'Global dimming' - scariest TV programme ever makes no impact 18 January 05

The following comment, excerpted from Professor Brignell’s (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2005%20January.htm) web page, is an effective summary of the BBC production that you tout. Perhaps the lack of reaction that you decry is because a large proportion of the population holds opinions similar to the professor’s.

“10.05 pm and just trying to cool down after the latest dose of global warming from the BBC. It was absolutely magnificent – wonderfully photographed, compelling, convincing, relentlessly frightening – and total codswallop. Every trick in the book was there, non-sequiturs, ratchet reporting (deaths of heat in Europe in 2003, but no mention of the unusually large number of deaths from cold in the same year throughout the northern hemisphere), lies (that carbon dioxide is a major greenhouse gas) and the old testament prophet in the form of a “climate scientist” from the Hadley Research Centre calling down fire and brimstone upon us unless we adopt Green ways and start riding bicycles (not horses, because they fart greenhouse gases). It was called “Global Dimming”, based on the thesis that pollution has been reducing the radiation reaching the surface of the Earth: a brilliant conceit, which at once explains away why global warming hasn’t actually happened yet despite the prophecies, while promising even worse to come unless we mend our evil ways. Any uninformed punter who accidentally strayed onto the channel must have been terrified out of his wits. No horror was left unturned, even the ghastly famine in Ethiopia, while England’s green and pleasant land was transformed into a desert before our very eyes. No wonder they are all turning to “reality” TV.

There has never been such brilliant visual propaganda since Germany in the late 1930s. The final outcome? Estimates of global warming will have to be revised upwards.”

Go back to work! You have not yet adequately addressed my substantive response back and yet you resort to answering Mark with this crap! Spend more time answering my post.

Instead of making outrageous claims about propaganda, go back to the science and the math. I am waiting for your next reply back! I raised many points and questions that evidently you cannot answer to my level of satisfaction.

Get back to work and go to all the web pages I cited and answer ALL of my points. I made a substantive response to every single item you addressed to me. I am not going to let you off the hook. This is a debate not propaganda.

I believe you are having difficulty making your case and that is why you resort to claims of propaganda.

Unbelievable!

I cannot help it that you cannot make your case convincingly from either a scientific, mathematical, or even a common sense point of view. Maybe it is because you are incorrect after all!

Now, Get back to work! I am waiting for your next response back! Please take your time to make it a better one.

It is your credibility at stake here. Not Mark or anyone else.

...”codswallop” is the perfect word for this piece of BBC fiction.

Some quotes from the producer:

“This has led many scientists to conclude that the present-day climate is less sensitive to the effects of carbon dioxide than it was, say, during the ice age, when a similar rise in CO2 led to a temperature rise of 6°C.”

This statement is utter rubbish. It is virtually beyond question that the rise in temperature occurred BEFORE the rise in CO2 concentration. So no one who knows anything about the subject thinks that the CO2 rise coming out of the last ice age CAUSED the warming. It was an EFFECT of the warming.

“DR PETER COX: 2040 it could be four degrees warmer,...”

If scientists were licensed, Dr. Cox ought to have his license to practice “science” removed. It is simply ludicrous to claim that the earth will be four degrees Celsius warmer by 2040.

If Dr. Cox would like to put some money behind his mouth, he can contact me on my weblog:

http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2005/01/resolved_the_ip.html

Dear Mark,

You are absolutely correct beyond a doubt that the rise in temperature occurred BEFORE the rise in CO2 concentration.

HOWEVER, your argument is mute because that only accounted for half the warming. The rest of the warming was due to this rise in carbon dioxide and methane which occurred later.

I challenge you Mr. Environmental Engineer to address what I already wrote in my recent posts. I back it up with credible websites and very credible people. FYI, I am an engineer as well.

Now I ask you to stick to the science and the math instead of resorting to unqualified character assassinations. Let us tone it down guy because I can trade insults better than you can.

I already visited your webpage and found that although you may have some valid points, you are missing some very important key points some of which I have already addressed.

