Cherry Picking Climate Catastrophes: Response to Conor Clarke, Part II
WUWT Guest Post by Indur Goklany
Conor Clarke at The Atlantic blog, raised several issues with my study, “What to Do About Climate Change,” that Cato published last year.
One of Conor Clarke’s comments was that my analysis did not extend beyond the 21st century. He found this problematic because, as Conor put it, climate change would extend beyond 2100, and even if GDP is higher in 2100 with unfettered global warming than without, it’s not obvious that this GDP would continue to be higher “in the year 2200 or 2300 or 3758”. I addressed this portion of his argument in Part I of my response. Here I will address the second part of this argument, that “the possibility of ‘catastrophic’ climate change events — those with low probability but extremely high cost — becomes real after 2100.”
RESPONSE:
The examples of potentially catastrophic events that could be caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas induced global warming (AGW) that have been offered to date (e.g., melting of the Greenland or West Antarctic Ice Sheets, or the shutdown of the thermohaline circulation) contain a few drops of plausibility submerged in oceans of speculation. There are no scientifically justified estimates of the probability of their occurrence by any given date. Nor are there scientifically justified estimates of the magnitude of damages such events might cause, not just in biophysical terms but also in socioeconomic terms. Therefore, to call these events “low probability” — as Mr. Clarke does — is a misnomer. They are more appropriately termed as plausible but highly speculative events.
Consider, for example, the potential collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS). According to the IPCC’s WG I Summary for Policy Makers (p. 17), “If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m” (emphasis added). Presumably the same applies to the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
But what is the probability that a negative surface mass balance can, in fact, be sustained for millennia, particularly after considering the amount of fossil fuels that can be economically extracted and the likelihood that other energy sources will not displace fossil fuels in the interim? [Remember we are told that peak oil is nigh, that renewables are almost competitive with fossil fuels, and that wind, solar and biofuels will soon pay for themselves.]
Second, for an event to be classified as a catastrophe, it should occur relatively quickly precluding efforts by man or nature to adapt or otherwise deal with it. But if it occurs over millennia, as the IPCC says, or even centuries, that gives humanity ample time to adjust, albeit at a socioeconomic cost. But it need not be prohibitively dangerous to life, limb or property if: (1) the total amount of sea level rise (SLR) and, perhaps more importantly, the rate of SLR can be predicted with some confidence, as seems likely in the next few decades considering the resources being expended on such research; (2) the rate of SLR is slow relative to how fast populations can strengthen coastal defenses and/or relocate; and (3) there are no insurmountable barriers to migration.
This would be true even had the so-called “tipping point” already been passed and ultimate disintegration of the ice sheet was inevitable, so long as it takes millennia for the disintegration to be realized. In other words, the issue isn’t just whether the tipping point is reached, rather it is how long does it actually take to tip over. Take, for example, if a hand grenade is tossed into a crowded room. Whether this results in tragedy — and the magnitude of that tragedy — depends upon how much time it takes for the grenade to go off, the reaction time of the occupants, and their ability to respond.
Lowe, et al. (2006, p. 32-33), based on a “pessimistic, but plausible, scenario in which atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were stabilised at four times pre-industrial levels,” estimated that a collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet would over the next 1,000 years raise sea level by 2.3 meters (with a peak rate of 0.5 cm/yr). If one were to arbitrarily double that to account for potential melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, that means a SLR of ~5 meters in 1,000 years with a peak rate (assuming the peaks coincide) of 1 meter per century.
Such a rise would not be unprecedented. Sea level has risen 120 meters in the past 18,000 years — an average of 0.67 meters/century — and as much as 4 meters/century during meltwater pulse 1A episode 14,600 years ago (Weaver et al. 2003; subscription required). Neither humanity nor, from the perspective of millennial time scales (per the above quote from the IPCC), the rest of nature seem the worse for it. Coral reefs for example, evolved and their compositions changed over millennia as new reefs grew while older ones were submerged in deeper water (e.g., Cabioch et al. 2008). So while there have been ecological changes, it is unknown whether the changes were for better or worse. For a melting of the GIS (or WAIS) to qualify as a catastrophe, one has to show, rather than assume, that the ecological consequences would, in fact, be for the worse.
Human beings can certainly cope with sea level rise of such magnitudes if they have centuries or millennia to do so. In fact, if necessary they could probably get out of the way in a matter of decades, if not years.
Can a relocation of such a magnitude be accomplished?
