- Joined
- 21 April 2005
- Posts
- 3,922
- Reactions
- 5
What time frame is that red? 30 years?
Typically this anomaly is expressed as a deviation from the average temperature baseline period of 1951-1980. Note that climate scientists prefer a 30 year baseline period to infer subsequent deviations.
Your short-period temperature chart simply shows the possibilities of temperature variations, and the short-term trend.
Clearer representation of global temperature trends is found at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
As are the grandiose cliches.The issue of a warmer earth has been done to death in this thread.
Not the case at all. I just want someone to say MAN is resposible and why?You just don't want to accept it.
Maybe so. But you are forgetting about the governments who have signed up to UN agreements. And the Green vote is big in Australia.As for the science "funding" issue, it is proven beyond doubt that the energy sector continues to fund hundreds of lobbyists and skeptics.
On the other hand, governments would keenly fund scientists who could show climate change was a fiction of the imagination because they could then direct billions of dollars towards more socially beneficial things. To suggest governments have a vested interest in promoting the impending dangers of climate change is fanciful. There are no votes in falsifying climate change.
Your analogies are unable to compare the manmade GW story to something much easier to define.The challenge of the global warming debate is that if the theory and subsequent observations of thousands of scientists is true then our emissions of CO2 are effectively making the world uninhabitable for the current ecosytems (which naturally includes us ) within a century.
The science goes on to say that to have any chance of slowing the process and in fact preserving some part of the planet for life as we roughly know it, we must make totally radical changes to how we produce energy and in the lifestyles we lead. That observation of course brings the issue into total conflict with the current major energy producers (fossil fuel industry) and large parts of the current economic system ( the parts that simply want us to consume "as-much-as-possible-forever" )
And finally the thought that we may be facing a catastrophe of the highest order within our lifetimes is the stuff of nightmares and very few people want to willingly entertain such thoughts.
So overall it's hardly surprising that:
1) The fossil fuel industries have devoted much energy and cleverness to questioning and clouding the issue.
2) The vast majority of the players in the current economic system don't want to know about climate change.
3) And most of the ordinary punters aren't impressed with the thought that our future is looking very bleak.
Other factors that influence how we make sense of the situation are some of the current "givens" or mythologies of the 20th century. For example
1) The future can only get better as science and business progress us to more and more prosperity....
2) The Western civilised world through its mastery of economics, science, business etc deserves unlimited success by virtue of its enterprise and hard work....
3) Technology can solve any problem...
4) There are no limits to growth and Growth is Go(o)d
5) And finally. If anything does goes wrong there will be a magical solution (like in the movies...!!) that will fix everything up by the morning....
Do these strike any chords with other forum readers?
Lets consider some other public health/public interest issues with a history and how our society reacted to them.
Smoking.. Lovely little habit that really does make the smoker feel good. A relaxant as well as a stimulant and very addictive.
Unfortunately medical science discovered in 1935 in London that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer. For the next 50-60 years however the industry relentlessly moved to discredit the science, attack the researchers, produce their own contradictory research through their own institutes, buy political influence, pull the job creation card and so on while smokers died like flies.
And smoking is still a very highly profitable, legal industry. Not much of a signpost for respecting the efforts of truthful science is it?
Asbestos A great, great product. Many uses. Unfortunately mining it, using it and breathing in the dust condemns many people to a miserable, painful death 30-40 years later.
This was all understood 50-60 years ago. But the industry refused to accept the science because it was going to cost them money. And so for the last 40 years we have witnessed the inch by inch struggle to have clear scientific evidence accepted and the product banned. And now we are seeing the companies face huge ongoing payouts while tens of thousands of people die and millions more are exposed to crumbling asbestos in buildings around the world.
The list can be expanded at will. My point is that GW and humanities role in the current situation is another clear problem which science has recognised way beyond any reasonable doubt.
It is also the biggest catastrophe facing all of us and unfortunately the same forces and factors that resulted in the needless deaths of millions of people are now likely to destroy most of life on earth and almost all of us.