Now, go check out my qualified response to Mr. Norbetzangox and see if you can do a better job than he is doing with regard to the science, the math, and the common sense arguments I make. Try your best because I want you to take your time and give a good detailed technical response backed to me backed up by references. Just like I did!

I encourage all of us to tone it down a bit. And maybe that could include me. I do not wish to trade insults unless I feel it absolutely necessary to go there. I would rather see the debates here to be more constructive and civilized like they have been all along!

Fair enough?

Now, I have a responsibility to attend an important meeting to help people reduce their energy usage in their homes not only for reducing greenhouse gases but for other positive reasons including saving money on their energy bills.

I read where you admitted in your writings that you do not understand climate science very well because you feel you are unqualified.

So, I recommend you visit Dr. Spencer Weart’s site. I found his site very helpful and Dr. Weart does a very good job at being objective in my opinion in his essays and I believe you will find this to be true.

Sometimes, we get only part of the information we need when making an informed decision about the science. You will find his website in my detailed response to Norbetzangox.

Sorry, I have to go!

Good Luck! Best Wishes Dan

But, your last post said that I was wasting my time. Make up your mind.

By the way, you twice have used “mute”, which means silent when you meant “moot”, which means debatable but without practical value.

that the warming will increase way beyond the current IPCC high-end projection, according to RealClimate.org. I respect them for their good science and scientific caution.

On the other hand, as a layperson, not bound by a need for high certainty, maybe 5% certainty is enough for me when considering the possibility of rampant runaway GW & 95% extinction of life on earth. We need to consider the implications of the program and act prudently & cautiously, which means reduce our GH gases as much as we possibly can, especially STEP ONE – all those things that save us money without lowering living standards, thereby reducing our GH emissions by 3/4 (for typical American). In fact we should be in the business of destroying GW evidence & stopping this mad experiment on laboratory earth, by reducing our GH emissions.

(We should not, however, stop reducing our aerosols, esp. S2O and NOx, since these harm people & our life-support systems.)

Maybe the science on global dimming & how it is masking a much greater GW will reach 95% certainty sometime in the future, when it will be too late to turn back. Assuming there’s someone still around to do the calculations.

You are correct and I did use the wrong word. Thanks! I do appreciate that.

I think you do a very good job at articulating your thoughts and have a great command of the English language.

For clarity, let me say that I do want you to respond back as long as you take the time to respond back over every point I made. I showed you the same courtesy. You said that you would do this!

I thought I was clear on that but if I was not then I hope this clarifies my position.

It is up to you if you think this is a good use of your time. I say it is because if you cannot do this, I think many on this site will not be able to believe you are credible.

Sometimes Norbetzangox, many people who post on Mark’s site take a position that they believe we have a more serious problem than you believe we have. I happen to side with this.

Now, with that said, it becomes childish for either you or me or anyone else to take cheap shots even though we can be passionate about our own views.

I propose a truce on that aspect. Let us focus on the science and the math and be repsectful even if we passionately disagree. Let our intellect rule above all else.

And this means that we do not make any accusations comparing environmentalists to Nazi propaganda and the like.

Fair Enough?

Yes Lynn, I do always agree with your focus. Sometimes we get caught up in the science and the debate but, like you, I prefer to talk about proactive steps which all of us can do.

I just got back from a Sierra Club meeting and I had about 5 minutes and sold 60 compact fluorescent light bulbs and gave a few tips on energy efficiency in our homes.

It did fit with tonight’s speaker who mentioned that new coal and nuclear power plants that are being planned.

I made a point that if we worked collectively that we could all help to reduce our emissions, save energy, and save dollars. Maybe even reduce the need for future power plants.

I provided calculations to show energy savings, financial savings, and everyone became interested in greenhouse gas emission reductions and I said next month I will have those figures.

I felt very good and my colorful personality was well received among a very proactive and serious group as I noticed the smiles and the laughter. I made many friends.