Consider that the global population increased from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 6.8 billion this year. Among other things, this meant creating the infrastructure for an extra 4.3 billion people in the intervening 59 years (as well as improving the infrastructure for the 2.5 billion counted in the baseline, many of whom barely had any infrastructure whatsoever in 1950). These improvements occurred at a time when everyone was significantly poorer. (Global per capita income today is more than 3.5 times greater today than it was in 1950). Therefore, while relocation will be costly, in theory, tomorrow’s much wealthier world ought to be able to relocate billions of people to higher ground over the next few centuries, if need be. In fact, once a decision is made to relocate, the cost differential of relocating, say, 10 meters higher rather than a meter higher is probably marginal. It should also be noted that over millennia the world’s infrastructure will have to be renewed or replaced dozens of times – and the world will be better for it. [For example, the ancient city of Troy, once on the coast but now a few kilometers inland, was built and rebuilt at least 9 times in 3 millennia.]
Also, so long as we are concerned about potential geological catastrophes whose probability of occurrence and impacts have yet to be scientifically estimated, we should also consider equally low or higher probability events that might negate their impacts. Specifically, it is quite possible — in fact probable — that somewhere between now and 2100 or 2200, technologies will become available that will deal with climate change much more economically than currently available technologies for reducing GHG emissions. Such technologies may include ocean fertilization, carbon sequestration, geo-engineering options (e.g., deploying mirrors in space) or more efficient solar or photovoltaic technologies. Similarly, there is a finite, non-zero probability that new and improved adaptation technologies will become available that will substantially reduce the net adverse impacts of climate change.
The historical record shows that this has occurred over the past century for virtually every climate-sensitive sector that has been studied. For example, from 1900-1970, U.S. death rates due to various climate-sensitive water-related diseases — dysentery, typhoid, paratyphoid, other gastrointestinal disease, and malaria —declined by 99.6 to 100.0 percent. Similarly, poor agricultural productivity exacerbated by drought contributed to famines in India and China off and on through the 19th and 20th centuries killing millions of people, but such famines haven’t recurred since the 1970s despite any climate change and the fact that populations are several-fold higher today. And by the early 2000s, deaths and death rates due to extreme weather events had dropped worldwide by over 95% of their earlier 20th century peaks (Goklany 2006).
With respect to another global warming bogeyman — the shutdown of the thermohaline circulation (AKA the meridional overturning circulation), the basis for the deep freeze depicted in the movie, The Day After Tomorrow — the IPCC WG I SPM notes (p. 16), “Based on current model simulations, it is very likely that the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the Atlantic Ocean will slow down during the 21st century. The multi-model average reduction by 2100 is 25% (range from zero to about 50%) for SRES emission scenario A1B. Temperatures in the Atlantic region are projected to increase despite such changes due to the much larger warming associated with projected increases in greenhouse gases. It is very unlikely that the MOC will undergo a large abrupt transition during the 21st century. Longer-term changes in the MOC cannot be assessed with confidence.”
Not much has changed since then. A shut down of the MOC doesn’t look any more likely now than it did then. See here, here, and here (pp. 316-317).
If one wants to develop rational policies to address speculative catastrophic events that could conceivably occur over the next few centuries or millennia, as a start one should consider the universe of potential catastrophes and then develop criteria as to which should be addressed and which not. Rational analysis must necessarily be based on systematic analysis, and not on cherry picking one’s favorite catastrophes.
Just as one may speculate on global warming induced catastrophes, one may just as plausibly also speculate on catastrophes that may result absent global warming. Consider, for example, the possibility that absent global warming, the Little Ice Age might return. The consequences of another ice age, Little or not, could range from the severely negative to the positive (if that would buffer the negative consequences of warming). That such a recurrence is not unlikely is evident from the fact that the earth entered and, only a century and a half ago, retreated from a Little Ice Age, and that history may indeed repeat itself over centuries or millennia.
Yet another catastrophe that greenhouse gas controls may cause is that CO2 not only contributes to warming, it is also the key building block of life as we know it. All vegetation is created by the photosynthesis of CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, according to the IPCC WG I report (2007, p. 106), net primary productivity of the global biosphere has increased in recent decades, partly due to greater warming, higher CO2 concentrations and nitrogen deposition. Thus , there is a finite probability that reducing CO2 emissions would, therefore, reduce the net primary productivity of the terrestrial biosphere with potentially severe negative consequences for the amount and diversity of wildlife that it could support, as well as agricultural and forest productivity with adverse knock on effects on hunger and health.
There is also a finite probability that costs of GHG reductions could reduce economic growth worldwide. Even if only industrialized countries sign up for emission reductions, the negative consequences could show up in developing countries because they derive a substantial share of their income from aid, trade, tourism, and remittances from the rest of the world. See, for example, Tol (2005), which examines this possibility, although the extent to which that study fully considered these factors (i.e., aid, trade, tourism, and remittances) is unclear.
Finally, one of the problems with the argument that society should address low probability high impact events (assuming a probability could be estimated rather than assumed or guessed) is that it necessarily means there is a high probability that resources expended on addressing such catastrophic events will have been squandered. This wouldn’t be a problem but for the fact that there are opportunity costs associated with this.
