I note that they didn’t recommend Kyoto … hardly an accidental oversight.
w.
-
To date, the biosphere has shown no sign of getting worse at absorbing CO2. Yes, there are folks out there who say it could, or it might, get worse … but not yet, there’s nothing in the record that supports your fear.
-
Citing Wikipedia on the SDMB? Puh-lease …
-
Jim Hansen has been saying that the sky is falling for the last twenty years … but we haven’t seen anything happen. In fact, despite claims of mass extinctions, and sea level rises, and all of the rest, the rise in temperature since the Little Ice Age has not produced a single calamity of the type you guys are always hollering about.
He has also pushed some very, very shonky results, like his recent claim of a “smoking gun” regarding ocean warming. Yes, his results were a good match to the 1995-2005 period … but they were a terrible match to the 1955-1995 period, and somehow he forgot to mention that in his paper … likely just an oversight … see my analysis for details of his chicanery.
-
The climate is always changing, either cooling or warming. Given a choice, I take warming any day, it causes much less damage.
-
The level of CO2 in the atmosphere can be modelled very accurately by assuming that a certain percentage of the atmospheric CO2 increase is sequestered each year. This means, of course, that if we continue to emit CO2 at the current rate, the atmospheric concentration will level off, and not rise indefinitely as you naively assume. If we continue emitting at the current rate, all indications are that it will level off at about 480 ppm …
-
All of your claims assume that CO2 is the cause of the recent temperature rise, which is by no means proven. There is no “consensus” on the question, as you claim. In a study, a quarter! of the climatologists polled said they didn’t think the CO2 case had been proven … see the study for details.
-
Certainly CO2 is not the cause of the temperature rise from 1700 to 1945 … and then you have to explain the falling temperature from 1945 to 1980. It’s not from aerosols as some claim, because aerosols don’t venture far from where they were emitted, and the overwhelming majority of them are emitted in the northern hemisphere … which hasn’t cooled more than the southern hemisphere, as the northern would have to if aerosols were the answer.
This leaves only the last twenty years or so … but if CO2 didn’t make the temperature rise from 1700-1980, what makes you think it is responsible for the subsequent rise?
- The computer models are a joke, many of them give results that have never been seen on earth. The IPCC has made no effort to distinguish the terrible from the merely inaccurate, it just accepts them all … I wouldn’t bet 50 cents on the model forecasts, much less billions of dollars, without rigorous testing … which has never happened. The model makers just crank them out, and all of their results are given equal weight … perhaps you think that’s a good plan, to bet billions on untested computer models … if so, perhaps you could explain your reasoning.
So, you can go on and on about the costs of rising CO2 … but temperatures have been rising for three centuries without visible bad effects, so you have a lot to prove before you can say that your fears are realistic. Three centuries of rising temperatures, no catastrophes, and now you say a bit more temperature rise will cost trillions of dollars?
I don’t think so …
Now, unlike the future temperature, and whether it will actually cost us money, we know for a fact that Kyoto will cost us billions of dollars. Spending billions of dollars to make a meaningless dent in a hypothetical problem strikes me as foolish … but of course, YMMV …
w.
Your cite doesn’t actually support your position on the issue of whether or not we should spend money to address anthropogenic climate change.
Yes, scientists disagree about whether it’s been proven that human-caused CO2 increases are responsible for climate forcing; “proven” is a very strong term in science, and there are still lots of uncertainties in the models and the data.
However, as you’ll see from a graph on page 15 of the study you linked to, when the 400-odd climate scientists it surveyed were asked to evaluate the statement “There is enough uncertainty about the phenomenon of global warming that there is NO need for immediate policy decisions”, an overwhelming majority of them disagreed with it. On a scale of 1 for “strongly agree” to 7 for “strongly disagree”, over half of all the scientists polled gave an answer of 5 or higher. And only in one sample of a mere 35 scientists was there even ONE answer that was lower than the neutral value of 4.
So yes, according to your study, there is indeed an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that even though there are still some uncertainties in the anthropogenic-climate-change hypothesis, there is definitely enough certainty to justify doing something about it, policy-wise.
Yes, but who says it will get better, exactly? I’m telling you that the overwhelming consensus is that it will get worse, and DAI is inevitable even if it stays the same.