For me, you remain a very important person and contributor to Mark’s site and I think you set the best example for personal action for all of us to follow. You maintain a high level of integrity and composure as well.

Keep up the good work and thanks for bringing us back to what is most important which is taking responsible personal action that has additional immediate benefits other than JUST saving the planet!

Despite all the recent rhetoric, we all can all eliminate our wasteful habits and how can anyone argue against that!

Always the best, Dan

Hello norbertzangox,

Have you travelled across the equator? Anyone travelling between hemispheres will have noticed the difference between the clear skies of the south and the murky north. Maybe that is why the “Global dimming – scariest TV programme” did not get any reaction. Maybe it is common knowledge that the north is wallowing in its own pollution. Unfortunately your pollution creeps south and eventually affect us too.

It is a pity that we cannot put up a barrier at the equator so that we can have two diffent atmospheres. Then you could come and visit us and see what the world was like before atmospheric polution and global warming.

Unfortunately it is too late. We have already been polluted. Your CFCs have made a great big hole in ozone layer right over us. We have to visit the doctor every year to have our skin cancers burned off.

It is a pity you could not do your global warming experiments on another planet. You could then use earth as the control. We could email each other to see who survived the longest.

Vapour trails and visual atmospheric polution have become so widly accepted that we only notice them when they are not there. What will happen when China has a big atmospheric cleanup so that we can see the Beijing olympics in 2008?

Just on the above topic, I don’t think global warming deniers can comfort themselves with the thought that CO2 lagged temperature change during the end of the last ice age, therefore CO2 cannot affect temperature. In fact, what seems most likely is that solar forcing began to raise temperature, and this was hugely amplified by increases in greenhouse gas concentrations (CO2 but also CH4) – in other words, CO2 forces a positive feedback with temperature. There’s a good post about this on RealClimate.org.

Actually Lynn, I was at a conference last week where several scientists were talking about their results on probability work, which concluded that there was as much as a 30% chance that the earth’s climate sensitivity (to doubled CO2) could be as high as 4-8C (it’s normally judged at about 3C), which would give us very dangerous warming rates with emissions due to rise still in coming years. It’s called a ‘probability density function’ – I can dig out the ref if you need it.

30% is pretty high. People tend to take umbrellas when there’s 30% chance of rain, esp. if they have to walk far.

Also, I think this “dimming” aspect from aerosols is different from the positive feedback loops – such as nature emitting GH gases when it warms a certain amount. I understand some of these feedback loops are now being included in the models, but it seems (not sure) there are more to include (both positive & negative feedbacks) as the models become more sophisticated & scientists gain better data & understanding of individual (& complex, dynamic multi-factor) forcings/mechanisms.

is that some people shut down and give up. When I emailed a friend (who is extremely into reducing GH emissions & abating GW) about runaway global warming & if we reach 6 degrees C warming by 2100, that might lead to massive methane releases & massive extinction of life, her response was what I call the “geological scale” argument: the earth has gone through massive extinctions & cataclysms before, and somehow some of us will survive and start over….

I had expected her to say, “We can’t let this happen. Failure is not an option.” I wonder what would have happened to Apollo 13, if some other (almost any other) commander had been in charge. If the threat is too massive, it boggles the mind & some/most just give up.

On the other hand, we should not underestimate threats just to satisfy the faint-hearted. Rather, we should help strengthen their backbones.

Too much scare is OK only when someone is given a plan to follow.

Then the problem from the scare with no plan is that people have only 2 choices which will be either denial or hopeless resignation.

The problem is made more difficult by the uncertainty and unfortunately the controversy.

Faced with uncertainty with success of any plan is also difficult. And that requires tremendous faith and confidence. Lacking any of that, at least we would have to have tenacity of not going down without a good fight to save the planet. We know that would alleviate guilt even with failure since we did the best we could.

Hope this helps!