According to the 2007 IPCC Science Assessment’s Summary for Policy Makers (p. 10), “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” In plain language, this means that the IPCC believes there is at least a 90% likelihood that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (AGHG) are responsible for 50-100% of the global warming since 1950. In other words, there is an up to 10% chance that anthropogenic GHGs are not responsible for most of that warming.
This means there is an up to 10% chance that resources expended in limiting climate change would have been squandered. Since any effort to significantly reduce climate change will cost trillions of dollars (see Nordhaus 2008, p. 82), that would be an unqualified disaster, particularly since those very resources could be devoted to reducing urgent problems humanity faces here and now (e.g., hunger, malaria, safer water and sanitation) — problems we know exist for sure unlike the bogeymen that we can’t be certain about.
Spending money on speculative, even if plausible, catastrophes instead of problems we know exist for sure is like a starving man giving up a fat juicy bird in hand while hoping that we’ll catch several other birds sometime in the next few centuries even though we know those birds don’t exist today and may never exist in the future.
Cherry Picking Climate Catastrophes: Response to Conor Clarke, Part II
Posted by Indur Goklany
Conor Clarke at The Atlantic blog, raised several issues with my study, “What to Do About Climate Change,” that Cato published last year.
One of Conor Clarke’s comments was that my analysis did not extend beyond the 21st century. He found this problematic because, as Conor put it, climate change would extend beyond 2100, and even if GDP is higher in 2100 with unfettered global warming than without, it’s not obvious that this GDP would continue to be higher “in the year 2200 or 2300 or 3758”. I addressed this portion of his argument in Part I of my response. Here I will address the second part of this argument, that “the possibility of ‘catastrophic’ climate change events — those with low probability but extremely high cost — becomes real after 2100.”
RESPONSE:
The examples of potentially catastrophic events that could be caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas induced global warming (AGW) that have been offered to date (e.g., melting of the Greenland or West Antarctic Ice Sheets, or the shutdown of the thermohaline circulation) contain a few drops of plausibility submerged in oceans of speculation. There are no scientifically justified estimates of the probability of their occurrence by any given date. Nor are there scientifically justified estimates of the magnitude of damages such events might cause, not just in biophysical terms but also in socioeconomic terms. Therefore, to call these events “low probability” — as Mr. Clarke does — is a misnomer. They are more appropriately termed as plausible but highly speculative events.
Consider, for example, the potential collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS). According to the IPCC’s WG I Summary for Policy Makers (p. 17), “If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m” (emphasis added). Presumably the same applies to the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
But what is the probability that a negative surface mass balance can, in fact, be sustained for millennia, particularly after considering the amount of fossil fuels that can be economically extracted and the likelihood that other energy sources will not displace fossil fuels in the interim? [Remember we are told that peak oil is nigh, that renewables are almost competitive with fossil fuels, and that wind, solar and biofuels will soon pay for themselves.]
Second, for an event to be classified as a catastrophe, it should occur relatively quickly precluding efforts by man or nature to adapt or otherwise deal with it. But if it occurs over millennia, as the IPCC says, or even centuries, that gives humanity ample time to adjust, albeit at a socioeconomic cost. But it need not be prohibitively dangerous to life, limb or property if: (1) the total amount of sea level rise (SLR) and, perhaps more importantly, the rate of SLR can be predicted with some confidence, as seems likely in the next few decades considering the resources being expended on such research; (2) the rate of SLR is slow relative to how fast populations can strengthen coastal defenses and/or relocate; and (3) there are no insurmountable barriers to migration.
This would be true even had the so-called “tipping point” already been passed and ultimate disintegration of the ice sheet was inevitable, so long as it takes millennia for the disintegration to be realized. In other words, the issue isn’t just whether the tipping point is reached, rather it is how long does it actually take to tip over. Take, for example, if a hand grenade is tossed into a crowded room. Whether this results in tragedy — and the magnitude of that tragedy — depends upon how much time it takes for the grenade to go off, the reaction time of the occupants, and their ability to respond.
Lowe, et al. (2006, p. 32-33), based on a “pessimistic, but plausible, scenario in which atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were stabilised at four times pre-industrial levels,” estimated that a collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet would over the next 1,000 years raise sea level by 2.3 meters (with a peak rate of 0.5 cm/yr). If one were to arbitrarily double that to account for potential melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, that means a SLR of ~5 meters in 1,000 years with a peak rate (assuming the peaks coincide) of 1 meter per century.
Such a rise would not be unprecedented. Sea level has risen 120 meters in the past 18,000 years — an average of 0.67 meters/century — and as much as 4 meters/century during meltwater pulse 1A episode 14,600 years ago (Weaver et al. 2003; subscription required). Neither humanity nor, from the perspective of millennial time scales (per the above quote from the IPCC), the rest of nature seem the worse for it. Coral reefs for example, evolved and their compositions changed over millennia as new reefs grew while older ones were submerged in deeper water (e.g., Cabioch et al. 2008). So while there have been ecological changes, it is unknown whether the changes were for better or worse. For a melting of the GIS (or WAIS) to qualify as a catastrophe, one has to show, rather than assume, that the ecological consequences would, in fact, be for the worse.
