing are:
* That climate sensitivity to CO2 is an established fact.
* The global change in temperature relating to the CO2 additions is an established fact.
The evidence I’ve seen when I’ve looked, indicates more strongly that we are in a time of mostly naturally induced climate change. To me, to campaign against climate change is akin to campaigning against the tides. If we can seek to understand why the climate is changing, we might be able to predict it and prepare for the potentially devastating effects of unbeforeseen disasters, rather than blaming it on any conveniently timed social change. A large part of the support for the climate change movement started from groups with questionable motives such as Enron (eg, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/19/83215.shtml ). There’s still a whole lot of room for skepticism.
Logix: I agree with your points entirely, however it does end up with an unfortunately Luddite conclusion (to restore the feedback loop to a known good state), which I don’t think would fly in a modern political climate.
But anyway, we’re getting very off-topic for discussing an opinion held by a scientist in a field that’s not even his own ( Well spotted Sir Humphrey - http://sirhumphreys.blogspot.com/2005/09/brit-scientist-declares-rita- smoking.html )
September 27th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
bjchip - the site you refer to is a blog, not a reference. But I did find this article interesting - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180
“The irradiance changes [of the sun] are assumed to be relatively small and the importance of potential amplifying mechanisms is still a matter of current debate.”
Seems a rather limiting assumption to climate models, given what we know about the historical variations in sunspot activity.
the specific points I dispute are:
* That climate sensitivity to CO2 is an established fact.
* The global change in temperature relating to the CO2 additions is an established fact.
Of course global temperatures and CO2 levels appear to be related - but there is nothing to indicate the causitive link, and some quite compelling arguments to think the opposite. Consider, for instance, that CO2 is not a very effective greenhouse gas compared to water. Consider that CO2 mostly ends up in the ocean, not the air (as you claim is an established fact).
If acidification of the oceans turns out to be a compelling reason not to release CO2, then so be it - but that is still not anthropomorphic climate change.
There are lots of reasons to be skeptical, not least the involvement of groups with questionable motives in the early stages of the process - see
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/19/83215.shtml for an example news article which outlines why an oil company would campaign for climate change.
September 27th, 2005 at 12:57 pm
One more thing.
Sir Humphreys points out that the scientist in question for the main point of the article is really just stating his opinion, as he is not a climatologist but an ecologist. Well spotted, Sir Humphrey.
http://sirhumphreys.blogspot.com/2005/09/brit-scientist-declares-rita- smoking.html
September 27th, 2005 at 1:08 pm
Hi Eredwen,
I read the article on the Siberian Peat bog meltdown/release of green house gases and recommend others to read it too.
http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2535
It was very compelling and sobering. This is the news that the general public should know about, instead of linking every single weather disaster to Global Warming (eg there was also an article on Hurricanes which mentioned the last years Tsunamis).
Cheers
Toa Greening
September 27th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
More interesting reading at
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050425fa_fact3
September 27th, 2005 at 3:48 pm
mugwump:
RealClimate.org is a site that uses a blogging format to allow for discussion of climate issues. It isn’t “just a blog”, it’s a site run by real climate scientists, discussing real science.
Allow me to quote from a detailed rebuttal of climate sceptics’ arguments (at http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Other/rahmstorf_climate _sceptics_2004.pdf) by Stefan Rahmstorf, Professor of Physics of the Oceans at Potsdam University:
“Some important core findings of climate research have been so well confirmed in recent decades that they are generally accepted as facts by climate researchers. These core findings include the following:
1 The atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen strongly since about 1850, from 280 ppm (a value typical for warm periods during at least the past 400,000 years) to 380 ppm.
2 This rise is caused by humans and is primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels, with a smaller contribution due to deforestation.
3 CO2 is a gas that affects climate by changing the earth’s radiative budget: an increase in its concentration leads to a rise in near-surface temperature. If the concentration doubles, the resulting global mean warming will very likely be between 1.5 and 4.5°C.
4 In the 20th century, global climate warmed by ~0.6°C. Temperatures in the past ten
years have been the highest since instrumental records started in the 19th century and for at least several centuries before that.
5 Most of this warming is due to the rising concentration of CO2 and other anthropogenic gases; a smaller part is due to natural causes, like fluctuations in solar activity.
These findings are based on decades of research and thousands of studies – it is almost inconceivable that they could be overturned by a few new results. The extraordinary consensus is seen in the statements of many international and national professional bodies which have extensively and critically assessed the scientific evidence.”
Now, which parts of that don’t you understand?
Spouting pseudo-science scrabbled up from climate sceptics is not contributing to an informed debate. Argue about how we address the problem - not deny its existence - and then you might get taken seriously.
September 27th, 2005 at 5:52 pm
BOSH - thank you for a more detailed reference, I will read it.
However please note that “thousands of studies” can be invalidated just as easily as a notion. Perceived scientific consensus should not re-inforce its own justification, and must never be subject to majority rule. The Scientific community as a whole has a long history of preferring to mock challenges to established theories than to take them seriously. Their rigid, lifeless model of the universe is their dogma. Forgive me if I don’t blindly swallow everything that this consortium of anti-philosophers comes up with.
