Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
micronut
Trad climber
fresno, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 8, 2009 - 02:29pm PT
|
Dana and Mary....thanks for the input. Perfect, just what I'm looking for.
And Mary, My FJ is grey, but when I drive it really fast in the forrest, it kinda reflects a green hue. Very soothing.
By the way, I pulled a prius out of a ditch last month and pushed a Subaru looking hybrid out of a snowbank in December. Glad to help maam. I ride a 70mpg BMW to work though. Does that help.....even though its really loud and has knobby tires?
By the way....how did you know I drive an FJ?
|
|
Dick_Lugar
Trad climber
Indiana (the other Mideast)
|
|
I've heard we may be entering a small "ice age" phase that happens about every 15,000yrs. due to the current Malenkovich cycle we're in. I haven't looked that up yet, but that could throw a wrench into the human-made global warming effect..?
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
"No argument there Karl, The question becomes...is the amount we produce of large enough consequence to affect change in the system. That candle, or that truck motor vs. natural release of greenhouse gasses from ocean evaporation, methane bogs in Siberia, solar radiation, the natural process of the planet...the universe.....etc... "
Just a stroll around New Delhi, Beijing, or LA convinces me that human emissions absolutely effect the atmosphere, which affects weather.
Now there is plenty of other data out there, but deniers are simply believing what they want to believe
Peace
Karl
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Ed Hartouni:
the IPCC Working Group 1 has the task to review the scientific basis of climate change. They have a very comprehensive bibliography which you can follow up on yourself.
It's always good to point this out, when folks ask "Where's the data?" The active climate science community has terabytes of data, and virtually all of those folks agree that anthropogenic climate change is real. I think most people who regularly read the primary-science literature (written by and for scientists) know this is true, but people who pick and choose from the web or other sources for their "science" instead tend to remember stories that fit with their politics.
An update of sorts to the IPCC reports was provided recently at a conference described in the May 20, 2009 issue of Science. A few excerpts:
"Projections of Climate Change Go From Bad to Worse, Scientists Report
Eli Kintisch
COPENHAGEN--Meeting 2 years after the most recent report of the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), some 2000 scientists delivered a consistent if not unequivocal message here last week on the state of Earth's warming climate. "The worst-case IPCC projections, or even worse, are being realized," said the event's co-chair, University of Copenhagen biological oceanographer Katherine Richardson. Emissions are soaring, projections of sea level rise are higher than expected, and climate impacts around the world are appearing with increasing frequency, she told delegates in the opening session of the 3-day meeting....
The meeting's 58 sessions were grouped into three general themes: physical climate science, prospects for mitigation, and impacts and adaptation. On the prognosis for the climate system, Richardson warned that there's "no good news." Some scientists criticized how the 2007 IPCC report addressed the loss of the world's ice sheets, because it explicitly omitted calculations of the movement of glaciers, which at the time was poorly understood (Science, 9 February 2007, p. 754). Two years later, the picture is clearer. Konrad Steffen of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences in Boulder, Colorado, said that the loss of Greenland ice was accelerating, with the speedup of the glaciers contributing up to two-thirds of the loss.
Another question left unanswered by the last IPCC report was whether the Antarctic ice sheets were losing mass. University of California (UC), Irvine, glaciologist Eric Rignot said that more recent data from satellites and field studies "very clearly" show that the ice sheets are shrinking. Rignot said the accelerating movement of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica would, on the current trajectory, lead to sea level rise of 1 m or more by 2100--flooding coastal residents around the world.
New modeling work presented by Jonathan Bamber of the University of Bristol, U.K., showed that a complete disintegration of the Greenland sheet would require a 6°C rise in global temperatures, double the conventional wisdom. But before the audience could digest what sounded like a rare piece of good news, Bamber added that a 15% loss to the sheet would translate into a 1-m rise in sea level. "[That] is a horrendous prospect whichever way you cut it," Bamber told Science.
Elsewhere, the science was just as gloomy. Ecologist Chris Field of the Carnegie Institution for Science, who is overseeing the next IPCC report's section on impacts, gave an update on his analysis of the behavior of carbon stocks in the soil, permafrost, and plants. It's a problem IPCC "underemphasized" 2 years ago, he said. The latest estimate of the amount of carbon in permafrost is 1.7 trillion tons, more than twice the 2007 estimate.
Scientists know that warming temperatures could unlock this carbon, making the yearly effort to cut the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide "that much tougher" in the coming decades, Field says. Modeling of carbon frozen in soils remains primitive, he said. But new findings from field studies suggest that a type of soil known as Yedoma sediments could be especially problematic because it decomposes easily and 30% of its emissions are methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Plus, he said, scientists have been unable to find evidence for the hypothesis that some natural carbon sinks like forests may be increasing their ability to take in CO2 as the planet warms.