Human beings can certainly cope with sea level rise of such magnitudes if they have centuries or millennia to do so. In fact, if necessary they could probably get out of the way in a matter of decades, if not years.
Can a relocation of such a magnitude be accomplished?
Consider that the global population increased from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 6.8 billion this year. Among other things, this meant creating the infrastructure for an extra 4.3 billion people in the intervening 59 years (as well as improving the infrastructure for the 2.5 billion counted in the baseline, many of whom barely had any infrastructure whatsoever in 1950). These improvements occurred at a time when everyone was significantly poorer. (Global per capita income today is more than 3.5 times greater today than it was in 1950). Therefore, while relocation will be costly, in theory, tomorrow’s much wealthier world ought to be able to relocate billions of people to higher ground over the next few centuries, if need be. In fact, once a decision is made to relocate, the cost differential of relocating, say, 10 meters higher rather than a meter higher is probably marginal. It should also be noted that over millennia the world’s infrastructure will have to be renewed or replaced dozens of times – and the world will be better for it. [For example, the ancient city of Troy, once on the coast but now a few kilometers inland, was built and rebuilt at least 9 times in 3 millennia.]
Also, so long as we are concerned about potential geological catastrophes whose probability of occurrence and impacts have yet to be scientifically estimated, we should also consider equally low or higher probability events that might negate their impacts. Specifically, it is quite possible — in fact probable — that somewhere between now and 2100 or 2200, technologies will become available that will deal with climate change much more economically than currently available technologies for reducing GHG emissions. Such technologies may include ocean fertilization, carbon sequestration, geo-engineering options (e.g., deploying mirrors in space) or more efficient solar or photovoltaic technologies. Similarly, there is a finite, non-zero probability that new and improved adaptation technologies will become available that will substantially reduce the net adverse impacts of climate change.
The historical record shows that this has occurred over the past century for virtually every climate-sensitive sector that has been studied. For example, from 1900-1970, U.S. death rates due to various climate-sensitive water-related diseases — dysentery, typhoid, paratyphoid, other gastrointestinal disease, and malaria —declined by 99.6 to 100.0 percent. Similarly, poor agricultural productivity exacerbated by drought contributed to famines in India and China off and on through the 19th and 20th centuries killing millions of people, but such famines haven’t recurred since the 1970s despite any climate change and the fact that populations are several-fold higher today. And by the early 2000s, deaths and death rates due to extreme weather events had dropped worldwide by over 95% of their earlier 20th century peaks (Goklany 2006).
With respect to another global warming bogeyman — the shutdown of the thermohaline circulation (AKA the meridional overturning circulation), the basis for the deep freeze depicted in the movie, The Day After Tomorrow — the IPCC WG I SPM notes (p. 16), “Based on current model simulations, it is very likely that the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the Atlantic Ocean will slow down during the 21st century. The multi-model average reduction by 2100 is 25% (range from zero to about 50%) for SRES emission scenario A1B. Temperatures in the Atlantic region are projected to increase despite such changes due to the much larger warming associated with projected increases in greenhouse gases. It is very unlikely that the MOC will undergo a large abrupt transition during the 21st century. Longer-term changes in the MOC cannot be assessed with confidence.”
Not much has changed since then. A shut down of the MOC doesn’t look any more likely now than it did then. See here, here, and here (pp. 316-317).
If one wants to develop rational policies to address speculative catastrophic events that could conceivably occur over the next few centuries or millennia, as a start one should consider the universe of potential catastrophes and then develop criteria as to which should be addressed and which not. Rational analysis must necessarily be based on systematic analysis, and not on cherry picking one’s favorite catastrophes.
Just as one may speculate on global warming induced catastrophes, one may just as plausibly also speculate on catastrophes that may result absent global warming. Consider, for example, the possibility that absent global warming, the Little Ice Age might return. The consequences of another ice age, Little or not, could range from the severely negative to the positive (if that would buffer the negative consequences of warming). That such a recurrence is not unlikely is evident from the fact that the earth entered and, only a century and a half ago, retreated from a Little Ice Age, and that history may indeed repeat itself over centuries or millennia.
Yet another catastrophe that greenhouse gas controls may cause is that CO2 not only contributes to warming, it is also the key building block of life as we know it. All vegetation is created by the photosynthesis of CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, according to the IPCC WG I report (2007, p. 106), net primary productivity of the global biosphere has increased in recent decades, partly due to greater warming, higher CO2 concentrations and nitrogen deposition. Thus , there is a finite probability that reducing CO2 emissions would, therefore, reduce the net primary productivity of the terrestrial biosphere with potentially severe negative consequences for the amount and diversity of wildlife that it could support, as well as agricultural and forest productivity with adverse knock on effects on hunger and health.