Well, I didn’t see anything particularly inaccurate in that article, but OK: The ocean conveyor from the UN Environment Program. This is basic science – you could find it in Britannica or any respected university resources.
Apart from clearly accelerated ice-cap/glacier melting and the huge forcing off equilibrium for greenhouse gases I keep going on about. I can only tell you what every climatologist in the world says: that, somewhere, there is a limit to what we can do to the atmosphere without serious negative consequences. Your attitude is one of “Well, we haven’t seen the cliff yet, so let’s keep driving!”.
Then Venus must seem like a paradise.
What? I highlight this because it is by far the most outlandish claim you have made so far. Yes, some is sequestered, but at the current rate most isn’t, hence the >2 ppm increase per year. Yes, it could level off in the way you’re suggesting if we stopped emitting completely. What is this magic natural mechanism which suddenly kicks in and starts collecting all the CO2 we emit into neat little sequestered packages only above a certain concentration?
But all climatologists think that, say, 600 ppm is dangerous. (The vast majority think 500 ppm is, too).
Of course – the concentration then was near the 280 ppm it had been for millennia.
Again, even by 1960 the concentration was only 300 ppm, still no big deal, and the time lag between releasing greenhouse gases and their effect on temperature would mean that only by around 1980 would the warming effect be noticeable. It’s the enormous gas increase after 1980 which is the current worry.
Because there’s vastly more of it than before 1980.
I certainly hope so – I really do. Because our grandchildren certainly won’t be laughing if they’re not.
Funny, my skepticism says “ Don’t worry, it’ll be economically OK!” 
Actually, a skeptic on AGW recently pointed me to this article, which suggests there is some evidence that this may be starting to happen.
Can you please give a cite for anything that Hansen has claimed would happen by 2006 that hasn’t occurred?
Again, can you give me some cite that shows any evidence to support this claim which is at odds with all the scientific literature that I am aware of.
In addition to what kimstu noted is the fact that that survey is now 10 years old. At the time, only the second assessment of the IPCC was out, which itself had a considerably weaker statement regarding the attribution of the warming observed so far compared to the third assessment. (And, the fourth assessment will no doubt have a stronger statement still.)
There has been plenty of testing of the models. As but one recent example, last year there was a paper in Science that tested how well the models are handling water vapor high in the atmosphere…which is important because the water vapor feedback is one of the principle ones predicted to magnify the warming…and the data was very compatible with the models and completely incompatible with the models when the models were instead run while forcing the water vapor to remain constant.
Furthermore, the basic physics is well-understood; the point of the models is basically to work out the details…like the feedback effects and such. Furthermore, one can obtain independent estimates of climate sensitivity from other methods, such as looking at the ice age - interglacial oscillations.
It is not “a bit more”. And, in fact, from the historical record we know things like the fact that the ice sheets seem very sensitive to temperature. In fact, climate change has done in many species in the past; we are in the fortunate situation of being able to foresee and head off a potential danger…if we are not so wedded to our current ways that we are unwilling to make any changes.
And, in regards to the current thinking on the warming, just this week the U.S. Climate Change Science Program formed by Pres. Bush in 2002 released the first of its assessments which concluded:
Chief Editor Dr. Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center said: "Discrepancies between the data sets and the models have been reduced and our understanding of observed climate changes and their causes have increased. The evidence continues to support a substantial human impact on global temperature increases. This should constitute a valuable source of information to policymakers.”
What they look at is putting a modest tax on CO2 emissions, which Kyoto or the McCain-Climate Stewardship Bill effectively does. I wouldn’t expect an article in Science to specifically advocate or not advocate for a specific international agreement.
Sentient, I surrender. I can’t do it. Anyone who thinks that …
-
Every climatologist in the world has said that 600 ppm is dangerous, and
-
Those climatologists have revealed themselves to SM, but no one else, and
-
There is some kind of “consensus” among climate scientists (just last week 60 climate scientists petitioned the Canadian Government saying that Kyoto was a mistake, no consensus there) …
… clearly is on another planet than the one I inhabit. Being ill versed in interplanetary communication, I surrender.
SM, the reason that the climate debate continues is that THERE IS NO CONSENSUS! If there were, the scientific debate would have ended long ago.
Consider, for example, the flat-earthers. Although there are folks out there who seriously think the earth is flat, there is no scientific debate on the question. Why? Because in the flat-earth case, a scientific consensus truly exists.
