According to a research the poorest people in the world’s poorest countries will suffer the earliest and the most from climate change, according to this year’s edition of the Environmental Review. The report says that, due to their geographical location, low incomes, and low institutional capacity, as well as their greater reliance on climate-sensitive sectors like agriculture, the poorest countries and people are suffering earliest and are poised to suffer most.

Since the global climate always has and always will change, the above is pretty much an empty statement.

It’s also a reminder why those countries should be allowed to generate wealth so they’re no longer poor and can survive periods of relative climatic differences.

Of course, one reason they remain poor is because they cling to ancient superstitions and religions which cause them to make very bad decisions.

I don’t know. Maybe from the initial “animal”-then-”plant” dynamic? Or leftover from the initial moon-formation collision?

A t a wild guess, it was absorbed by land and sea.

Seems like that is a huge swing in CO2 to go from 5000 down to 500 then back up to 2000 ppm.

Yes. Biggest die-off ever around then.

I doubt think it (mostly) came out of the ocean at that time. Maybe from the earth itself, as a result of volcanic activity or a meteorite strike?

But all this is guesswork.

You know what they say about assuming though. :)

If this is true, then where did the CO2 come from in the past?

It comes out of the oceans as the temperatures warmed and is dissolved back in as the temps cool. Total variance c. 100 ppm. The CO2 change lags behind the temperature change by 800 – 1300 years, so it is the temps driving the CO2, not the other way around.

Not much big-picture correspondence, really. The minor 100 ppm ups and downs correspond with the Milankovitch cycles.

We have had CO2 levels up to 20 times higher then they are now

To be more explicit, we had 5000 – 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period. It dropped off to under 500 ppm by the Carboniferous and remained until toward the end of the Permian, at which point it spiked up again to c. 2000 – 3000 ppm until the beginning of the Cretaceous. It has been dropping steadily ever since to its current levels.

During this time temps have bounced up and down from 22°C to 12°C. Of the 4 big drops, CO2 dropped twice and rose twice.

The minor 100 ppm variance corresponds with the Milankovitch cycles.

Where did you learn that CO2 only varied by 10ppm?

If this is true, then where did the CO2 come from in the past? We have had CO2 levels up to 20 times higher then they are now. And as an aside, if you look at the ice core data CO2 goes up 600 years after temperature goes up, which correlates with how long it takes for atmospheric temperature differences to effect the temperature of the oceans.

Also, the atmospheric content of Methane, Nitrates and a few other water soluble gases increased at the same rate as the CO2.

This points, to me anyways, that all of the major atmospheric changes in the past had to do with the solubility of the gases in the ocean.

It took an entire generation of scientists before continental drift could even make it to scientific journals. The first to revive it were not geologists, that just couldn’t be. It was physicists, namely Sir Peter Blackett and close collaborators, who studied magnetism in rocks (and how it changed over time, indicating drifting continents). When Harry Hess put everything together to form a coherent theory, he didn’t even dare present it as a serious piece of work. He called it “an essay in geopoetry”. Everybody had to be very cautious, because there was such anathema on continental drift.

Given the current over-politicized context, no scientist in his right mind could come up with a full-fledged theory that would overthrow the current “consensus”. But they can first cautiously backtrack from the most outrageous claims (like Emmanuel did). Then reduce estimates of sensitivity, putting more and more emphasis on the lower values. You can bet that those who dominate the field, all the Kerry Emmanuel’s of this world, will make sure that they maintain their lead position whatever happens. Emmanuel could sense the tide turning. You will see the same disgracious ballet (or tango) performed by many others. The wording of the IPCC is very clever: it leaves plenty of exit doors: to be 90% sure that a “majority” of the warming is of “human” origins can mean anything.

Francis Mann: It may seem to be an easy thing to evacuate if you have the transportation and means to do so; if you don’t, it ain’t necessarily so easy (and given past false alarms it may not seem worth squandering whatever limited means you do have to so).

As Martin said, if you can’t fly, run. If you can’t run, walk, if you can’t walk, crawl. Many people waited expecting someone to come to their door and get them. That’s just stupid. They had notice, they chose not to go.

As for what you saw on Intellicast, I am afraid your memory is playing tricks on you. The real Hurricane Katrina formed well north of the eastern tip of Cuba in the Bahamas, made landfall on Florida (I believe as a very weak hurricane…although it weakened a bit to a tropical storm while over land) and then restrengthened in the Gulf, tracking west and then making a turn toward the north. Here is a map of the track: http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/tropical/rain/katrina2005trk.gif (It was quite well-forecasted though and so it is true that the forecasters were warning of the very real possibility of it striking New Orleans for about 48 hours or so in advance.)

Our situation is hopeless unless we bombard the media with the truth. The media adore train wrecks – AGW and particularly carbon sequestration and gasohol are disasters for the poor and those on fixed incomes.

I love your blogs and read and participate in many as possible , but hit the tabloid newspapers and you will get to the people.

My thumbnail understnding is that atmospheric CO2 varies about 10ppm per degree C (atmosphere).

This is sgnificant but I don’t think it’s too huge a factor.

I would love to be in the pay of oil companies. To any oil companies out there that think they could make use of me, my services are available . . .

If the planet warms, the Ocean will release more CO2. I know the NASA robots say that there has not been a noticeable change in the Ocean’s temperature, but a rise of .00001 of a degree will have a huge impact on the disolvabilty of CO2 in the ocean water. Same as a lowering of .00001 degree. So while we may not be able to measure the difference in temperature change, it is there.

So if the surface and atmospheric temperatures are decreasing, the CO2 will as well. The production of CO2 of all mankind in the past 100 years does not even come close to the production/absorption potential of the Oceans.

On a side note, I wonder if the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field is linked to the severity and frequency of volcanic eruptions? It seems like it might be the case as our core is one giant ball of magnetic metal, an external magnetic field may have an effect on it. If anyone know of a correlation?

CO2 measurement at Mauna Loa have been falling,

I think it’s way too early to say anything like that.