How sure am I that we are facing a critical problem? In the end one of my reality touchstones is the insurance industry. They have a very strong interest in making sure their bets on events are based on the best evidence. They don't want BS or spin, just the facts.
That's why smokers had big life insurance premiums way before there were warning signs on cigarette packets.
That's why the reinsurance industry has been front and centre on warning about global warming and assessing the risks to property that will result from the inevitable consequences of fire, flood and cyclones.
And it's why we shouldn't be surprised if in the next year, in the light of the scientific updates on the pace of GW, there isn't some fundamental revision of which coastal areas will be insurable. That is reality.
My last point. On a personal level if any of us went to doctor and during an examination they discovered a very serious condition that threatened our health, in fact of life, how determined would we be to disregard his assessment ? Sure we would get a second opinion. We may even want a third. How about a fourth or fifth? Will we only be happy when we find someone who can confidently tell us that this problem that the first 10-1000 doctors agreed on was in fact not a problem and that they were mistaken or simply just too self interested to give the right diagnosis?
The linked website goes back over 100 years. Is that good enough?What time frame is that red? 30 years?
The 10 year chart is a measure of IPCC predictions, nothing more.By the way, your chart of the temperature "anomaly" nicely confirms that the earth is warming (over a statistically significant period).
Here is the same 100 year 'absolute' chart using a 30 year baseline from 1951 - 1980 measured against current climate models.Typically this anomaly is expressed as a deviation from the average temperature baseline period of 1951-1980. Note that climate scientists prefer a 30 year baseline period to infer subsequent deviations.
Your short-period temperature chart simply shows the possibilities of temperature variations, and the short-term trend.
Clearer representation of global temperature trends is found at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
Your analogies are unable to compare the manmade GW story to something much easier to define.
__________________
Discussion only! All posts are free speech only and may be factually incorrect.
It's Snake Pliskin
The 10 year chart is a measure of IPCC predictions, nothing more.
Give that a predicted 0.2C should be realised over that time frame based on current emissions, you would currently reject the IPCC's hypothesis.
If the ten hottest years (since reliable records have been kept) occurred within the last 12 years why would anyone think the IPCC model forecasts were unreliable?GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Global Temperature Trends: 2008 Annual Summation Originally posted Dec. 16, 2008, with meteorological year data. Updated Jan. 13, 2009, with calendar year data.
Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis [see ref. 1] of surface air temperature measurements. In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880 (left panel of Fig. 1). The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. The two-standard-deviation (95% confidence) uncertainty in comparing recent years is estimated as 0.05 °C [ref. 2], so we can only conclude with confidence that 2008 was somewhere within the range from 7th to 10th warmest year in the record.
Basilio, good to have you comment.I totally agree with the final part of your post.
I suggest that if you cannot see the analogies between the examples I have outlined and the detailed research and evidence of anthropogenic global warming - you may have your eyes closed...
I think it is ridiculous to say what you have. What you are attempting to do is say that anyone who has a different view to others would only take the advice that is emotionally acceptable. That it ludicrous and silly. But this cannot be anologous to GW.My last point. On a personal level if any of us went to doctor and during an examination they discovered a very serious condition that threatened our health, in fact of life, how determined would we be to disregard his assessment ? Sure we would get a second opinion. We may even want a third. How about a fourth or fifth? Will we only be happy when we find someone who can confidently tell us that this problem that the first 10-1000 doctors agreed on was in fact not a problem and that they were mistaken or simply just too self interested to give the right diagnosis?
No, the time frame is too short and totally inadequate to take a view on.The linked website goes back over 100 years. Is that good enough?
Your other guttersnipes are quite pathetic yet indicative of skeptics' mentallity.
Internationally it's no secret that the nuclear industry is a big supporter of emissions cuts and sees itself as a major beneficiary. It's to the point that some refer to the Kyoto Protocol as the "Nuclear Protocol", a reference both to the consequences of it (build more nuclear plants) and the source of significant funding promoting it.As for the science "funding" issue, it is proven beyond doubt that the energy sector continues to fund hundreds of lobbyists and skeptics.
