Should we make this a multi-contributor blog? 01 April 05

I’ve just posted “April fool?” below in reply to “norbert” and in the process referred to my next post. Here it is.

Read this book!

I’ve just read “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer R. Weart (Harvard University Press). I heartily recommend it to all. It deals with the science relating to GW/CC and gives a very useful insight into the process of scientific discovery. Weart also informs the reader of the way politics has become entangled in the debate. His tone is measured and reasonable and at no time does he become shouty or show any signs of “bad faith” or mendacity. I say this as someone who has, for decades, been involved in political debate and has taught politics at A level. (UK qualification pre University level.)

I’d be particularly keen for those sceptics who post on this site to read the book. You know who you are! I say this because I’m keen for as many as possible to devote their time and energy to solving the problem of GW/CC rather than nitpicking or indulging in pedantry or such like diversionary tactics.

A couple of footnotes.

1. I’m aware Weart has been mentioned on this site in a debate between Dan Kellogg and “norbertzangox” (17th, 19th and 27th of January this year). Dan I admire you patience and tenacity. “norbert” I’ve searched Mark’s site and no biog on you comes up. When I Goggle you I get 5 entries, two at Mark’s site, two at TCS and 1 at Reason. Am I right in thinking TCS and Reason promote “free markets”? Who are you and what is your motivation?

2. I came across a piece from The Tablet, not my regular reading, in which Michael McCarthy, environment editor of the Independent, reports on a conversation he had with Paul Brown, environment correspondent of the Guardian. (UK newspapers.) They are returning, on the train, from covering the British Government international conference on climate change held in February at the Met office in Exeter. Their mood was despondent to say the least. Having followed the debate for years they were shocked by the evidence presented at the conference.

I quote. “The earth is finished.” Paul said: “It is, yes.” We both shook our heads and gave that half-laugh that is sparked by incredulity. So many environmental scare stories, over the years; I never dreamed of such a one as this.

And what will our children make of our generation, who let this planet, so lovingly created, go to waste? End quote. (The Tablet “Slouching towards disaster” 12th February 2005.)

I don’t go for the religious bit but this is scary! These are guys whose views I can respect.

Douglas Coker

From the publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Science, comes the news that our dandruff might be part of our contribution to the putative climate problem.

“Atmospheric aerosols play a crucial role in regulating the global climate and can either enforce or suppress anthropogenic forcing. Their influence on climate forcing (natural as well as anthropogenic) has been estimated (1), but a better understanding of the composition and sources of atmospheric aerosols is needed to improve climate models. Here we report evidence that particles injected directly from the biosphere constitute a major portion of atmospheric aerosols. Cellular (and protein) particles injected directly into the atmosphere include fur fibers, dandruff, skin fragments, plant fragments, pollen, spores, bacteria, algae, fungi, viruses, protein crystals, and more, . . . “

What next? Is there no upper limit to the lunacy about climate change?

Thanks for the warning Norbert, I’ll have to borrow some of my son’s hair gel to make sure I don’t create a local atmospheric distortion! I have just had to change my PC as the last one eventually managed to resist my attempts to keep it going and went into a permanent sulk. Have also been taking a few long walks by the river and up the hill behind the house to try and keep my anger from getting the better of me. Re: the recent G8 meeting in Derby (UK) at which (amongst many other issues discussed) an attempt was made to introduce an agreement to better control the international trade in ILLEGALLY FELLED TIMBER. The vote was 7 in favour and 1 against and which country was the 1 against?

I mean, this is a no-brainer: shall we support an international measure to try to help poor countries fight illegal logging and destruction of rainforests on which we all rely for Oxygen, CO2 absorbtion, genetic diversity resource etc. ? No we’ll try to block it to protect our commercial interests.

Whose commercial interests? are we dealing with a national administration here or something altogether more sinister?

See the link :http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4351863.stm

and: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4362505.stm

Other related reports from the event make interesting reading. I do not condone violence or civil disorder even on issues as important as these, however the arrests of the few protestors that ventured into the city are perhaps surprising given the exemplary free democracy in which we live.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/derbyshire/4356001.stm

make the most of these reports from the BEEB. They may well have been compiled by some of the 1700 personnel that the corporation is shedding, including news and current affairs staff.

I have only included links to the BBC rather than some of the more partisan sites reporting on the level of special powers used by the Home Secretary and the police to keep protestors as far away from the meeting as possible. In today’s world of heightened anxiety about the threat of terrorist attacks a robust security operation is expected but then it is also the law-abiding, concerned citizen who finds themselves excluded, muzzled, videoed by the security services (hi guys!) and watched.