Okay, try ‘An observationally based estimate of climate sensitivity’ on http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de/Publications/Gre2002a.pdf

Note the area under the graph at the end represents the probability of a particular climate change (and note especially that no change, as is wished for by the deniers, is essentially calculated as impossible).

Good afternoon, The article mentions the use of bicycles rather than horses whose farts aggravate the greenhouse effects. Could farting be the cause of the brutal exctinction of dinosaurs then?

Don’t you think people do nothing about their environment because they simply are unaware of the impact of their actions, rather than adopting the views of so and so? I currently live in England, where the population gorges on tabloids, stupid voyeuristic tv shows, becomes fat on junk food and starts fad diets, subscribes to gyms and then takes the car to cover the half mile to get there.

A large proportion of the population does not hold any opinion, they are being ruled with the same tricks Julius Cesar employed, enough food and entertainment to keep quiet.

Having been watching the development of the dicussion threads on various sites, I felt compelled to comment. I think that Norbertzangox is an asset to this blog as he is playing the essential role of devil’s advocate. There is no worse a course than becoming convinced by our own certainties: a common human trait.

If a golden nugget of truth is aired, then there is no better test than to pour acid on it.

Norbert makes some fundamentally important points: the ability to effect change is one. If we cannot devise solutions to CO2 release through energy consumption that at least maintain, if not improve our quality of life, then the vast majority of the public will reject it. People are not uncaring, as the massive response to the Asian Tsunami shows, but they will not forgive being scared into an action that proves costly, negative and ultimately mis-directed.

Yet we cannot dare wait for scientific evidence to prove beyond doubt that GW is a culprit as if we get it wrong, we could face an unstoppable Extinction Level Event within a few generations as a worst case scenario.

The precautionary principle does not ignore the limitations of economics and the likely rate of change within communities; but it does require a balanced approach. If we are INFORMED by the scientific community that there is a risk and that there is an element of uncertainty, then we need to look at the repurcussions of responding to that risk. If evidence for the risk grows, or it increases in magnitude then the importance and resources applied to meeting it should grow. Yet every threat creates an opportunity. The industrialised world can operate far far more efficiently and with less impact that at present: efficiencies that can and will generate employment and profits. The end products can improve the quality of life for citizens. Without suppressing the development of the new industrial economies of China and India, can we not enable them to avoid the costly and damaging mistakes those of us in the ‘First world’ have made over the last 250 years? If we cannot predict the future, we can at least clearly see the past.

If the Horizon programme has seriously worried many in the UK ( as it has me) then the response must be ‘what can we do now, and what can we persuade our family & neighbours to do that will benefit them?’

I am encouraged by our own experience in supporting community organisations to develop recycling facilities. The conventional wisdom from local govt. and the private sector was that 23-24% diversion from landfill/incineration was the best that could be achieved. Some of our projects are already achieving 47% within 3 years of start up and many are aiming for over 70%. The projects are becoming self-financing, proving less costly to local authorities than the alternative and creating NEW jobs and economic development. Most householders have responded positively to a good quality of service because they can see the simple link between their choice of action, social, economic and environmental benefits: the TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE.

The role of Civil society is as, if not more, important in effecting change than politicians or major corporates. We are consumers, voters, constituents and litigants. If we are informed and encouraged to act in our own communities and neighbourhoods, we can act faster and more effectively than higher administrations. If governments and boards of directors do not respond to us, they will progressively lose votes/customers. The advent of broadband internet is making civil society’s ability to organise more effective and quicker than ever before.

Let’s not ask peole to give up things and despair, lets push hard for viable, enjoyable alternatives. If we don’t Norbert & co will continue to ignore us or ask ‘why should I’ with some justification and we will not achieve the changes we need in time.

An enjoyable site by the way: Keep up the good work

Colin

Hi Colin,

I basically agree with everything you said. I totally agree that Norbetzangox is advocating the devil. I will comment on the one main point you feel Norbet made about our inability to effect change.

First, I am an engineer and we most definitely can devise solutions to drastically reduce CO2 release from energy consumption that will not only improve our own quality of life but insure that future generations will have a life and that this life will be one of quality.