A number of sessions examined the frightening possibility that warming temperatures could trigger catastrophic tipping points, such as the loss of the Amazon rainforest through drought, which would create a vicious feedback. For example, modelers from the U.K.'s Met Office presented new data showing that even a global cessation of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 could lead to a loss of up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest. "We thought we didn't need to worry till we got to 3°C of warming," says Pope (see graphic). Tim Lenton, an Earth systems scientist from the University of East Anglia, U.K., describes the change in looking at deforestation as going from "high-impact, low-probability events [to] high-impact, larger probability events." Atmospheric scientist Allan Gadian of the University of Leeds, U.K., says that the model "lacks credibility" because it fails to reproduce the current climate. But Chris Jones of the Met Office says the model closely replicates 20th century Amazon rain patterns...."
|
|
Elcap76
Trad climber
Long Beach, CA
|
|
Mary:
Sorry but I disagree with the ice core data you cited
Source: http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth
Data summary:
The reason is that the CO2 maximums were found to lag behind the temperatures by 1200 years +/- 700. That lag is the main evidence proving that CO2 does not control the climate, but at most can play a second fiddle by just amplifying the variations already present. In all cases where there is a good enough resolution, one finds that the CO2 lags behind the temperature by typically several hundred to a thousand years. Namely, the basic climate driver which controls the temperature cannot be that of CO2.
There are many examples of studies finding lags, a few examples include: 1) Indermühle et al. (GRL, vol. 27, p. 735, 2000), who find that CO2 lags behind the temperature by 1200±700 years, using Antarctic ice-cores between 60 and 20 kyr before present (see figure). 2) Fischer et al. (Science, vol 283, p. 1712, 1999) reported a time lag 600±400 yr during early de-glacial changes in the last 3 glacial–interglacial transitions. 3) Siegenthaler et al. (Science, vol. 310, p. 1313, 2005) find a best lag of 1900 years in the Antarctic data. 4) Monnin et al. (Science vol 291, 112, 2001) find that the start of the CO2 increase in the beginning of the last interglacial lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years.
Clearly, the correlation and lags unequivocally demonstrate that the temperature drives changes in the atmospheric CO2 content. The same correlations, however cannot be used to say anything about the temperature's sensitivity to variations in the CO2.
The reason that over geological time scales, the variations do not depend on the temperature is because over these long durations, the total CO2 in the ecosystem varies from a net imbalance between volcanic out-gassing and sedimentation/subduction. This "random walk" in the amount of CO2 is the reason why there were periods with 3 or even 10 times as much CO2 than present, over the past billion years. Unfortunately, there is no clear correlation between CO2 and temperature over geological time scales.
Anyway, that is what a professional geologist (me) thinks about the ice core data after studying it as a result of my work.
Dana
|
|
Mary J. Pickford
climber
South Park
|
|
Thanks for the info Dana. While the error is almost the same magnitude as the lag, seems that since several independent groups are coming up with the same observation it would be hard to argue against the data. How disappointing. I've always been very impressed by these amazing studies.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
One recent analysis of the climate-CO2 connection was published in Science, September 19 2008. The authors study Little Ice Age (LIA) data closely to untangle the feedback relationship between warming and CO2 levels, directly addressing the difficulty that Dana mentions.
"CLIMATE CHANGE:
Illuminating the Modern Dance of Climate and CO2
Peter Cox and Chris Jones
Climate and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have been coupled through much of Earth's history: CO2 influences climate through the greenhouse effect, but climate also influences CO2 through its impact on the stores of carbon on the land and in the oceans. This two-way coupling between climate and CO2 will have a large influence on how the climate changes over the course of the 21st century. Currently, the amount of CO2 emitted as a result of human activities is about double the amount required to explain the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 (1). The remainder is absorbed by land and ocean carbon sinks, which have thus been acting to slow climate change. Will they continue to do so? Data on the Earth's past can illuminate this modern dance of climate and CO2....
The LIA data imply that atmospheric CO2 will increase more quickly with global warming than most models suggest. One implication is that the 20th-century CO2 rise due to anthropogenic emissions may have been amplified by 20 to 30 ppmv through the impacts of global warming on natural carbon sinks. Furthermore, the existence of a strong climate effect on the carbon cycle indicates that larger emissions cuts are required to stabilize CO2 concentrations at a given level. The LIA is just one example of a natural climatic anomaly in the past that can provide insights into the strength of the coupling between the Earth's climate and carbon cycle. Paleoclimatic data cannot tell us how to meet the challenge of managing 21st-century climate change, but they can help us to better understand the nature of this challenge."
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
Dana, nice bit of plagiarism for a geologist.
Temp drives CO2 and CO2 drives temps.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Wanda, you're sharp. I didn't catch that Elcap76 had plagiarized that bit.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
micronut,
As an economist, I've been trying to estimate marginal costs and benefits of various economic decisions relating to global warming. Chiloe provided me many useful links when I raised some technical statistical questions, and the bibliography from Ed's source is wonderful. I highly recommend them, but be prepared to invest some time in them.
Even though I'm economically quite conservative, I find the scientific evidence of the existence of anthropogenic climate change overwhelming. I understand how your "right-wing friend" can think this is all an attempt to subvert capitalism, but I'm afraid he's wrong. The data are consistent with the human link.