Sorry that was a bit of a rant.

I recently had a long chat with a colleague in one of the renewable energy groups we work with who is an engineer and had been involved in the construction and operation of the Thames flood barrier. He was telling me that this defense was originally planned to provide protection for 100 years but that timescale has already been cut to 20 years. With the accelerated collapse of ice shelfs and the increase in Antarctic glacier ice entering the sea, this will make life interesting for Londoners in the next few years. Perhaps one ought to consult a tide table before deciding whether to take the tube…..

Enough gloom. For all you car-addicts out there, there is a great US website at http://www.acpropulsion.com/

Click the picture of the little yellow tzero and watch the video clip to see a battery powered, zero emissions sports car leave a Camaro and a Ferrari in its silent wake!! (0-60mph in 4.7 seconds!!) Forget fuel cells, advanced battery technology is rapidly making the internal combustion engine irrelevant. For more electric vehicle news see www.evuk.co.uk.

Funny thing is, none of the big manufacturers seem to want to get them into production…...

kind regards to all and hope that you are getting some sleep Mark.

Colin

about the tropical wood protocol. I have no direct information about how much of the tropical wood harvest is by Mafioso types vs. how much is by relatively poor people who need a means of support. Perhaps you could provide some documentation that supports the unstated but implied (e.g. “criminal gangs pillaging the forests” and “demand for cheap illegal wood”) conclusion in the BEEB article that the professional thieves are the primary culprits. I always suspect the veracity of prose that relies on emotional buzzwords in lieu of supported and factual information. It is my undocumented belief that most of the thieves are actually honest citizens who have been made into thieves by unreasonable and arbitrary laws.

I also must take issue with your implication that the tropical rainforests are a primary source of photosynthetic oxygen.  Ocean algae produce 70 to 80% of all photosynthetic oxygen.  Tropical rain forests are but a small portion of the total forest in the world.  Tropical rain forests are by no means a primary source of oxygen.

In addition, mature forests do not produce much net oxygen.  Decomposition of leaves, branches and fallen dead trees offsets the uptake and sequestering of carbon (i.e. production of oxygen) by growing trees.  Newly planted forests produce more oxygen because none of the trees are dying.

On balance, the harvest of a tree and its conversion into a durable piece of furniture or a building is a method for sequestering carbon.  The carbon remains unavailable for decomposition for as long as several centuries.

I also believe that the jury is still out on the accusation that logging reduces diversity. Can you provide documentation that it is so?

The iceberg calving in Antarctica has been primarily from the east coast of the Antarctic Peninsula.  The peninsula appears to have warmed recently, while the remainder of the continent has cooled.  The US Geological Service recently discovered an underwater volcano off the east coast of the peninsula, which may well be the reason that the peninsula is warming and calving icebergs while the rest of the continent is cooling and accumulating ice.  The net ice flux in Antarctica is accumulation.

Actual measurements of sea level have not supported the IPCC contention that the sea level is rising rapidly.

You make a number of valid points first amongst which is that I am also quoting second hand at best from media reports. I have read sections from a number of papers which I think will be of more interest. I shall do some digging over the next few days and come back to you with, hopefully some specific examples.

You are correct in the statement that a mature forest and certainly tropical rainforests only contribute a small percentge to atmospheric oxygen compared to the oceanic algal mass.

You are also correct that to harvest a mature hardwood tree and use it in construction/furniture etc. is a extremely effective way of sequestering atmospheric Carbon. There are houses in parts of Southern England over 600 years old that used oak beams in their construction themselves recovered from wrecked ships where the wood must have been from a tree 300 years old at the time of felling, ie sequestration for a 1000 years and counting!

Yes, growing trees capture far more atmospheric cabon than mature ones and therefore sustainable management of woodland to selectively harvest older trees and replace them young, quick growing saplings is a valuable and profitable, positive activity. If it’s managed properly it can provide employment, wealth creation, and environmental rejuvenation.

When selecting tree species to replant, the advice (and I use as my reference the UK Forrestry Commission’s branch in Wales: Coed Cymru) is to provide a mixture of types well adapted to the local environment, if possible, grown from locally collected seed. This apparently gives the best chance of rapid maturation as the local provenance genus will have adapted to suit local conditions of soil, micro-climate etc. This will give a faster return on invested capital as well.