There is also a finite probability that costs of GHG reductions could reduce economic growth worldwide. Even if only industrialized countries sign up for emission reductions, the negative consequences could show up in developing countries because they derive a substantial share of their income from aid, trade, tourism, and remittances from the rest of the world. See, for example, Tol (2005), which examines this possibility, although the extent to which that study fully considered these factors (i.e., aid, trade, tourism, and remittances) is unclear.
Finally, one of the problems with the argument that society should address low probability high impact events (assuming a probability could be estimated rather than assumed or guessed) is that it necessarily means there is a high probability that resources expended on addressing such catastrophic events will have been squandered. This wouldn’t be a problem but for the fact that there are opportunity costs associated with this.
According to the 2007 IPCC Science Assessment’s Summary for Policy Makers (p. 10), “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” In plain language, this means that the IPCC believes there is at least a 90% likelihood that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (AGHG) are responsible for 50-100% of the global warming since 1950. In other words, there is an up to 10% chance that anthropogenic GHGs are not responsible for most of that warming.
This means there is an up to 10% chance that resources expended in limiting climate change would have been squandered. Since any effort to significantly reduce climate change will cost trillions of dollars (see Nordhaus 2008, p. 82), that would be an unqualified disaster, particularly since those very resources could be devoted to reducing urgent problems humanity faces here and now (e.g., hunger, malaria, safer water and sanitation) — problems we know exist for sure unlike the bogeymen that we can’t be certain about.
Spending money on speculative, even if plausible, catastrophes instead of problems we know exist for sure is like a starving man giving up a fat juicy bird in hand while hoping that we’ll catch several other birds sometime in the next few centuries even though we know those birds don’t exist today and may never exist in the future.
They’ll pass through the transition much faster than the West did, but 40 years?
In poor countries, children are a vital security. In the developed countries, they are extremely expensive “luxury items”. The instant that occurs in China, India, and Africa, population will stabilize (and even possibly go into serious decline).
The way to kill any tendency is to take the profit out of it.
Jacob Mack (18:15:08) :
Yes Gtrip, that is all me, what is your point?
The point is that you don’t have a degree “in Chemistry among others… ”
As far as: “I have taken many other courses as well and I have advanced my degrees since those profiles”, your profile says your experience is from “January 2009 — Present (8 months)”, which even without a math degree I calculate to be August, 2009.
Just asking for a little honesty from you, that’s all.
CO2 correlation to temps range from .5 to .6. SST correlation to temps range from .7 to .8. CO2 correlation to SST is below .5. Look it up for yourself. I’m going with SST to temps.
Richard M,
I am old enough to have seen all the so called HIV cures turn out to be failures, (AZT is a very rough drug) and Herceptin, Iressa, and radiation therapy not be the great cure alls of cancer as well. In the 1950’s and 1960’s people believed that we would all be driving flying cars and perhaps living on other planets by now.
In addition I am a student of history, so I do not regard science to be infallible and always correct, neither do I think Climatologists to be always correct in all of their assertions, however, it does tend to be the media that amplifies and distorts (both unintentionally and intentionally) scientific findings. In reality there are solar scientists, physicists, chemists, ecologists, and mathematicians who are emplued as climatologists and others who work alongside climatologists.
Not too long ago climatologists were afraid we were headed into another ice age and that we had to prepare for such severe cold climates immediately.
Karl Popper said that science was “the history of corrected mistakes.” Thomas Kuhn spoke of science as a series of “discoveries,” “arguments,” time between a “paradigm shift,” then an actual paradigm shift based upon better arguments and discoveries. The word science literally translates into meaning: “to know.” Science deals in a series of constrained models, ideas–hypotheses, experiments, theories and laws. Laws have neat mathematical explanatiions, as example, thermodynamics, the zeroeth law and the 3 laws. Evolution is a theory that could be falsified one day, if we follow strict Popper and the general understanding of the meaning of a theory in biological science; this of course is not likely, though evolutionary theory has been amended and added to since Darwin and the rediscovery of Mendel’s work. Still once genetics was rediscovered evolutionary biology sprung forward. The same is true of climatology, as various real world phenomena are discovered or re-tested, re-discovered, and various mathematical techniques are utilized, more accurate portrayals of the system are uncovered and our understanding improves.
What seems to be neglected to be mentioned is that even in the absence of AGW, higher CO2 levels are bad for human and animal health and plant life has limits to how much 02 they can produce in the face of higher C02 levels.
Jacob Mack (18:22:22) :
Smokey recap:
so all the major scientific journals and magazines are all wrong or lying. Never mind NASA, NOAA, Princeton AOS, MET, Nature AAS, PBS, and the BBC. The majority of college professors out there who are experts in such areas are also lying.
Oh and if you read other posts of mine here, Smokey, you will see I am not an alarmist either, but that by acquiring a well rounded education and making my own obersvations and reading of the actual research and experiments, I know CO2 cannot just keep going up w/o negative consequences… re-read some of my other posts first.