On the other hand, governments would keenly fund scientists who could show climate change was a fiction of the imagination because they could then direct billions of dollars towards more socially beneficial things. To suggest governments have a vested interest in promoting the impending dangers of climate change is fanciful. There are no votes in falsifying climate change.
I think it is ridiculous to say what you have. What you are attempting to do is say that anyone who has a different view to others would only take the advice that is emotionally acceptable. That it ludicrous and silly. But this cannot be anologous to GW.My last point. On a personal level if any of us went to doctor and during an examination they discovered a very serious condition that threatened our health, in fact of life, how determined would we be to disregard his assessment ? Sure we would get a second opinion. We may even want a third. How about a fourth or fifth? Will we only be happy when we find someone who can confidently tell us that this problem that the first 10-1000 doctors agreed on was in fact not a problem and that they were mistaken or simply just too self interested to give the right diagnosis?
The problem with the man made GW story is many scientists are stating there is GW from man and those who say it is not from man. So, for the scientists who say it isn't, are they the same as in your analogy above? Not really. The issue is funding and agendas and specialities. But in the debate there is no real debate of the causes and quite commonly just - Co2, even on this thread, there is no discussion of the sun and its role in heating the globe. "The Earth is heating so it must be us". Why not "Consideirng the sun heats the Earth, let's explore that before we fix our minds on a story that is doubtful and convenient"?
The predictions made by the IPCC are based on emissions scenarios. The fact that the Earth has warmed in the past and that recent years are among the hottest is irrelevant to the models.If the ten hottest years (since reliable records have been kept) occurred within the last 12 years why would anyone think the IPCC model forecasts were unreliable?
Climate scientists do not contemplate a linear increase in temperature, and continuing to suggest this as a foundation point to global warming is mischievous.
And I presume you can provide some cites for the global mass delusion?No-one really wants to believe that the planet is cooking and worse we are responsible. The first part is bad enough : to consider that it is our collective actions that have caused the the result is pretty horrendous and not a place many want to go. That's what i was talking about in terms of the mass psychology of wanting to disbelieve.
Reference?Snake there is a chance that the majority of scientists have got it wrong. At this stage its probably about 1-2%.
It remains to be seen whether policy recommendations are cautious.But on a fundamental basis when we recognise even a small possibility that a catastrophic event will occur common sense dictates a cautious approach.
Current modeling vs observations suggests otherwise.Even if the current scientific view of man made GW had only a 10% probability of being correct (and unfortunately it is closer to 90+%)
That simple reality is not so simple.On another note, the urgent move to renewable energy and radical reduction in our use of resources will be forced on us by simple reality. Oil, gas, coal will deplete.
The mathematics of United States carbon dioxide emissions are not actually that complicated. The figure below from the U.S. Energy Information Agency shows that the 5,991 million metric tonnes (MMt) of carbon dioxide emitted by the U.S. came from 3 sources: coal, natural gas, and petroleum (see three inputs in the upper left of the graph).
Each of these fossil fuels, plus renewables and nuclear power make up the total energy consumption in the United States. Energy consumption is measured using a unit call a “quad” which means a quadrillion BTUs (British Thermal Units). In 2007 the United States used 101.4 quads of energy (data). This amount of energy can be broken down by source as follows.
The 15.2 quads of energy from nuclear and renewable sources resulted in negligible carbon dioxide emissions. The amount of carbon dioxide emitted due to each quad of fossil fuel energy depends upon the source, as their carbon intensities differ. For the analysis that follows I use the following values, distilled from the EIA information provided here in .xls.
Coal = 94 MMt Carbon Dioxide per Quad
Natural Gas = 53 MMt Carbon Dioxide per Quad
Petroleum = 65 MMt Carbon Dioxide per Quad
Thus, to calculate total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions simply requires multiplying quads of energy by carbon dioxide per quad and summing across the three fuels. This simple math results in the following:
(94 * 22.8 [Coal]) + (53 * 23.6 [Natural Gas]) + (65 * 39.8 [Petroleum]) = 5,981 MMt carbon dioxide
This total compares quite well with the total of 5,991 MMt carbon dioxide reported for 2007 by EIA (see figure above). We can use this information to ask some straightforward questions about how an emissions reduction target of 14% below 2005 levels (5,095 MMt carbon dioxide) might be reached by 2020.