The allegation in the BBC articles is that in the Asian and Amazon rainforests most of the logging is carried out by peole too poor to be able to buy land to farm, with no access to employment, education etc. Truly as you say, honest people made criminal by a dysfunctional system. It is with those who purchase the illegally felled timber and who make the real profits from its on-sale that the problem lies.

Sitting as I do comfortably in the UK, I must sound an arch-hypocrite in this matter since we cleared all but 4% of our own native ancient woodlands in the 800 years between the crusades and the second world war. Mainland Europe fares little better with the Romans having cleared the Italian peninsula for firewood by about 200AD.

We also make very little use of our native broad leaved woods. Up to the 1940’s there was widespread use of Ash wood as a structural timber in car bodies, aircraft frames, furniture etc. Ash grows rapidly and robustly in most soil types and locations in the UK and is ready to harvest in about 35 years: comparable with larch and spruce which have inferior material properties, yet we make almost no use of it except as firewood.

My concern is that deforrestation is happening, not in a planned and well managed way, but in a mindlesly destructive one that not only fells all the trees but then introduces either grassland for grazing or crop production in a manner which rapidly degrades the quite poor soils and allows erosion and/or desertification to happen, driving the new farmers to clear yet more forest.

As well described and demonstrated in the book quoted by Lynn ‘Natural Capitalism’ (Hawken & Lovins) the real disaster is that there is relentless clear felling without replacement of enormous swathes of forest where no account of the true value of the materials, the genetic pool of flora and fauna and the huge potential for new source materials for medical research and the pharmaceuticals industry, is even recognised.

I sense that you agree that ignorance is no form of defence for a course of action, so why support economic practises that perpetuate indiscriminate destruction of resouces for sale at what is propably a tiny fraction of their potential net worth just to make a fast buck for a small number of people today, especially if that resource cannot be replaced?

Your reference to the US Geologial Survey’s discovery of an underwater volcano off Antarctica is interesting do you have a link for this? I will try to read up on this and your assertion that there is a net accumulation of ice in Antarctica at the present time.

Thanks again for the response, I look forward to further discussions.

with kind regards

Colin

Dear Norbert,

Colin was referring specifically to rain forests and rain forests typically cannot be included in this category of forest based sequestration which you described in your post because the environmental impact from logging is much higher than any benefits from logging. What you said about sequestering carbon is only true for forests which are capable of being reforested.

A more detailed analysis on forest based sequestration strategies is best explained by the PEW link below. This report was prepared by Robert N. Stavins of Harvard University and Kenneth R. Richards of Indiana University and provides both insightful technical information plus a great economic analysis on the effectiveness of forest based sequestration.

However, let us be totally clear that this report does not apply to rain forests which I will elaborate further on and hopefully add more clarity.

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/carbon_sequestration/index.cfm

Norbert, many rain forests have the unique feature of recycling water and nutrients from the microclimate they create. Rain forest ecosystems are highly refined in that nutrients are absorbed by the trees before they enter the soil. So, in essence, the soil is of poor quality. When these trees are cut down, it becomes problematic for reforestation efforts to be effective. Once a rain forest is transformed it is cannot be restored by replanting trees so logging cannot benefit a sequestration strategy since new trees would be required.

Since the soil is of poor quality, it cannot support standard agriculture very well once the land is clear of trees. Often these trees are burned in an effort to enrich the soil but this effect can only last a few years. If these trees are burned, then the carbon stored in them is released to the atmosphere as an increase in carbon emissions. Since reforestation is impossible in most cases, this carbon cannot be sequestered by planting new trees. So, there is no sequestration benefit in logging rain forests.

In addition, the fine-tuned ecosystem of the rain forests are in a tight delicate balance and they are highly sensitive to any intervention from logging. This biodiversity is greater than most any other type of ecosystem on the entire planet. Most of the earth species reside in these forests and this fact is well documented and it is quite common knowledge among biologists and ecologists as to be simply basic information.

Since rain forests, as their name implies, create rain, they are responsible for the local precipitation. Eliminating these trees will then adversely affect the local climate and escalate the ecological damage even further. It is best just to leave these ecosystems alone as much as possible

Bottom Line: The benefits to logging rain forests are short term with respect to agriculture and as a source of wood products. The environmental damage is often irreversible.

As an additional note, many pharmaceutical companies rely on the biodiversity of rain forests to create natural compounds necessary for the production of many modern medicines so the destruction of this diversity may adversely affect commercial interests from an industry that benefits from the rain forests without destroying them. Consumers benefit with new medicine. In fact, the rain forest may have the potential to even cure AIDS from the discovery of an unknown natural compound waiting to be discovered.

