He wrote a political book appealing to science, badly, and was taken to task by scientists. Subsequently, different political groups, (including scientists engaging in political polemics) chose to interpret his statements to their political advantage (pro and con).
If you wish to say that the political group with which you agree successfully persuaded you that his politics were vindicated, I think you could get away with that. The best that has been said about his science is that, while wrong, he had been attacked on his politics.
-the earth is not warming
to
-okay it’s warming but not because of anything humans do
to
-okay its because of what humans do but we can’t stop it
to
-okay we could stop it, but it wouldn’t be very cost effective, you know
And the President is quietly invinting in a writer of science fiction to consult and comiserate over the problem, but otherwise ignoring real scientists.
Nuts to you, I’m going to the MOON. For NOE RAISIN!
You asked for someone who thinks 11C won’t cause DAI. Even I think 11C is a pretty darn risky rise in temperature.
However, I don’t think 11C could be reached through CO2 concentrations and neither does that climatologist. So while I think 11C would probably be bad, I don’t think it is going to happen.
I would like to point out that given that particular scientist’s bolded text that any assertation of a probable rise of 11C would be alarmist. And, any speculation on the disaster the world would face because of a 11C rise would be falsely protraying the speculations of the science.
I am betting this won’t even be a speed bump for your alarmist, doomsday outlook though.
Of course, there’s plenty of them, but that’s not what I asked you. I asked for a single climatologist who thought that the “higher end of temperature rise”, as you put it, or a concentration of what we’re on course for, would not be dangerous. Every climatologist thinks a CO2 concentration of 700+ ppm constitutes DAI, regardless of what they think the temperature rise will be, and they also all think that anything more than 6 degrees would be extremely dangerous too.
Now, almost all of them think a concentration of, say, 550 ppm and/or a temp rise of 4 degrees would be past the DAI limit, so you might well find one or two who didn’t. But the exact, unanimous consensus you asked for is that the DAI limit (of concentration, if not temperature due to the time lag between the two) will be reached this century if we don’t reduce emissions.
You are most assuredly overstating a consensus right now.
Post a cite to any article of science, agreed upon by a consensus of climatologists that states for certain a DAI limit for CO2 concentrations, the estimate on when it will be reached and the consequences of it.
You have stated a very clear consensus. Please cite.
Please, Please, Please say the IPCC report.
Btw, if your consensus agrees that the temp limit is 6C is the for sure bad temp rise then my scientist clearly states his research refutes that it is possible, is robust, peer reviewed and strongly disproves the high ranges you continue to ring the alarm about. You asked for one, I gave it then you off-handly brushed it aside using the consensus argument, again.
It is not at all ironic how much the IPCC fanbois ridicule Michael Crichton considering how often they prove him right.
Please also tell me what other bad consequences higher CO2 concentrations may cause besides temp rising that may be pertinent to this conversation.
That is because there are not major public policy implications associated with relativity. And, there are not major economic interests who have a vested interest in pushing to fund scientists who attack relativity.
Here is what the creationist folks have to say in regards to people who support them. It doesn’t sound particularly less distinguished than those scientists who deny AGW.
First of all, in these discussions, it is important to distinguish predictions of the eventual temperature rise given our future greenhouse gas emissions with those of climate sensitivity which is defined as the response of the climate to a doubling of CO2. Annan is talking about climate sensitivity. A doubling will take us to 560 ppm. If we continue to emit fossil fuels without any concern regarding AGW, we will almost surely surpass that in this century. In fact, there are some who think that leveling off CO2 levels at somewhere around 550ppm may be the best we can hope for with a major effort (although some are still hopeful we can level off a little bit lower than that).
Second, yes, a 11C climate sensitivity seems pretty unlikely. The IPCC range that they used to make their projections was 1.5 to 4.5 C. The general opinion that seems to be emerging is that the likely range is probably more like 2-4 C. However, there still remains the small probability that the value lies outside of this range.
Unfortunately, it is not yet well-understood how sensitive things like the land ice on Greenland and Antarctica is to warming. I think that most scientists think that Greenland will eventually mostly melt if the temperature rise is about 3C or more. (Greenland has enough ice on it to raise sea levels about 7 meters…i.e., ~22 feet.) However, some scientists like Jim Hansen, arguing on the basis of evidence for the last interglacial when temperatures were not that much warmer than they are now and sea levels were ~5-6 meters higher, believe that we may only have about 1 C left before significant melting will occur. They note that the process by which the land ice breaks up is highly non-linear, involving the melt water providing lubrication for the ice to slide and so forth. Evidence from the past shows some very rapid sea level rises that I don’t think the current models of ice melting can replicate.
By the way, to put things in perspective, Hansen notes that the global temperature rise between the last ice age and the current interglacial was an estimated 5C. And, if you live in the northern part of the U.S. (probably roughly the northern 1/3) that spells the difference between the current climate and being buried under thousands of feet of glacial ice! So, although 5C globally may not sound like a hell of a lot, it is a huge change.