The uncertainty of the matter works to makes everyone’s case and also the opposite. The proverbial is the glass half full or half empty? Even our ability to deal effectively with this situation is also under uncertainty.

No one can prove to me that we do not have the capability through our own ingenuity to influence change. Many would argue that we definitely have the ability to change our environment in a negative way. Why not the reverse?

Second, I agree with you that people are not uncaring, as the massive response to the Asian Tsunami shows. Therefore, people should care about future generations especially if they have children. No one should want a drastically changed climate for their children.

Third, your ideas for a measured response have merit and they are realistic under our current circumstances waiting and wondering when or if the storm will appear!

One flaw may have to do with comfort. Maybe we do have to sacrifice some comfort in order to succeed. I say this because a measured response does not take into account the concept of thermal inertia which is working against us in this matter. We have to think 2 decades ahead of the game here and imagine that world were here today and act accordingly.

It takes a lot of time to melt ice and raise the oceans. Once large masses of earth warm, then our current actions will have little effect. When we reduce CO2 today, we still have the massive buildup from the past. No matter what it is; be it thermal inertia or financial debt; we have to quit digging our hole ever deeper for the sake of our comfort.

Fourth, I agree with you totally about scare tactics. For me, I have posted that this is OK as long as there is a plan provided which enables action. When people are presented with what appears to be a hopeless case, then they only have 2 options and they are denial and complacency.

I am vehemently against the promotion of complacency and hopelessness. If I believed it was hopeless, then I would live my life not promoting pro-activity since it ultimately will fail. No one can claim with certainty that what we do will ultimately fail!

It is more a matter of desire and salesmanship to help the vast majority of the public to accept measures that may decrease their comfort a bit. I am an American and we have guys fighting a war getting blown to bits bankrupting our nation and the vast majority of our people did not reject it.

If we could sell preventing climate change and have the same desire as we do to employ military means to secure the oil fields, then I think we might all be absolutely astonished at how fast we can reduce our carbon output and fix the environment.

People will give their life to defend our nation. Would we give up some comfort or our complacency to insure the survival of countless future generations? I would give my life for that!

Watch what happens when the first signs of a real catastrophe emerge caused by GW. Then it will be fear about our survival and just like all the air flights immediately grounded after 911, watch as the world and even the USA will have a drastic paradigm shift and do things we could never imagine.

On this score, being prepared by researching all our options would be prudent so people continue to do the right thing even if they did not listen to us all along the way.

The most important thing we all must care about is to make sure all important stations, in the USA and worldwide, are properly funded so we continue our efforts to monitor climate.

No matter what the problem is or the proposed solutions are, we cannot poke our eyes out and be blinded with further uncertainty. If we are to succeed, it helps to be able to see what is ahead of us! I think we all need to have more vision (pun intended)!

Colin, thank-you for participating on Mark’s site! Your comments I believe have great value for us here. Please continue your good efforts in Wales. You set a good example for others. Please come back and visit us anytime.

I ask that blog readers re-read what Colin from Wales (UK) had to say. He has shared his successes and they are more noteworthy than what I had to say in my post here.

Just like my point on thermal inertia, we also have human inertia and so we have even more reasons to not be complacent. What Colin is doing in Wales (UK) needs to be emulated by all of us. Goodluck on your farmhouse!

Best Regards, Dan

Dan,

thanks for your kind response, I am somewhat embarassed by your kind words, I just happen to be lucky enough to do a job I enjoy, managing the grant of small amounts of public money to projects that have merit and potential: they do all the hard work, I get the feel-good: I should be ashamed.

Your point about inertia, both thermal and social is fully understood, but as Lynn Vincentnathan comments on the thread discussing your administration’s budget cuts for climate research, there is also the problem that the American public appear to being insulated from almost all debate on the subject. The same phenomenon seems to occur on the subject of GM foods, where I believe, the American consumer is relaxed about the technology because there is no reporting of the unfolding disasters in Canada or Argentina. So far in Europe, we have managed to halt the reomorseless advance of the biotech monopolies through informed consumer demand. Our major supermarkets cannot sell anything GM that they put on the shelf.