Also note that spouting science scrabbled up from professional scientists whose livelihood is dependent on their hypothesis being correct is also not contributing to an informed debate. I’m not denying the existence of the problem - just challenging it. My guess is that ripping up colonies of sea corals via bottom trawling is probably a lot more damaging to ecologies than a gradual 0.01 pH difference in the ocean.
Let’s not be penny wise and pound foolish, let’s tackle known environmental problems such as pollution first and theorised problems second.
Clearly you take me seriously enough to consider it worth debating with me. I thank you for that, and hopefully our dialogue will contribute in some small way to the uncovering of the truth in this matter.
September 27th, 2005 at 7:45 pm
Oxygen isotope data from, the IODP project clearly shows a change in the CO2 levels and temperature changes globally.
These historical data correlate with the natural cycles relating to the earths orbit and axis orientation. Except for the warming we have now. The geologists studying this do not have a dependency on “climate change” monies. Paradoxically they do mostly commercial work for oil companies. go figure.
As for a change in 0.01 change in pH- this would be an average, different layers in the ocean would be affected more. Increasing the pH would dissolve carbonate and release CO2. Basic chemistry. Calcium chloride precipitate, CO2 and H2O.
Straw men as you have created are easier to dismiss than the science, which you seem to be prepared to ignore.
September 27th, 2005 at 9:13 pm
Logix:
You hit the nail on the head, answering your own questions with:
“we get adamant denial and refusal to even look at the facts” … “one might imagine they would admit to some element of uncertainty” … “that the consequences of being wrong are severe indeed” … “this kind of response is not rational” … “serve as a smokescreen for something deeper” … ” there is something about the global nature of climate change, the universal scope of the problem” … “many people are uncomfortable with change, but this … a deeper malaise”
We are talking about Homo (somewhat misnamed) “sapiens” here.
This is what we (Green and likeminded) have to deal with if we are to communicate adequately. (My background is social science … with enough physical/natural sciences to understand the current problems/debate)
To start communicating we must realise that children and adults are not very different emotionally … but adults have learnt to hide/mask/rationalise their feelings …
With climate change, we are talking about pulling the rug out from under everyone’s feet. It is really scarey stuff. “Much better not to think about it. Much better to assume that “THEY” will find a solution. (”THEY” always have in the past.) And why should I even think about giving up my lifestyle/flash house in the best suburbs/the two or more SUV’s we have in the garage/my energy- inefficient busness … I have “earned” my right to these things… What difference could I make anyway… And what if it really does all turn to custard around me?”
Another thought: We live here contentedly while mass starvation and trumped up wars for oil cause the deaths of millions of humans in the world … While species extinction accelerates …
Why should we react to a bit of global warming?
Homo sapiens anyone?
I plead guilty!
eredwen
September 27th, 2005 at 9:19 pm
Mugwump
You don’t seem to understand that the site I referenced is written by people who ARE scientists, and created it specifically to answer your questions. I don’t have a lot of time to hammer this these days, my wife is in hospital. So I EXPECT you to actually read more than a few lines from the top.
If you had delved deeper into the site you would have found the following article, including detailed followup questions.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
Clearly, from your contempt for the acidification of the oceans as a threat, you are quite unfamiliar with the difficulties of keeping fish. Those of us who have ever had fishtanks probably have a better idea what dropping the pH can do to the population.
OK… Climate sensitivity to CO2. Is not an “established fact”. In fact in scientific terms there are NO established “facts”, only theories that have proven to be better and more reliable explanations than others. Then the second statement which is rather an echo of the first. “The global change in temperature relating to the CO2 additions is an established fact”
If there is ANOTHER equally explicative hypothesis in the wings you are welcome to tell me what it is. I think you will have trouble finding one.
Both of those statements have their base here:
The climate models which use CO2 forcing are the ONLY ones to successfully describe the current conditions as well as past interglacials. This is probably as close to an established fact as you will see in science, but it is probably not enough for you.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=148
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=124
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160
There isn’t a dead link in this bunch. The reports and science behind them is solid. You have blown a lot of smoke trying to frame this as a “debate” but there IS no debate anymore. Not scientific debate at any rate.
I do NOT have time to waste on this. Read the data. The only bad penny in all of this is the link between the Hurricanes and Warming, and this site documents that as well. Hardly a hysterical blog and a damned good source of information IF you read it.
respectfully
BJ
September 27th, 2005 at 9:20 pm
Climate change denial has gone through four stages. First the fossil fuel lobbyists told us that global warming was a myth. Then they agreed that it was happening, but insisted it was a good thing: we could grow wine in the Pennines and take Mediterranean holidays in Skegness. Then they admitted that the bad effects outweighed the good ones, but claimed that it would cost more to tackle than to tolerate. Now they have reached stage 4. They concede that it would be cheaper to address than to neglect, but maintain that it’s now too late. This is their most persuasive argument.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/09/20/a-world-turned-upside-down/
September 27th, 2005 at 9:44 pm
Toa:
I’m glad you liked http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2535
It looks like a site worth return visits to read other articles and keep up to date. (The occasional picture IS “worth a thousand words”!)
kia ora!
eredwen
September 27th, 2005 at 10:35 pm
Fastbike:
Great link! http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/09/20/a-world-turned-upside-down/
George Monbiot writes about three innovative technologies which …
“… alone could cut millions of tonnes of emissions without causing any decline in our quality of life …” And the government won’t act because to do so would be “an unwarranted intervention in the marketâ€?.