The climate system, on the other hand, is a chaotic, multi-stable, driven, optimally-turbulent constructal tera-watt scale heat engine with dozens of known and unknown forcings and feedbacks. It has five main subsystems (atmosphere, lithosphere, ocean, cryosphere, and biosphere), none of which are well understood.
New forcings and feedbacks are discovered on a monthly basis. Recently, it was discovered that trees emit the strongest common greenhouse gas, methane. Who knew? What effect does this have on the climate? No one knows. Recently, it was discovered that plankton can affect cloud formation … who knew? What effect, etc.? Recently, it was discovered that there are orders of magnitude more natural plant-generated aerosols than previously thought. Who knew? What effect does it have?
To claim, as you do, that there is some “consensus” about these and the rest of the climate questions is nonsense. And to claim that there is a “consensus” in our scientific understanding about, not simply how the system works, but the future state of that system, is the height of hubris.
I started this thread to discuss the Precautionary Principle (PP). The version of the PP espoused by the branch of the UN most responsible for Kyoto says that if a cost-effective solution to a serious problem exists, lack of scientific certainty should not be an excuse for not acting. Far from having certainty, we have no agreement at all, neither about the science or about the cost effectiveness. You think Kyoto is cost effective, and perhaps on your planet it is.
On this planet, on the other had, many countries are complaining about the costs already, and we’re less than a year into the game. Canada is considering bailing because of the costs, as is Italy. So on this planet, the people paying the bills are saying it isn’t cost effective … I’ll leave it at that.
A couple of final points. I said
You replied:
OK, let’s go back to basics. For any additional increase to a system at equilibrium, the system will generally return to equilibrium in a manner known as “exponential decay”. This means that when the disturbance is large, the restoring force is large, and vice versa. In chemistry this characteristic return to equilibrium is known as “Le Chatelier’s Principle”.
With the atmosphere, consider what would happen to a single pulse of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. The first year, a certain amount of the excess would be sequestered. With each following year, less and less would be sequestered, until equilibrium was restored. The process can be modeled as C(t1) = X C(t0), where C is the CO2 level, X is some number from 0 to 1, t1 is a given year, and t0 is the previous year. The meaning of this is that the amount of excess atmospheric CO2 will reduce by a fraction (1-X) per year. Exponential decay is the name for this.
It is certainly not necessary to take my word for this. The relevant data is all available from CDIAC, which is the amount of annual emissions and the annual CO2 content. Right now, slightly less than half of the emissions are sequestered.
If emissions stay the same, CO2 in the air will rise. As it rises, more CO2 (in tonnes, not percentage) will be sequestered, until the tonnage sequestered will equal the amount emitted. Please go and do the math, and report back what you find.
If you don’t understand this … I’m not surprised. Go to the CDIAC, get the data, take a look, do the math. I’m not making this up, it’s basic atmospheric science. A google search for (“exponential decay” atmospheric CO2), for example, brings up 25,000 hits, so your What? is just revealing your utter lack of knowledge of the subject.
Also, someone asked about the calculations of the effect of Kyoto. These were made by a believer in anthropogenic global warming, and the calculations (shown in Wigley, T.M.L., 1998. Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 2285-2288) reveal that it is ludicrously small.
Lastly, jshore commented about Kyoto that “I wouldn’t expect an article in Science to specifically advocate or not advocate for a specific international agreement.”
Well, I wouldn’t either, which shows how far Science magazine has fallen. See, for example,
Science 14 June 2002:
Vol. 296. no. 5575, pp. 1971 - 1972
DOI: 10.1126/science.1071238
CLIMATE CHANGE : Dangerous Climate Impacts and the Kyoto Protocol
for one of many, many articles espousing the protocol … which is why I pointed out that the cited article did not espouse the protocol. Instead, it suggested a much lower-cost solution, bearing out my claim that Kyoto is not cost effective, at least on my planet … but as always, YPMV …
w.
Not to put a damper on your point or anything, but many of those 60 are deep in the pockets of Exxon, and some of them are also tied to organizations that get their funding from the Koch brothers and their cohorts. Also, while some of the mouthpieces are indeed climate scientists, I don’t think the economists, math professors, energy consultants, physics professors, etc. can really qualified to be called climate scientists (not that the actual climate scientists being paid as mouthpieces are super qualified themselves).
