I had always heard people using this to dismiss Global Warming conflating it with Nuclear Winter, which they would freqiently point out never happened. The reason for that is, of course, that we didn’t have a nuclear war.
Firstly, as the UK has shown, cutting emissions need not have an unduly detrimental effect on economic growth - there’s plenty of low-hanging fruit which just requires simple common sense to save a whole load of energy, such as not heating/lighting empty buildings. But we’ll leave that point for now.
So to the question Is Kyoto worthless in cutting CO2? It is this point which Cecil’s writers have missed by a mile.
Climatologists agree that the climate might well have tipping points (warning: factual errors, but the claim that there are irreversible consequences is not contested); unpredictable configurations where rapid changes can set in. Now, they don’t know where they are even if they exist - they can only assess the risk for any given CO2 concentration. All we know is that we haven’t reached one yet (at 380 ppm), despite a (fully anthropogenic) 30% increase in just 200 years.
If we use up all of the oil and natural gas we know is fairly easily available, as well as some coal, the projected CO2 concentration will be at least 750 ppm. (If we burn all the coal too, this passes 1000 ppm, and if we burn everything, even the relatively inaccessible sources, we’re looking at 3000 ppm or more!). No climatologist I know of even suggests that a CO2 concentration of 750 ppm (three times the pre-industrial level) would be “safe” in this respect. It is just so drastic a change in our atmosphere that no amount of corrective measures such as tree-planting or deliberate cloud-formation could ameliorate the warming effects. In their opinion, at 750 ppm, the probability of rapid change approaches 100%. (And note that this is in addition to “normal” consequences such as rising sea levels).
Some climatologists think we might be on the very verge of such a tipping point, in the next couple of decades (ie. at 400 ppm) – these could reasonably be described as the more alarmist end of the scale. Most climatologists suggest a concentration of, say, 500 ppm is the edge of safety – the equivalent of balancing Italian Job style.
So, let’s say there is a tipping point in the next 350 ppm (ie. this century at current emission rates) – as generally agreed by every climatologist I know of (even Pielke warns against such enormous concentrations). It could be nearer 750 ppm, it could be near today’s 380 ppm – let’s just call it X ppm. That X is the limit. We cannot from that point emit any more CO2 than is absorbed by the world’s plantlife (I don’t know the figure for this per annum), and this is the proverbial cliff edge. (Note that this is only a metaphor – I don’t think humanity will literally be wiped out or anything if eg. the Great Ocean Conveyor switches off, there’ll just be large scale migrations of the Northern Hemisphere population and the like).
Now, do we drive headlong towards X ppm applying no brakes whatsoever, indeed touching the accelerator a little, in the hope that the technological boffins on the back seat will invent eg. an emissionless jet engine just in time for us to screech to a stop right at the cliff edge? And then find out that uh oh, one nation state or other doesn’t believe all this nonsense anyway and just goes ahead and burns all its coal?
What Kyoto does is applies the brakes to the current biggest emitters, delaying the point at which the X ppm cliff-edge looms large in our windscreens. The further away X is from today’s 380 ppm, the bigger that delay scales up. It could even provide the crucial few years worth of innovation.
And it was only ever meant to be a start. Our great-grandchildren might well be justified in cursing our graves if they find out we didn’t even try.
This SciAm article suggests what we can try.
There are conjectures on both sides of the debate. There are good points and evidence to support both a man-made global warming trend or a natural fluctuation in the earth climate.
But with lack of solid, definitive answers on either side, I would hope that people would try to err on the side of safety and prudence in this matter. Even though it may not affect you in your lifetime, it may have a devastating impact in the future.
These are estimates, but I think they point to a picture of deviance from historical fluctuations:
-Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, we have lost up to 40% of the ozone in the upper atmosphere. This is the layer that absorbs many types of radiation (mainly UVB rays) from the sun and space. If this trend continues, we will see increased instances of skin cancer, cataract cases and decreased crop productivity. This was exacerbated during the mid 20th century with the use of CFCs.