Once again we see “money” and “the market” (originally human tools) regarded as entities in their own right which (in this case) take precedent over methods of reducing global warming and thus helping to save life on this planet …
Good content for some great futuristic “after the flood/collapse of society”sci fi novels …
“Humans are rational beings” … any takers?
eredwen
September 28th, 2005 at 6:41 am
Stymied - Mugwump
Anthropomorphic CO2 IS an established fact. Or did you think that all the CO2 from all the dead dinosoars of a million years of planetary development went “somewhere else”?
Mugwump… I know you didn’t read carefully cause you missed the point that the site I cited is written by climate scientists, specialists in the field, who are using it to provide answers.
You may note that they answered the hurricane issue by saying that there is not good science to support that hypothesis… and that they discuss many other concerns you might have… but they aren’t “just another blog”. Since I worked with “climate scientists” and “rocket scientists” back at JPL I know one or two of the contributors and I know the character of the people who are working on this. Suggestions that they are supporting this because it is somehow in their interest are simply INSULTS. You’d be amazed at how personally these are felt. Scientific inquiry is their life.
So lets have a look at some specific articles…
How much of the CO2 is “ours”:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
What modelling actually predicts how much heat there is:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=148
What we are talking about when we say “forcing”:
“To my mind, the ‘first-order’ forcings would be the ones without which you can’t really do without in assessing global climate change. I would therefore argue that for the global mean the well-mixed GHGs and the counterbalancing reflecitve aerosol effects are ‘first-order’ - without GHGs there is no appreciable warming signal, and without the aerosols, the warming from GHGs is excessive and important changes in the diurnal cycle and cloudiness are not captured.”
Where did the heat go:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=124
http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/article_detail.cfm?article_num=666
Ocean Acidification:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=169
This is more important than you seem to think, as anyone who has kept fish is well aware. If the pH changes rapidly by 0.5, all life on earth is in trouble… and that is within the range of possibilities that are suggested by the current data.
Now the point to all this is lost if you don’t connect the dots.
There are many climate models out there.
The only models that match the data CURRENTLY observed are the ones that use significant CO2 forcing. No other explanation can provide a decent explanation of what we see now AND what was the case in the last 4 interglacial periods.
There IS no competing theory that covers the facts. You come up with one and you’ll be published, there’s no “conspiracy” to suppress data.
That’s as close to “established fact” as science gets. You need an alternative theory to explain the existing warming and existing CO2 and existing acid…. etc… as well as a similar theory to explain the way it was connected a hundred thousand years ago.
Note please - I am not saying that Humans cause ALL the warming… just that we are causing warming on top of what would be expected from a “normal” interglacial cycle.
I hope this one goes in. I have had to rewrite it once now already.. and I am way too busy to try it a third time.
respectfully
BJ
September 28th, 2005 at 6:44 am
DAMMIT Frog… I have put an answer in twice now, it isn’t “awaiting moderation” it is just gone.
I do not have time to waste.
respectfully
BJ
September 28th, 2005 at 8:41 am
I assumed that by “anthropomorphic” you mean “anthropogenic”… unless there really are a lot of person-shaped CO2 molecules floating around out there!
September 28th, 2005 at 9:12 am
bj - be thankful the comments publishing system here is not as bad as on kiwiblog where it is nearly unusable it is so slow!
September 28th, 2005 at 10:58 am
Tomsk
Ouch.. comes of being in a hurry. I know a few people who are sort of blobby shapes that might pass for a CO2 molecule writ large, but you are dead right and I misused the wrong word
respectfully
BJ
September 29th, 2005 at 10:44 am
This is an off-topic point/s - and I sincerely apologise for that, peole - but something I feel needs to be made…
David Seymour wrote:
“What is the trade off, what will be the cost of reducing emmissions [sic] in terms of economic growth and therefore our ability to deal with other problems like poverty?”
1) You assume that reducing emissions stymies economic growth.
2) You imply that economic growth is the solution to poverty.
3) I am astonished that the ACT Party (a) recognises that poverty exists and (b) recognises the need to deal with it.
During the most recent occasion at which Richard Prebble spoke to students at the Auckland Uni Quad, when asked by a student what ACT intends to do about child poverty, his reply was as follows:
“There’s no such thing as child poverty, only fat kids whose parents make bad decisions and poor choices.”
How very illuminating…
The solution? Tax cuts? Give me a break (just not the ‘tax’ sort).
September 29th, 2005 at 10:45 am
(That’s meant to be ‘people’ in the first line… My bad. :-P)