To some extent, there is no point railing against this situation: which is where I admire our friend Norbert: whilst he makes some comments which rankle, he does so in a reasonable manner which demands consideration.

I come back to the point of Civil society providing us with an immense opportunity. In Europe and the UK we have a well developed (some would say bloated) public sector dealing with healthcare, social security et al. The voluntary/community sector sometimes has difficulty engaging with the public because we are perceived as amateurs by the local administrations.

I understand, from conversations with guests from social enterprise operations in the USA (please correct me if I’m wrong) that social security support has been substantially reduced and that many families rely on voluntary welfare programmes for support. I am aware of an excellent project in Eugene, Oregon, that is involved in recycling, renewable energy projects, social housing schemes, supported employment schemes, training, healthcare etc. It is thriving because of the growing need within society.

Here is an education opportunity: ( if that doesn’t sound too patronising) when people engage with organisations like this, there is the chance to introduce them to other issues that relate to the changed economic and social circumstances they find themselves in. The comfort zone has already gone: a new awareness is part of the solution.

Sites like this blog and Realclimate, are providing an excellent service. What would be great is if a regular condensed bulletin of ‘headline news & informed views’ on the main topics could be produced as a mailable 1-sheet with links that we can get all our colleagues in related organisations across the world to subscribe to. I hope Mr. Lynas does not think I am presuming too much?

The body I work for has over 1,400 member organsiations in Wales. We have links to other UK organisations and through the Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Development to Europe. Our friends in the community recycling network have contacts in Australia, Canada, the USA, New Zealand and Europe and GW (methane emissions from landfill etc.)is a hot topic.

I would have a go at circulating a bulletin via my home e-mail that focussed on informed scientific debate on GW, if it were presented in a way that lay people like myself can grasp, and wasn’t sensationalist.

On a final note ( I don’t want to monopolise the conversation), one of our projects is proposing to visit the Navarre region of Spain where, from a standing start in 1985, they are now generating 97% of their electricity from renewable sources ( mainly biomass and solar) and plan to be a net RE exporter within 12 months. I will provide some more information and links as soon as I can get them.

Do not give up hope:

network, network, network.

with kind regards

Colin

Hi Colin,

I had a friend once who went to Europe and he told me that after a few days he felt better and he attributed this to the food since we use too many chemicals in our food. I do not know much at all about GM foods. So, you are correct about us in your post. I had to think about what GM meant and then it registered that it means genetically modified.

I am interested in recycling efforts. Fluorescent lighting can be recycled so the mercury, phosphor, glass, etc can be reused. As we promote this source of lighting, then we will need to provide means for people to recycle them to keep mercury out of the environment.

I posted much about methane months ago and may need to go back to that. Methane recovery from landfills not only can keep this greenhouse gas from the environment, but it can be used as a fuel.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that is more powerful the CO2. It is short lived in the atmosphere and even more in the short term. Most global warming potentials are rated over a hundred years with Methane about 23 times CO2 in warming potential. It skyrockets when the time frame is a few decades rather than looking at a hundred years. So, when it comes to a short term quick boost, reductions in methane emissions provide a benefit.

Also, methane’s energy is mostly from the hydrogen atoms since it is CH4. This is the cleanest hydrocarbon fuel we have and produces the least CO2 emissions for the heating value. Oil companies flare enough methane from their oil wells to run all of Germany and France or 20 percent of the USA’s natural gas usage. The oil companies consider the flaring necessary because of transport costs but all that flaring creates carbon emissions without the benefit of using it as a fuel so I hate to see it wasted.

Thanks for sharing. I got a chance to repost some facts about methane since you brought it up. I guess you might find that information useful.

Sounds like you have a great job. I need something like that.

Best Wishes, Dan