Jacob Mack (18:22:22) :
1. This planet could cope very well with higher (much) higher CO2 levels.
In the past levels of 7.000 ppm have been reached and gigantic insects and vegetation florished.
2. Many workplaces, offices, mines, combat tank interior, submarines have a relative high CO2 level (up to 1.500 ppm) without negative effects on the people.
3. Tomato growers increase the level of CO2 in their greenhouses to promote growth
( 800 up to 1200 ppm)
4. The natural CO2 flux is dominant (human contribution only 15% of total flux).
So higher CO2 levels are only beneficial and create a greener world.
There is no location where trees are growing greener than a city park or a highway.
In regard to our weather/climate, the effect of 500 or 1000 ppm in regard to temperature is ZERO.
We simply don’t have oil enough to burn to reach 1000 ppm CO2.
And what is more important, the current cooling proves CO2 is NO CLIMATE DRIVER.
The US Government has spend 79 billion dollar to promote the AGW Hoax.
We have the UN, the IPCC, the World Meteorological Organisation which is linked to the National Weather Organizations like NOAA, NASA and Met Office and they are all whistling the same tune….
I call it a conspiracy and that is exactly what it is.
We need to curb Anthropogenic CO2 emissions for which we need obligatory legislation (Cap & Trade) and we have to do it fast because else the world will be confronted with run away Global Warming!
The truth is that there is nothing wrong with our climate but there is a lot wrong with the political establishment. In Europe it is walking on it’s last legs (see latest elections, to make the Global Deal and in the mean time opposition is growing while our climate is cooling.
That is why they are in a hurry.
Pay a visit to http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com from Hans Schreuder (Chemical Analysist) and read his collection of scientific reports and learn the difference between objective and bias information.
Thank you in advance.
And as always noted, I am not a believer in Hansen’s high end estimates or short term gloom estimates, but I do see from real data we do need to curb GHG emissions and utilize more alternative energy sources.
To be more specific, ENSO oscillations show little correlation with CO2. But ENSO oscillations show a GREAT deal of correlation to temps.
evanmjones (19:38:35) :
You are in large measure correct: urbanization and industrialization force smaller families. In the West, family size was a matter of practicality and fad and fashion. I’m not clear about India, and less so about Africa, but let me tell you about China. In China family size is NOT merely a matter of practicality and preference, it has everything to do with ultimate ends and ultimate reality.
The Chinese live in a world where the spiritual and supernatural is part of every day life. Ask a Chinese if he has ever seen a ghost and if he himself hasn’t seen one, he knows someone who has (of course, one smart-arsed Taipei taxi driver solemnly assured me he’d seen a “sui-kuei” (water-ghost) more than once. “Sui Kuei” is a piece of Chinese slang equivalent to our “frog man”. My driver was a navy veteran.) For the Chinese, life after death is just like life before death, with social stratification, a money economy and mansions, cars, servants…. in this life, you can work and earn those things. After you are dead, you depend on your descendants to provide those things. A person with no descendants has no one to burn paper money, paper houses, paper servants… he becomes a “hungry ghost” spreading his misery among the living. Children are not just a choice, they are an obligation.
The one child policy in China has resulted in the practice of selective infanticide…. girls are aborted or suffer infant “accidents” so that a male will be able to carry on the family line. In a normal population, the sex ratio at birth is 105 males born for every hundred females. In China today that ratio is 112 to 100 and in many rural districts it is 150 to 100. There is an excess male, nilitary age population of almost 50,000,000 in China today…. 50 million young men who will never get laid and, more importantly, whose family lineages end with them. The problem may be Chinese, but it is ours, too.
Ron de Haan I will read everything on this topic on the site you provided and then I will get back to you.
Gtrip, you are using faulty logic, I in fact do have a degree in chemistry, but I digress on this moot point, what data do you have, what evidence can you provide to demonstrate that AGW is not a serious issue or that it is not real at all? Let us get into the chemistry and Physics shall we? What is wrong with the current calulations of CO2 levels, current dangers and the higher solar insolation in WM^2? How does the finding contradict the chemistry of GHG? How about the heat capacity of water and hear transfer through advection and convection?
Again Ron, I am on that site now and reading…
Jacob, water absorbs heat to a much greater degree than land does. If this CO2 greenhouse system is to work the way your chemistry and physics background says it will, it will have to affect water to a greater degree than land. The heated beyond normal variation water should then result in a heated beyond normal land. That connections seems not to care much about CO2. Comment?
Joel Shore and “eric” enjoy summer vacation today?
Ron, I am still reading the site’s content, but here is the first obvious mistake I noticed from: http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Falsification_of_the_Atmospheric_CO2_Greenhouse_Effects.pdf. It states that “such a planetary machine can never exist.” This is in reference to the statement made prior to this which is in short: “by which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.”