“numerous experiments have shown that CFCs and other widely-used chemicals produce roughly 84% of the chlorine in the stratosphere, while natural sources contribute only 16%.” -U.S. EPA http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/sc_fact.html
-Carbon Dioxide levels have increased since the industrial revolution but had been increasingly worse in the 20th century. Truly, the earth and humans can sustain and survive a certain level of carbon dioxide. But right now, we are at approximately 0.06% levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Health estimates say that it is safe for humans to be exposed to 0.5% levels for a prolonged period of time. They also suggest that no one be exposed to levels of 2% or higher for more than a few minutes. I know this may seem like it’s something that can’t ever happen, but when we look at historical data in the short, medium and long terms, there are some questions we should be raising. In the very short term, from the Mauna Loa Observatory, CO2 levels rose from 320ppm to 380. In the Short Term, CO2 levels have risen from below 300ppm in the mid 1700s to 380 present day. When observing thing in a longer time scope, over the past half a million years, disregarding the most recent 10,000 years, we have not had levels above 300ppm during interglacials (time between ice ages) and had levels down to 180-210 ppm during these ice ages. But when looking at things in the extreme long term (hundreds of millions of years), we see levels of CO2 which are extreme, some close to the levels we are experiencing, but some as high as 6,000-7,000 ppm. Since we don’t know the cause of this, I am purely speculating that it may have to do with meteor crashes on earth, like the one that may have killed the dinosaurs. But since man has been on this planet (approximately 3 million years), these times indicate one of the highest if not the highest levels of CO2.
Thus, in my commentary, I figure it like this: There have been numerous studies that say that the earth, as it is currently, can and is absorbing less of the greenhouse gasses than is produced by human activities. This problem is going to become exacerbated and exponentially worse with the industrialization of China, India and many other parts of the world. Again, with the lack of definitive answers, it’s best to err on the side of caution before the levels of CO2 become toxic to humans.
Here’s my little thought experiment. Imagine yourself in a completely enclosed box. You have enough plants and other organisms in your little self contained box so that during the course of normal living there is no net effect on the environment. If you start burning things, digging up things to burn, adding more people to your little box, throw in a car or two, at some point the air in your box will become unbreathable or toxic. The earth in not a limitless resource. It’s just a pretty big box.
SlowMindThinking, Post 35:[ul][li]I am ignorant of the research. That is why I refer to other’s cites. In turn, Crichton is referring to data collected from other researchers. I would not trust his creation of the data because he is not qualified as a climatologist. I would not trust his analysis of other’s data because he is not qualified as an analyst. I would take the data presented and the observations and see if they correlate. If you say that it is not correct to give credence to the data and his observations because his is not a qualified analyst, then that could be said of this entire thread (except, it seems, for JustAnotherGeek)[]I get the 400% variance from the statement that the IPCC spoke of a 1.5 to 6 degree rise in temperature by 2100. If 1.5 is 100% then 6 is 400%. You may say that the difference is 300% and that the variance is the square of the standard deviation. I don’t have that data. All I see is that a prediction of 1.5 to 6 degrees is a too uncertain a range for me to consider the prediction meaningful for me.[]Perhaps I was too short with “the science is not present.” What I should have said was “the science is not accurate enough at present for meaningful prediction and implementation of change at this time” in my opinion.[]My quotes of data are from Crichton’s speech and his sources. I am not rejecting global warming or measured changes. I am saying that I believe the impact of CO2 emmisions by anthropogenic sources is not well understood.[]As to “I am sorry you see so poorly.” - Attacks on my character don’t change the data and do not confirm your position. You cannot bully consensus from me.[*]Sorry about the typo; I should have said “I made all these changes because we saw what the real world effects would be”.[/ul][/li]
I don’t know if he is or isn’t. It doesn’t matter. All that matters is the data and an accurate climatology model. You also cannot bully consensus from me.
I would be wary that this is true.
That is absurd on the face of it. One person says the Earth is round and the consensus says it is not. It’s up to the one, or anyone, who wants to say “the Earth is round” to prove it, but consensus does not make the world flat.
All,
When Global Cooling was the rage and there was consensus among the scientists that it was true, did you believe them when they had no accurate climatology models?
Once again, you’ve got to show that Global Cooling was “all the rage.” One 150-word Newsweek article isn’t sufficient. Also, Crichton frequently gets his science wrong (he did in Timeline too, frex) and definitely had an axe to grind.
I liked Hal Clement’s The Nitrogen Fix, though it’s been over 20 years since I read it.
Hey, I thought Global Cooling sounded good in its day. I knew I didn’t have any data and that no one was presenting any proof so I was wary. I’m not accusing. I’m pointing out that consensus and popular opinion might be wrong at times.
As for Crichton and his axe; whether or not he can play a guitar like Jimmy Hendrix or Dave Lister is not germane (or tito) to the issue.
Here is an interesting open letter pertinent to this conversation.
I hate to even get into this debate, but let me just state my OPINIONS. I was around when the new ice age was supposedly upon us in the 70’s (admittedly without any reliable climatic models and only a couple of cooler than normal years). I didn’t fall for that one.