There are other forests which can be harvested in a sustainable way without undue environmental harm and provide a sufficient supply of wood products to satisfy our needs.

With respect to Oxygen supply, I agree that this is not a major problem in today’s natural environment and should be placed at the bottom list of concerns because if oxygen supply ever becomes an issue, the we have already past the point of no return from preceding ecological damage. Even a doubling of CO2 will not have any significant reduction of oxygen.

I did a credible calculation on oxygen reduction in a previous post of mine which I share below to help any readers of my post eliminate any anxiety they may have over our oxygen supply.

http://www.marklynas.org/wind/message/381.html

I just noticed that Colin, as I am writing my response, just posted a very good-natured and very insightful response back to you before I could even finish my response.

I do think Colin may have a point of contention with your indifference to the logging of the rain forests and I hope you have learned something of value in what both I and Colin wrote.

I hope that you would understand why Colin’s original rant was understandable. Many people are affected emotionally with regard to the destruction of rain forests and maybe my post helped you understand why.

Now Norbert, I just looked up the volcano you mentioned. I am glad you brought this active volcano in Antarctica to our attention. It may help us understand this situation better.

There was a point of confusion in a past discussion on Antarctica which you may want to read since there were recent changes to the assessment of Antarctica and this volcano may have had something to do with it. I refer you to the blog discussion below if you missed it from the past:

First I posted:

“A Request to discuss West Antarctica!”

on 24th February, 2005 where I suggested that there was an apparent contradiction in the Antarctica story and this led to a further conversation on the subject. That initial conversation is at the link below:

http://www.marklynas.org/wind/message/838.htm

Then on 24th February, 2005, Mark posted his blog entitled

“Oceans to blame for ice shelf collapse?”

This post led to even more discussion about Antarctica. So, evidently we may have been discussing the effects of that volcano and you made a valuable contribution to bring it to our attention.

I did find a useful article on it below:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/05/040527235943.htm

Dan

In another context I found out that the main component of house dust is human skin cells/particles. GROSS! And we all thought it was just dust (inorganic matter). So it’s not surprising to me that the outside dust is largely composed of flora and fauna organic matter. As you may know climate scientists for years have been mentioning that aerosols in the form of dust plays a role. It’s just that we didn’t really think about what that dust was composed of.

And I’m glad you brought this up, because, well, I’ve been very bad on this issue. As my husband points out I seem to care more about the outside environment than the inside environment – i.e., I’m a bad housekeeper (he, by the way, helps enormously with the housework). To which I point out that I was a rotten housekeeper long before I became an environmentalist!

So, now I need to start sequestering those GW aerosols by becoming a better housekeeper. Doesn’t sound like much fun, but now I have the incentive! And see there are other benefits – cleaner, healthier, happier living, which we should strive for even without GW considerations.

That’s the name of a great song about how our society (U.S.) generates a lot of garbage. It is related to GW in that reduce, reuse, & recycle to reduce garbage/waste/trash/discards/refuse helps reduce GW. (I think this may also relate to the organic dust aerosol issue as well.)

I have a really good link to a webpage that addresses this issue of how we became so enormously wasteful over the past 200 years:

http://www.alternet.org/story/21651/

at http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/news/2004/052104-volcano.shtml. I did misspeak however; it was not USGS but National Science Foundation researchers who discovered the volcano.

I agree with you that the middlemen probably rake most of the profit from the harvest.  Fixing the corrupt system to allow a fair distribution of the proceeds from harvest and marketing of tropical woods makes more sense to me than an outright ban on their use.  I do not believe that we have the right or authority to prohibit the poor in other nations from using the natural resources in their countries to their benefit.  I do agree that effective use of those resources should include some planning component.

One quickly gets into a discussion of the Tragedy of the Commons in these situations.  I always expect overuse and depletion of commonly held resources.  Private ownership by enlightened owners appears to be an excellent means of preserving natural resources.  Farmers sacrifice short-term profit, to maintain the health of their soils because they know that they will need another crop next year.  Even that might be impractical in the face of abject poverty.

I oppose telling a man that he cannot pursue the only income available to him. I am not talking about a fast buck for a few; I am talking about using resources to prevent starvation of the man’s family. Activist organizations often phrase situations in the most prejudicial of terms to ease their task of convincing us to follow their recommendations. I think that use of such pejorative language only serves to polarize the debate.