Unfortunately, I've seen little, if any, properly measured data on marginal costs and benefits in the economic literature, hence my interest. Knowing there's a connection is one thing. Knowing which actions are and are not wise depends on cost and benefit data. Who knows -- this work may be my way out of the ghetto!
John
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
"My right wing buddy thinks the governmental/world finacial cost of all this is absolutley ridiculous if it turns out that man has a miniscule effect on the system compared to bigger, non-human factors."
The scientific consensus on human caused global warming is pretty clear (outside of a few hacks that the oil industry has hired much like the cigeratte companies once did).
But even to the extent that things turn out differently than predicted, it is just as likely that things will be worse than the "best prediction" as that they will be better.
Ask your right wing buddy if he thinks that any insurance that is never used is an absolutely ridiculous expense Does he really want to place an all-or-nothing bet on the health of the only planet we got? Sheeish. When this country builds a dam (the failure of which might only kill a few thousand), engineers typically have to show a less than 1 in 10,000 chance of failure. When it comes to, possibly the survival of our civilization as we know it, we can have no carbon tax unless it can be proven beyond doubt that we are absolutely screwed unless we take action.
a failure of a dam is a tragedy
global-warming-induced war, famine, and pestilence are just statistics
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
Monrovia, CA
|
|
John, nicely put. I don't dispute what is happening and don't care whether it is a combination of anthropogenic and natural causes or all the former. What bothers me is the extent to which it is being 'mined' by self-serving burro-crats and politicos like it is an inexhaustible resource. The other thing that gets me is that the developing nations have an open-ended get-out-of-jail-free card that in effect we're paying for.
|
|
Xela
climber
|
|
JEleazarian wrote:
"Unfortunately, I've seen little, if any, properly measured data on marginal costs and benefits in the economic literature, hence my interest. Knowing there's a connection is one thing. Knowing which actions are and are not wise depends on cost and benefit data."
Be a little more specific. Are you speaking of potential damages vs. cost of control? Efficient methods for reducing carbon intensity? Something else? There is a quite a bit of literature on the "economics" of climate change and its mitigation. Though I think what you are asking for (i.e., dollar value of damages at the margin) is something that is still pretty uncertain.
Most economist working in the area of CO2 mitigation will agree that the efficient solution to controlling CO2 is through proper pricing.
|
|
micronut
Trad climber
fresno, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 8, 2009 - 04:31pm PT
|
Karl, I didn't mean to put down your take on this, I was just trying to gather some enviro stats rather than personal experiences/feelings on the matter. India will break your heart huh? I leave for a mission trip to nepal in 8 weeks. It will be my first time over there. No time to climb. We will be putting some technology into a "school" and spending time with an underground church. Installing computers and stuff I think.
|
|
micronut
Trad climber
fresno, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 8, 2009 - 04:32pm PT
|
ALSO.......Does anybody have any citations or websites where they get their right leaning opinions on the matter. Any science or data from the other side of the argument? This would be a big help too.
Thanks for all the levelheaded leads so far.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Does anybody have any citations or websites where they get their right leaning opinions on the matter. Any science or data from the other side of the argument? This would be a big help too.
Micronut, as you probably know there are a huge-number of right-leaning websites out there, that will feed you all the things you want to believe.
But if you honestly wanted to learn about the science, that's a not where to look. Look for scientists writing to other scientists, in the primary science literature.
|
|
the Fet
Supercaliyosemistic climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
A couple points:
Any huge changes to civilization as we know it due to climate changes are likely and hopefully many years down the road. But lesser impacts are being felt right now and will continue over the next decades, rising sea levels, crop failures, displaced populations, disease, etc. That is where an economic analysis makes the most sense. e.g. will increasing engery costs by say 10% now save us from the much higher cost of paying for problems in the near term (e.g. less than 50 years). Forget being green and tree huggy, it's a simple question of what is cheaper. The main problem with this is who pays and who benefits, e.g. the oil companies don't want to pay anything to help out the people in Kiribati and Niue whose islands are disappearing under the rising oceans.
"developing nations have an open-ended get-out-of-jail-free card that in effect we're paying for."
Except that for the last 100 years we did the same thing and they are just getting going. But the bright side is if they repeat our mistakes they will end up buying clean energy technology from us when the fossil fuels run out.
|
|
micronut
Trad climber
fresno, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 8, 2009 - 05:11pm PT
|
Chiloe, I guess I stated that kinda poorly. I want to know where the Right gets their info on the matter. Both sides like to spew stats, I want to be able to know sources in an argument.
When the right says...."Global Warming bah! we're actually in a cooling phase!" or "Man-made co2 is only 1/100th of the total Co2 in the atmosphere" I want to know where they are getting their information.
Local news, CNN and Wikipedia don't count.
You are right about scientists talking to other scientists.....I want to know where the science on the Right is coming from. Surely there are those out there, in the name of the scientific process who are trying to disprove manmade global warming. That's where I'd start if I was serious about it.
|
|
Xela
climber
|
|
Fet wrote:
"But the bright side is if they repeat our mistakes they will end up buying clean energy technology from us when the fossil fuels run out."
Except that fossil fuels will not be running out soon. The problem is that what remains to be used may be worse from an environmental perspective.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!