I was expecting that ad hominem attack, and DMC, you did not disappoint me. Heck, you even called them “mouthpieces” … it was perfect, you’re too good to be true.
Tell me, DMC. If a scientist is paid by that noted bastion of greenhouse warming true believers, NOAA, is his work suspect?
What about if he’s taken money from Greenpeace? Does that automatically make him wrong?
What if the scientists’ entire livelihood depends on the “existence” of anthropogenic greenhouse warming? Should we disbelive him because his livelihood is on the line?
I don’t care if someone is being paid by the devil himself. Unlike you, I care about only one thing – if their science is right or wrong. Your ad hominems make me sick to my stomach, it’s as bad as saying, “You can’t believe him, his skin is black.”
Neither the color of a man’s skin nor whose name is on his paycheck makes him either right or wrong, and it is the vilest kind of slander to make that claim as you are doing.
If you think one or more of the 60 signers have done bad science, give us a citation to support your insinuation … otherwise, put a sock in it, because without a scientific basis to your claim, it is prejudice pure and simple.
w.
Duly accepted. Enjoy Venus.
Yes, quite right. I didn’t deny it. That’s why I said that if we stopped emitting entirely, tomorrow, the CO2 concentration would level off at around 480 ppm. But if we keep emitting enormous pusles every day, only part of each of which is sequestered. How else do you explain the rise each year?
Cite, please. This is magic, not science.
intention, consensus does not mean unanimity. This website gives a list of PhD scientists who believe in creationism and not evolution.
As others have pointed out, most aren’t climate scientists and many are the usual list of suspect. This article discusses just how strong the consensus is within the peer-reviewed scientific literature. While some have argued that her definition of what qualifies agreement or disagreement with the consensus might have been imperfect, noone has demonstrated how this can change things more than from completely overwhelming to very overwhelming.
No, the reason is mainly because there are not enough people who have strong economic interests or political or religious beliefs that compel them to believe the earth is flat. As the debate about evolution shows, there can indeed be cases where debate is essentially manufactured.
As for your complaint about ad hominem attacks, I think this complaint would make sense if you were applying it within the peer-reviewed scientific community. I.e., science should be decided on the basis of the science itself (although many journals do require now the disclosure of any competing interests). However, when one has the case where a group of scientists has either essentially lost the battle in the literature (or, in many cases, not or barely even entered into it) and is instead taking their case directly to the public and politicians, it is perfectly legitimate to question their motives, as we already know they haven’t been winning the scientific debate.
It is complex, no doubt. However, we understand enough about it to know that the perturbation that we are putting on it is not a small one. We know roughly how it will behave if things behave fairly linearly…and we know there is the possibility of even more dramatic scenarios.
Why should we believe your opinion regarding the degree of certainty that exists and whether it justifies taking action when we have the opinionof 11 National Academies of Science? They say:
First of all, you seem to be assuming that the perturbation itself doesn’t increase over time. The amount of CO2 we are emitting has done so. Second of all, this is not any universal law of nature, in fact many of the sinks for CO2 will likely saturate and warming is likely to release new sources of CO2 and methane.
Your supposed scientific hypothesis here in regards to the carbon cycle goes against all…or nearly all…of the peer-reviewed science on the subject.
Well, again, what were the assumptions in Wigley’s calculation? Unfortunately, I don’t have easy access to GRL. However, I can tell you almost for sure that the assumptions were based only on what Kyoto would do to actual CO2 levels in the period 2008-2112 when it regulates them. It did not include the effects on technological development, etc.
And, your evidence that what it advocated was a much lower-cost solution is what exactly? Since Kyoto has set up a market for trading CO2 emissions credits, I don’t see how it could be much more expensive than any other alternative that also effectively puts a tax on greenhouse gas emissions, which is very clearly what they are talking about in that article. What is your proposed alternative?
This technique, by the way, is called “poisoning the well”. I.e., you are attempting to imply that the trusted scientific sources can’t be trusted, so we would do just as well to listen to the scientists who are associated the Cato Institute [Patrick Michaels], the George C. Marshall Fund [Soon and Baliunas], Tech Central Station, the National Center for Policy Analysis, and so forth.
I’m sorry but you can’t equate these groups and, for example, NOAA (or the National Academy of Sciences). I don’t think one should be listening to either Greenpeace or the George C. Marshall fund on this issue; I think one should be listening to the peer-reviewed scientific community and highly-respected scientific organizations.