Well, for one the Earth is an open system and if it were not entropy (symbolized by the letter S) would forever increase and the heat content on this planet would have long become unbearable in the first place.
On Letter a, it also takes out of context the greenhouse effect, the effect is more like a blanket holding in radiation and thus more heat.
I will quote a: “there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouses.”
If you refer to a good first year general chemistry book and/or physics book you can get a good introduction to thermodynamics and some properties of CO2, an Organic chemistry book would not hurt either. I also found several problematic errors in this article from the site you gave me as well:
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Appeal_to_Authority.pdf… I, for one am not a folower of Al Gore, as I see he uses some high end estimates I want to analyze and reproduce myself first, but besids that, this article fails to mention the synergy of wavelength absorbtion and re-emission between CO2 and water vapor. It also makes several errors on the actual properties of CO2 as well, but I will respond in greater detail later on after, I have kept my promise to you, which was to read all the entries on the site. FYI: I took one year gen chem, 1 year Organic Chem, Biochem, and P-chem. We will get into the topics this site attempts to delve into, within P-chem at a later date.
Actually AGW is the assertion and requires evidence. We don’t need to provide evidence that it isn’t happening. So what evidence can you provide to demonstrate that AGW is a serious issue or that it is real at all?
Jacob Mack (20:29:07) :
” what data do you have, what evidence can you provide to demonstrate that AGW is not a serious issue or that it is not real at all? Let us get into the chemistry and Physics shall we? “
Mr. Mack, I studied quite a bit of chemistry on my way to a chemical engineering degree. I, too, am very skeptical of claims from both sides so everything I read must pass the filters of physics, thermodynamics, chemistry, and process control fundamentals, to name a few. I therefore recommend the following for your consideration, which arises from the point of view of Dr. Pierre Latour, a registered PE and PhD in process control and chemical engineering. Dr. Latour is absolutely correct. CO2 has nothing to do with global temperatures.
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/chemical-engineer-takes-on-global.html
Jacob Mack (20:29:07) :
… what data do you have, what evidence can you provide to demonstrate that AGW is not a serious issue or that it is not real at all?
It’s been said often enough before, but I believe it bears repeating, that people who do not subscribe to a theory do not have to provide proof that the theory doesn’t hold good.
AGW (and at least I’m glad you give it its proper name, none of this disingenuous “Climate Change” nonsense) is a theory. The onus is on proponents of a theory to demonstrate its truth.
Some people look on AGW as a religion. If that is the case, of course, it is a belief system and cannot be proved. That doesn’t mean that it must be accepted at face value either.
I find the trust and ocnfidence in models that are used to project far into our future naive, disingeuous at best or loaded with baseless arrogant certainty at worst.
As my statistics training and courses have further opened my eyes to the games going on, I am appalled at how statistics are being used to support this entire shell game – and the underpinning comprehension of the systems involved in our climate is completely lacking.
Or did someone actually invent a practical and accurate crystal ball?
rephelan (20:19:54) :
The one child policy in China has resulted in the practice of selective infanticide…. girls are aborted or suffer infant “accidents” so that a male will be able to carry on the family line. In a normal population, the sex ratio at birth is 105 males born for every hundred females. In China today that ratio is 112 to 100 and in many rural districts it is 150 to 100. There is an excess male, military age population of almost 50,000,000 in China today…. 50 million young men who will never get laid and, more importantly, whose family lineages end with them. The problem may be Chinese, but it is ours, too.
It is even worse. I remember an article, probably in the scientific american, a number of years ago, where excess males in a country were correlated with wars and belligerence. The conclusiong being that excess males build up pressure for wars of conquest. That’s a grand chinese army there.
Off Topic… Do you know who had the “great” idea of banning the transportation of sea sand from the coast to the interior in almost all countries? The permission costs from 160 to 1600 US dollars. It’s only sand!!! Stupid green “politics”! Argh!!! I’m angry; really, really angry!
I’m still waiting to hear what climate catastrophes are currently happening.
I guess I shouldn’t be holding my (CO2 laden) breath…
Here are a few examples of the problems we face in the matter:
Jacob Mack (13:20:51) : “. . . interestingly enough the 1988 median predictions input by Jim Hansen were remarkably accurate,”
Hansen, et al in their Journal of Geo. Res. August 1988 paper on page 9347 laid out their forecasts based on three scenarios. For 2009, scenario A was about 1.15°C of warming; scenario B was 0.88°C; and scenario C was 0.64°C of warming. UAH observed anomaly from the 20th century benchmark for June 2009 was 0.001°C of warming while the RSS data showed 0.075°C. Hansen’s predictions don’t strike me as “remarkably accurate,” not even his low estimate. Further, NCDC’s land anomaly for June 2009 was 0.59°C — BELOW Hansen’s low estimate, even with all the problems in the NCDC’s data set as UHI has pointed out. J.Mack’s statement is little more than wildly inaccurate hyperbole.