We can do a bit of hypothetical “stress testing” of these numbers, by asking, in theory, what sort of actions might lead to reaching the emissions reductions target. Before we do this, we do need to make a guess as to 2020 US energy consumption. The EIA projects that energy consumption will grow at a rate of 0.5% per year (calculated from information here). Because GDP growth is expected to be higher than this rate, it already builds in an assumption of gains in energy efficiency. But let’s use the EIA estimate, which suggests that US energy consumption in 2020 will be 108.6 quads, of which 21 quads will come from renewables plus nuclear energy, representing a growth of about 40% on top of 2007 values. This leaves 87.2 quads to be produced by fossil fuels.
Here are a few examples of the effects of different hypothetical strategies:
1) What would happen if all coal consumption were to be replaced with natural gas?
Answer: In 2020 total emissions would be 5,110 MMt carbon dioxide, very close to the 2020 target.
2) By how much would renewables plus nuclear have to displace coal to reach the target?
Answer: The target could be reached if coal consumption were reduced by about 42%, and the displaced 9.2 quads of energy were replaced by renewables plus nuclear, implying more than doubling of renewable plus nuclear energy supply, to comprise 30% of all energy consumption.
If renewables alone (i.e., non-nuclear) are to carry the weight of displacing coal, then they would have to increase their role in consumption by a factor of 4.7 over 2007 values. If growth in renewable energy supply is restricted to solar and wind only, then these sources would have to increase their role in consumption by a factor of 80 (that is, e-i-g-h-t-y). The reason for this big difference is that biomass and geothermal provided about 6.4 quads of energy in 2007, whereas wind and solar only 0.4 quads. The Obama Administration’s goal of doubling wind, solar, and biofuels production within 3 years may indeed be a worthwhile policy, but it is not consistent with a goal of displacing sufficient coal to reach the 14% 2020 target using wind and solar (and while biofuels have their own complexities as a policy issue, they are not really a substitute for coal in any case).
3) By how much would energy consumption have to be reduced to meet the target assuming no changes in the energy consumption mix?
Answer: Energy consumption would have to be about 85.5 quads in 2020, about equal to 1992 values when the US economy was 35% smaller than in 2007.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/us-mitigation-math-5039
By cautious I meant that the risk of a catastrophic outcome should dictate a policy approach to address the issue - in our case radical reduction in CO2 emissions to attempt to reduce the risk of runaway GW.Quote:
But on a fundamental basis when we recognise even a small possibility that a catastrophic event will occur common sense dictates a cautious approach
Spooly not quite sure how you are reading my posts.
The 1-2% possibility that we don't have serious global warming ? Okay a generalisation based on the overwhelming majority view of scientists who have been monitoring increases in global temperatures around the world not to mention the evidence of this rapid temperature rise.
By the way the reference from Real Climate is worth a good look. Apart from the explantion from the climate scientists there are 470 odd comments and in some cases responses which tease out many of the issues you raise.
Cheers
What rapid temperature rise? From when?
Here is the same chart, again.What a shame. I couldn't cut and paste the actual graphs! Have to learn how.Anyway the first one is The NASA graph which tracks Global Land and Sea temperatures from 1880 to 2008.
Increased CO2 emissions are key to climate predictions, but many other aspects/influences impact modeled outcomes.The predictions made by the IPCC are based on emissions scenarios. The fact that the Earth has warmed in the past and that recent years are among the hottest is irrelevant to the models.
We would need to be looking at some accelerated warming in the next 5-8 years or the IPCC's models should be rejected by the scientific community.
My last chart shows how they performed when back tested over a 100 years with an accepted baseline. Not only do they fail to get close to the mean, the difference from observed is out by some 2 degrees.
Credibly though, they seem to get the trend right, but how they do this when getting the temperature so wrong is a mystery.
And, I'm certainly not trying to be mischievous. The issue of AGW is not fully understood, and having a skeptical approach to 'questionable' models should only lead to a more informed debate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?