Since then I have gotten into the environmental profession, (not an environmentalist, mind you) and have had first hand experience with how ignorant people are about how their activity affects their environment. I don’t know if global warming is caused by human activity, but the evidence seems to be increasingly pointing in that direction.
It is an entirely different question whether global warming is having an effect on the number and frequency of tropical storms and hurricanes, or for that matter any other physical manifestation that might be tied to global warming.
I’m sure that every point made on this forum could be supported by at least 10 internet cites/sites. However, a healthy debate does not appear to be materializing here. In my opinion, you have to step back from the science, or lack of it on this issue, and take a broader view.
What are the consequences if we wanted to reduce CO2 (or any other) emissions? I don’t really see a downside to this effort.
• We wean ourselves from a limited resource (coal/petroleum) that is not under our (political) control (NOTE: please don’t hijack with a debate on whether we have 50, 100 or 500 years of these resources left, the point is they are finite)
• We clean up the air/water or other media that we live in (speaking broadly regarding overall emissions reductions).
• We take the technological lead on such efforts and the ability to market them globally.
• We conserve resources and become more energy efficient.
It seems to me that these are all things that we would want to do anyway. I am not convinced that this would create any more of an economic hardship than doing nothing.
NOTE: the “we” in the sentences above refers to the US.
I agree that some study should continue on climate change and the human factor, but we need to analyze what we expect to get out of this or whether our resources would be better utilized in becoming more energy efficient and less polluting.
I am a proponent of nuclear energy development, and I think economically and politically this makes sense. And yes, I am fully aware of what happened at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and that there are issues associated with nuclear energy such as health effects and what to do with the spent fuel. Just because we did it shabbily the first time doesn’t mean we should abandon it.
It appears to me that all of this energy and effort arguing whether global warming is “real” or not and speculating how it might affect us is counterproductive. Let’s put our efforts into creating a world that we would want to live in, and more importantly pass along to our children.
And just to show you I can search the internet as well as anyone else:
Russia was allowed to argue that its vast forests soaked up at least 17 million metric tonnes of carbon a year, thus sparing it the need to reduce its use of coal and oil by that amount. BBC News Friday, 9 November, 2001, 10:06 GMT
A nice short analysis of the economics of Carbon Trading and where the US stands:
http://www.eponline.com/stevens/eppub.nsf/d3d5b4f938b22b6e8625670c006dbc58/e9bcb8028ab2bccc86256fc4006018f9?OpenDocument
And of course another doomsayer that connects stronger and more frequent hurricanes with global warming that is caused by humans.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12001020/site/newsweek
This article indicates that Russia stands to cash in on a windfall in Carbon Credits trading. To paraphrase, their industries were inefficient and large CO2 sources in 1990, (and they received large credits for their vast forests, i.e. carbon sinks) so that they are currently 43% below 1990 emission levels and are not expected to get back to those levels until 2020. In addition, they have plenty of opportunity to utilize upgraded technology to attain their goal and still possibly bank credits for trading.
The moral of the story, make sure you are the biggest CO2 source with the most inefficient technology when the baseline is set.
“The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.”
-Nelson Henderson
Agreed…but aren’t was already doing this? Our cars are less polluting than in the past. They generally get better gas mileage than in the past. We are working on alternative fuels already. We have good alternatives (to power anyway) already waiting in the wings…we just need to break the hold of the past generation of eco-nuts have on the publics perceptions about nuclear energy.
It would take fairly drastic measures though to really cut down on CO2 in the short term…measures that WOULD have an economic impact. Unless someone has data that Kyoto by itself would make a significant difference in the short term, and that once its adopted by the US that will be the limit…i.e. no further reductions will be asked for AND that this will make a noticable impact on global climate change. Because from my own reading I have this sneaking suspicion that once Kyoto is adopted by the US (bringing on most of the rest of the holdout nations on board as well) that the next phase is to up the ante with a NEW round of cuts. And then another new round of cuts. Each of which would damage our (and the worlds) economy even more. And that this is actually the plan…once you get them on the road you just keep bringing in new cuts.
Instead of trying to cut emmisions we should be doing what we are already doing…searching for alternatives, and trying to change the perception of the public towards nuclear power. Now…if someone wants to say we need to ramp up THAT effort then I’m all ears. I think we need to seriously push nuclear power in the country with the goal of being 90%+ nuclear within some short time line (say a decade or perhaps 2 decades…whatever is realisticly do-able).