Jacob Mack (13:20:51) : “Yet the fact remains that sea ice is melting, (just watch Discovery channel footage, PBS footage, BBC footage, Economist pictures, Scientific American 3.0, Nature, and reports from many different news networks) ice sheets are becoming thinner,”
That’s your source of evidence for “fact”? Discovery Channel — I must point out that Discovery’s Deadliest Catch in this season’s program commented that the Bering Sea ice was heavier and farther south than at any time during the previous five seasons of the program! Further, the Catlin Arctic Survey (stunt) was followed closely by BBC. While they were crossing flat first year ice and announcing to the world the Arctic sea ice was surprisingly thin, the Wegener Institute’s multi-national “Eisdicken” survey discovered that Arctic sea ice was thicker than the researchers had expected. When one considers the manner and quality of data, the reasonable scientist will side with the Wegener study. Scott Pelley over at CBS’s 60 Minutes filming melting Greenland ice at sea level in the summer . . . yup! That ‘ll convince even the most ardent skeptic that Arctic sea ice does in fact melt . . . in summer.
Jacob Mack (18:22:22) : Smokey recap: “so all the major scientific journals and magazines are all wrong or lying. Never mind NASA, NOAA, Princeton AOS, MET, Nature AAS, PBS, and the BBC. The majority of college professors out there who are experts in such areas are also lying.”
Not lying, but ignorant. [It’s sort of a George Bush kind of thing. He and a host of other countries and agencies were misled by erroneous intelligence that happened to support his prejudices regarding WMDs. He didn’t lie really, but was ignorant of the back story of the shell game performed by Hussein.] JM, you are also hyperbolically generalizing. Nature has included papers that seriously questioned the use of dendrochronolgy as a proxy for historical temperature. Science published the Fairbridge Curve of the history of Late Holocene sea levels and put the Hansen, Lebedef, and Mann forecasts into a humbling perspective (for those who bothered to look). Nature also published elemental papers that proved Fairbridge’s work accurate. As recent psots on WUWT revealed, there is some pretty serious dissent at NOAA, MET, and elsewhere. And who has quantified the “majority of college professors out there who are experts”? I hear there are important dissenters at MIT, UCB, UCSD, and elsewhere — thousands of them who have been quantified since the “Oregon Meeting” first questioned the IPCC’s behavior back in 1992.
But important to note are the many scientists who once promoted concern over global warming, but have now recanted. Most significant among these is Dr. Roger Revelle, who got the who thing started in 1957 as the director of Scripps Institution of Oceanography. He wrote in two cautionary letters to Congress in 1988, “My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways.” Mr. Mack, you should read Revelle’s article with Chauncey Starr and Fred Singer that appeared in Cosmos in 1991.
I am a skeptic, not a denier. What Bertolt Brecht wrote in “Life of Galileo” makes sense to me: “The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set a limit to infinite error.”
anna v (22:43:53)
It is even worse…
Well, it doesn’t HAVE to be that way, but it probably will. The three diversionary outlets for young males are monasticism, pioneering and “adventurism”, a euphemism for war. The Chinese will never re-open the monastaries on that scale and there are only so many who can be absorbed going where no man has gone before (the first star-ship is more likely to be the Tien Shan rather the Enterprise). The Chinese need resources (coal, iron, gas, oil, diamonds, etc. etc.) land for a still-burgeoning population and a diversion. Just north of the Hei Lung Chiang (Amur) is a sparsely populated region they claim was taken from them illegally…. I think they’ll go for Siberia.
Ron de Haan (15:29:20) :
I have searched on DDT. It was banned for agricultural use. Vector control in disease prevention was never banned in the US nor in any European country to the best of my knowledge. It should be easy for you to prove me wrong, as it is much easier to prove the existence of a law and/or treaty than its non-existence. Don’t forget, that DDT was phased out as vector control by other pesticides, which explains its less frequent use. BTW, bad administration / lack of funding was part of the reason, why malaria eradication in developing countries failed.
rephelan (18:46:06) :
Read the excerpts from the 1981 paper by Chapin and Wassertrom linked above. Once you have done so, come back to me and explain to me just how you are going to eradicate malaria with DDT, when 80% of the Anopheles mosquitoes in the affected area have become resistant to DDT.
Come off your high horse and stop insulting me by insinuating that birds (never mind that they are an important part of our biosphere) were more important to me than mankind.
The cap-and-trade slash-and-burn economics being shoved down our throats couldn’t be better timed to ensure that we will be unable to respond to whatever the Chinese demand. In less than half a century our grand children are going to be looking back at this time and wondering just how we could have been so stupid.
Nogw (17:53:11) :
Putting up the next strawman? Tell me, how many clouds are there in a typical desert night? Nada? Could be about right. You don’t need a desert to appreciate the effect, just compare clear and cloudy nights at your own location. Now ask yourself, why is it so.