Point one that you make is wrong. Billions of dollars is spent each year on politically/government based spending, namely the space industry, which relies on the science of relativity. There is plenty of heated debate umongst the politicians and scientists on whether or not the spend that money. None of the debate is about whether or not the science of Relativity is sound.
Give me a break on the second point.
Lets look at this list, it is the one we are implying I think: link
Are you implying that the credentials of all those people listed are not authentic climate, or related to the field, scientist credentials? Then if they are on the surface good looking credentials are you implying it is just a big hoax, a lie, a misrepresentation of what the real scientists with those names and credentials are really saying?
So not only have you said that they are wrong, previously. You are also implying that they are not scientists as well?
I am a little confused about the doubling, and the numbers you are talking about jshore. Please clarify because:
This seems to say to me that coupled with what Annan said if we double 1999’s 367 ppm we would get a 3C rise in temperatures from 1999?
So if we take all that at face value, we would get an estimated total change in temp from all the released CO2 since around the 1900’s of around 4C when we hit a ~734ppm concentration? (Observed temp change for 1900 ~1C + 3C)
I am just asking so I can get a handle on it. Thanks.
At this point, I think it’s useless to argue about WHY global warming is happening. If global warming has been accellerated at all by human activities, it doesn’t matter, because we can’t stop it. It’s a feedback system, so reducing emissions now is basically pointless. People beating their breasts over the “how” of global warming (and trying to prevent it from happening) are wasting their time. What we should really be concentrating on is building models to predict what will happen to temperatures and sea levels and on what kind of time scale so that we can “take evasive action”, so to speak.
Many coastal cities will be affected by a rising sea level. Some more than others. It would be far more economically and environmentally useful to take interest in the use and development of low-lying areas and how changes in weather patterns will affect travel, food production, and habitability. For example, the Port of Oakland is a major point of entrance for overseas shipments for the entire Bay area and beyond. If the water level rises, it could threaten the infrastructure of the Port and thus the economy of the Bay Area, California and the rest of the country. Not to mention the environmental impact of all that equipment (and associated chemicals) sinking into the bay. Also, if global warming means changes to weather patterns (which it almost certainly will) we will need to be prepared to move or change crops, abandon areas altogether (due to flooding or lack of water), change shipping routes or times, and who knows what else.
To sum up, we should really be focusing on monitoring and understanding what is happening to the planet in order to prepare for the inevitable effects of global warming. Who gives a shit about who started it?
I am not saying that these other aspects of science have no implications for society. However, the point is that where we tend to get the friction is when the science hits strongly on people’s fundamental religious or political beliefs or economic interests. Evolution hits on the religious beliefs. Global warming hits on both economic interests of some very powerful people. It also hits on some strong political beliefs…Hence, it is not at all surprising to find that most of the people who have the strongest reactions against the AGW theory also have a libertarian or conservative bent.
No, I am not implying that. They are legitimate scientists. But, then presumably so are the scientists on the website that supports creationism. (Hell, I even eat lunch two scientists at work who are creationists! I have to admit that I nearly gagged on my food when one of them started to tell me that there is lots of evidence that the earth is less than 10000 years old!)
Consensus does not mean unanimity. You will always find scientists who, for one reason or another, don’t believe in a generally-accepted theory. It is worth noting, however, that most of these scientists have published very little in the peer-reviewed scientific literature in the climate science field.
I’m not claiming that the certainties in climate science vs. evolution are exactly the same. Obviously, evolutionary theory has been around for longer. However, the analogy is still a very accurate one and indeed the people who dispute evolutionary theory and dispute AGW use earily similar tactics.
That is basically correct. If the climate sensitivity is 3 C, a rise from 280 ppm to 734 ppm would give a little over 4. [Since the affect is approximately logarithmic, the way to compute it is 3 C * [log(734/280)/log(2)] = 4.17 C.
Note a few things, however: This sensitivity means once the earth has come to radiative balance. What has been shown recently is that the earth is currently out of radiative balance. There is an estimated 0.5 C that we are already committed to at the current levels of greenhouse gas concentrations.
Also, although you might think that the rise over the 20th century would help provide a good constraint on what the actual climate sensitivity is, this is not the case because there are too many other factors, both natural and man-made. In particular, there is still a lot of uncertainty around the amount of cooling we have produced due to aerosol pollutants. While it is understood that the warming due to greenhouse gases will eventually win out (because CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time whereas the pollutants do not)…at least as long as we restrict these pollutants for other sound reasons…over the period so far, they could have had a significant influence.
As Apos noted, this is one of the latter stages of climate change denialism: Yes, it is happening, but it is too late to do anything about it.