-XT
I appreciate the notion that someone thinks I’m an “expert”, but I don’t know how qualified I really am. OTOH, I know people who are probably qualified.
I’m just a poor grad/ nobody loves me.
He’s just a student from a poor discipline.
hrrrmph… gotta work on it some more…
If you had read my link about global cooling, you would realize how foolish that question is.
Believe it or not, in science, consensus rules. This is just the way science works. Consensus is not only how things are done, it’s how things OUGHT to be done. Science should have inertia, it is a consolidation of knowledge.
I know man will create massive world-wide flooding that will destroy up to 3 feet of coastline based on 2 or 3 centuries of industrialization in the US. It’s proven by the ice caps receding, you dolts!!! All we, as good Americans, need to do is severly curtail out lifestyle to save the Earth! India and China, with no “global” pressure to care about dying puppies, aren’t under any pressure at all to halt or even care about pollution.
What I want to know is who was around to screw up my fishing? I mean, I live in the middle of one of the largest fresh-water lakes to ever exist. Except there is no lake.
Here’s where I’m getting confused. At one point there was a huge glacier extending from here to the geologic formations as far as Wisconsin and Michigan. Then the glacier melted creating this huge-ass lake. Then something happened to dry everything out, save the Great Lakes.
Seems a little more significant than a 3 degree rise in average worlwide temps over the next 100 years caused by us humans. 3 degrees per century over 400 years won’t make the Ice-Age recede.
Maybe the Creationists are right and we lived among the dinosaurs. We somehow put their bodies on the fast-track for oil production to kill the Earth.
Personally, I’m gambling on a 5 billion year history of the planet kicking our asses after 5000 years.
Just saying.
To be fair, centuries ago scientists beleived the Earth was flat and leeches could cure almost any disease. The difference is back then a scientist had to argue his case rather than post to a blog and get support from lobbies that agreed with him.
Even centuries ago, scientists knew the Earth was round. And I’m unaware of any science of leeches. But still, scientists today have to argue their case with evidence presented in a peer-reviewed paper, the results of which any other study or letter to the journal can dispute. Science is consensus, which arises through reasoned argument. But you do have a point with the lobbies. Money does distort things. However, government grants are fairly benign compared to business grants, because the government doesn’t have a profit motive.
I don’t think it’s appropriate to say “scientists” believed the earth was flat. The ancient Greeks knew it was round and had a pretty good idea of how big it was. Which scientists disagreed?
Actually leeches ARE good for certain cures (I forget which ones off the top of my head…I think its related to what they use as an anti-clotting agent when they suck blood)…especially some blood related things. They are also very good for brusing and such. 
-XT
Um, couple things.
First, let me be the first to address the grant angle. Many grants are granted to “think-tanks” that are funded thanks to lobbyists. Any grant is political. Who do you think grants the grants? Politicians. If you had, personally, $2 million to give to a study, you could demand no bias going into the study. You won’t get it, because to get anyone with legitimacy, you’d get someone human. And to get get anyone at that level is going to have an opinion and theory going into it.
Centuries ago, it was known that Earth was round. I was mistaken in saying that. I meant the beleif that the Earth was the center of the solar system. You were right, but so was I.
And leeches? It was less than 200 years ago that leeches were used to treat anything from abnormal behavior to massive trauma. The leeches were true and used often. And they were used at the same time as coal burning factories were being built.
If we are groping for when science has been hoodwinked or simply wrong lets not forget Piltdown Man ehe? Its kind of ridicuous to deny that science have never been wrong. But its more ridicuous to not see that science keeps hammering at a problem and eventually gets it right.
With Global Warming I think the jury is still out. Evidence is mounting but even though there is a ‘consensus’ among scientists I think its really premature…we simply don’t have the long term data to know exactly what effect man is having (except that its non-zero), what the long term effects are going to be…and what can or should be done about it. Right now the questions simply don’t have solid SCIENTIFIC answers…just educated (in some cases VERY educated) guesses.
I think this is the core problem some of us have with the whole issue. I’m no Global Climate Change denier…I’m fairly confident we ARE going through a period of global climatic shift here on earth. I don’t even deny that man is having some non-zero effect on this shift. I just have trouble with the fact that without solid models and solid data on exactly what effect man is having and what effect cutting X% of our CO2 emmissions will have that people are trying to make policy…and policy that WILL have a negative effect on the global economy. A negative effect without a real solid guarentee that it will actually help in the long run.
-XT
How can you be so certain about this? Do you have a cite, and what makes you so sure that modeling the global economy is easier than modeling the global climate? I would have expected the opposite.