I have to concur with jshore and SentientMeat in thinking that this claim sounds rather Beechnutty. Are you perhaps confusing “total amount of emissions staying the same” (i.e., humans totally stop adding any new CO2 to the atmosphere at all) with “rate of emissions staying the same” (i.e., humans continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere, but at a constant rate)?
In the former case, as Sentient explained, the system would regain equilibrium in accordance with Le Chatelier’s principle. But I don’t see what mechanism would produce that effect in the latter case.
Basically, you seem to be saying that no matter how much CO2 we emit into the atmosphere at a constant rate, the atmospheric CO2 level would remain constant indefinitely at 480 ppm. That is, as soon as we’d pumped in enough to bring the concentration up to 480 ppm, all the CO2 we pumped in from that point onward would have no effect whatsoever on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. 
How you figure?
Indeed it does, but I haven’t been able to find even one that says what you’re saying. (I haven’t looked at all 25000, natch.) The first hit is from the CDIAC organization that you’re recommending to us as a source, but it isn’t saying that atmospheric CO2 will level off to a constant value if we keep our emissions rate constant.
If this hypothesis is such “basic atmospheric science” as you claim, you must surely be able to point us to a cite that specifically and clearly explains how it works. Thanks in advance.
Oh, and, by the way, in response to those 60 scientists who wrote the Canadian government, a group of 90 wrote a counter-letter and they are all actually Canadian scientists and all are apparently working on climate science. And, note that at least one of the original 60 says he was misled in regards to what the content of what he was signing onto was going to be and he is now one of the 90 who signed the counterletter.
Even here, things are more complex, as this RealClimate post explains. I.e., it is not a simple exponential decay but actually has an extremely long tail:
No it isn’t. I agree with you that we can’t automatically discount the conclusions of researchers funded by industry sponsors. But it is perfectly valid to note that industry sponsorship does sometimes bias research, and to take that into account when considering research results. (And yes, that would apply just as much to pro-AGW results sponsored by, say, manufacturers of wind turbines or solar panels as it does to anti-AGW results sponsored by ExxonMobil.)
It is certainly not comparable to a racist ad hominem attack, and attempting to play the race card in this way just makes your objection look silly.
If you were expecting it, then you already knew that they were paid mouthpieces. Not that I find that shocking or anything.
If the NOAA was almost purely funded by corporations that would benefit greatly from their findings leaning one way or another, sure. It’s not, so no.
If the volume of money is significant, I’m certainly going to take it into consideration when ascertaining the credibility of his statements.
See above.
No, you care only if their “science” agrees with you or not.
Not unless having black skin takes away from one’s credibility. It doesn’t in my book, but perhaps your book is different.
I’m starting to think you’re one of the mouthpieces. Seriously.
Many of them haven’t even done any science to refute. That public letter they put out contains such gems as:
So the fact that today’s results don’t match what the models predict will happen in the future, it’s not real? This is science? By the way, how are you able to read that memo that was in my link and still come back with a straight face to defend them?
I asked if you could refute any of their science. You replied
I’ll take that as a “no”, that you don’t have a clue if they are good scientists or not. I have read the list, and I have been impressed by the work of a number of them.
By the way, you totally misunderstand the quote about the models. Models are tested by seeing if they can match up with observational evidence. This process, often called “back-casting” or “hind-casting”, shows whether the models can at least reproduce historical climate data. It is vital that we do this before we trust them to predict an unknown future.
Their quote points out that the models have done horribly in hindcasting actual observations, and thus should not be relied upon.
Finally, you guys seem to think that the way scientific credibility works is to determine where someone went to school, who pays their salary, whether they agree with the “consensus”, and the like. You say we should use that to establish their credibility.
I attempted to point out that where a scientist went to school, or who pays his salary, has as little to do with the scientific validity of their work as the color of their skin.
There is one, and only one, way to establish scientific credibility, which is to LOOK AT THE SCIENCE. Not at the schooling. Not at the degree. Not at the beliefs. Not at the skin colour. THE SCIENCE.
Sheesh …
w.
To all of you … yes, 90 scientists did submit a reply to the 60 scientists … and yes, there were some non-scientists on both lists.
However, this just proves my point, that there is in fact no consensus.