But, the fact is that it is not an all-or-nothing thing. Yes, we are committed to a certain amount of warming already and we need to be prepared to adapt to it. But no, we shouldn’t blindly keep throwing fuel on the fire since we already have a fire anyway. The difference in expected negative impacts between the lower range and upper range of the IPCC projections of future warming is very large…and while some of that range is due to uncertainty in knowing the climate sensitivity, some of it is also do to uncertainties in our future emissions…something that we can control.
This, in a way is what I base my problem with the Global Warming hysteria.
We are facing a natural warming trend of Earth. Well, not “we”, but rather the planet. “We” can form coalitions and lobbying groups and push for protocols. The Earth? Doesn’t give a shit. Been there, done that.
Somehow it didn’t take a group effort to make the galciers form. It didn’t take a group effort before that to cool the planet enough to form the glaciers. It didn’t take a group effort before that to make sure the planet would be cold enough to form glaciers.
All I’ve ever wanted, and still haven’t seen, is a GW proponent just come out and say they’re in it for self-preservation. It’s not about Mother Earth.
I’d like to ask what man did to end the Ice Age. That seems a pretty big change in climate, yet man-made pollution came along much, much later.
And all this talk of what cities will be affected by rising sea levels is further proof of hubris. We’re told of the coastlines of cities, but not coastlines in general. If we really are to care about the climate change, we shouldn’t worry about cities or resorts.
I find it silly to think what we have done in the last 100 years has any affect greater than what the planet does in any century herself.
The Ice Age ended. There were no CFC’s we produced that I know of. There were no SUV’s. There were no coal factories. Yet the temps increased to the point of melting huge glaciers.
If people want to occupy their time with fighting a warming trend that would have happened whether we were here or not, go for it. They’re fighting nature, not me. If they want to fight pollution, go for it. If you think you can change the global climate in a few years when nature itself needs millenia, keep up the good fight.
It’s all up to how egotistical you are to think you can do anything in under 1000 years to effect some change. And how egotistical you are to think what you’re doing is affecting the climate.
When Earth is damaged enough, she’ll shrug us off. No need to save her.
duffer, you aren’t listening. You have already heard explicit rejections of the silly idea of saving the Earth itself. The threat is to future humans, and billions of them at that.
You have already been told numerous times that the Earth’s natural cycles are slow, but twhat we’re seeing now is very very fast.
What we have done in the last 100 years is increase CO2 concentrations vastly, far far more than would have happened naturally. You simply don’t seem to understand the significance of this undeniable fact.
280 ppm for millennia. 380 ppm within two centuries. +3 ppm per year currently. Climatologist unanimity that 700 ppm constitutes Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference (that Hansen SciAm article I’ve linked to three times in this thread is my citation for this, GreyMatters - turning off the Great Ocean Conveyor is the danger, not just rising temperatures).
These are your unnatural numbers. You have simply not addressed this fundamental point once yet.
duffer: I don’t know if I have much more to add to what Sentient Meat said. But I’ll throw in a few things anyway:
(1) I don’t know how you get the idea that we are facing a “natural warming trend”. Maybe it is because I said we are committed to a certain amount of warming already. However, I was not talking there about natural trends but rather about the warming we have already produced through our greenhouse gas emissions and the additional warming that is “in the pipeline” because the earth is still out of radiative balance…i.e., the temperature has not yet risen the full amount it needs to (given the current levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere) in order to get its outgoing radiation up to the level that it is back in balance again. The warming trend we have started would not have happened “whether we were here or not”. CO2 levels haven’t been as high as they are now for at least 700,000 years…and likely not for about 20 million years.
(2) The fact that the earth has gone through cycles in the climate before (usually much more slowly) does not mean that the current cycle is natural. In fact, studying those cycles helps scientists understand how the earth’s climate system works and how sensitive it is to the known perturbation of increased greenhouse gas levels that we are responsible for. [And, in the absence of human influences, the climate would be expected to remain fairly constant (with some fluctuations…but nothing too dramatic) for the next ~20,000-50,000 years before starting to cool into the next Ice Age.]
(3) You claim that you have only heard AGW “proponents” talk about saving the earth rather than self-preservation. I would say if anything I have heard much more of the latter. Most of what I hear is asking what sort of world we want to bequeath to our grandchildren. I don’t think there is any serious concern that the earth won’t survive what we do to it. Yes, there will likely be massive extinctions…But, the earth has certainly survived such extinctions events before. Eventually, new species will evolve, etc. So, on geologic timescales, sure it won’t matter much to the earth. The real question is whether this is the sort of earth we want to bequeath to our descendants over the next century to millenia. Is it really that important to be able to drive a Hummer that it is worth leaving this legacy for future generations?
Can you provide any citations to major proponents of the various AGW theories who talk about saving “the Earth” that is not in a context securing a healthy place for future generations of humans?