I have not read the Hawkins and Lovins book to which you referred.  I have frequently found myself under whelmed by the acuity of Lovins' intellect.  Because I have not read the book, I do not know what the reference to "relentless clear felling without replacement" means.  I do know that there is more forestland in the USA today than there was in 1900, nearly as much as there was when the Pilgrims landed, and that the acreage dedicated to forest is steadily increasing.

Dave Barry, an American humorist, once said that the Europeans beat their ecology into submission several centuries ago.  You seem to agree.

I have been wondering whether you would turn this into a multi-contributor blog.

There is a chance it will lose direction; but maybe it will create a chance for us to develop something much larger, with many more conversations?!

A blog is a great way of allowing individuals to interact according to the level they feel comfortable with at any time; and on the specific subjects which spark their interests. Also, a blog can present information in an ordered format.

In contrast, I often get quite over-whelmed with emails!

It also might make it a bit easier on you – and let you write your book about Global Warming, and spend time with your family!

would this mean that debates could focus more specifically on particular areas, eg, the science/economics/politics etc of climate change? As you rightly said, there are some very well informed, interesting people contributing to the blogg, to get people debating on their specialist/interest areas could develop the debate further and help to educate/enlighten better.

regards and hope Tom is still doing well.

Book Review by George Taylor of Mihkel Mathiesen’s. “Global Warming in a Politically Correct Climate: How Truth Became Controversial” Universe Star, Universe.com, Inc., Lincoln, NE., 2004.

“Considering that M. Mihkel Mathiesen’s book has the term global warming in its title, one might expect it to begin with an assessment of that politically-charged and controversial subject. Much to my surprise, however, when I looked at the Table of Contents, I found the first global warming chapter beginning on page 69. A full five chapters preceded “Chapter VI – On the Global Warming Scare.”

Why the delay? To set the stage for what some have called “The Mother of All Environmental Scares,” Mathiesen gives us a brief history of earlier debates that galvanized environmentalists and led, in many cases, to significant changes in law and policy. First there was DDT, which was banned in the U.S. in 1972 following a remarkably unscientific sequence of events; and that ban has led to an estimated 15 million deaths worldwide from mosquito-borne diseases – without any conclusive proof that environmental benefits have accrued.

Descriptions of three other environmental issues follow: asbestos, ozone depletion and acid rain. I know enough about the last two issues to know that Mathiesen has his facts straight. So let me ask you: Have you ever wondered why we don’t hear much about acid rain any more? Have you ever heard of the U.S. National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program? NAPAP is an example of a “good news” report that showed the U.S. does not have a significant acid-rain problem. It was discredited, however, by the Environmental Protection Agency and various environmental groups, after which those agencies and the media simply stopped talking about it … but not before Midwest utilities were forced to fund equipment changes that cost taxpayers $140 billion.

Asbestos and ozone depletion discussions follow, and you will notice some similarities among these issues, especially the typical sequence of events: 1. A dramatic press release from an environmental group, a government agency, or a politician regarding a looming environmental catastrophe. 2. Political activity and intense media reporting, much of it stricken of conditional statements that may have appeared in the original announcement. The political action results in the commissioning of expensive studies and/or proposed legislation. 3. Enactment of legislation before the original study results are available. When the study is completed, its results are largely ignored.

Again and again, these events have occurred, and they’re happening once more in the global warming issue, to which Mathiesen devotes the next 70 pages of his book. There’s a lot of good science in there, and I learned quite a bit from the author. I especially enjoyed his descriptions of the way CO2 is absorbed by, and released from, the ocean, along with the fallacy of sampling air bubbles in 400,000-year-old ice and assuming that the air has remained inert and stable for that time span.”

There is more at http://www.sepp.org/weekwas/2005/Apr.%202.htm for anyone who is interested.

Note of interest. The NAPAP study that the reviewer mentions cost EPA about $500 million dollars and kept most of the environmental consulting companies (including the one for which I worked) busy for 5 years. EPA withheld publication of the report until after Congress passed the legislation that required the expenditure of $140 billion by Midwest power companies. The reviewer says that taxpayers picked up the tab; it actually was the customers of the utility companies. In fact, the $140 billion was just the down payment; operation, maintenance and occasional replacement of the equipment add to the expense every year. All to solve a problem that did not exist.

The press do like to ham up a story, no doubt. Mistakes or exagerations do occur. But to claim that acid rain, Ozone and asbestos were not environmental threats is quite some claim.

I worked as an environmental consultant, and at one time focused on asbestos remediation. In the process met some people who were suffering from related illnesses: such as mesothelioma and asbestosis, terminal illnesses that CAN ONLY be caused by asbestos. Quite apart from being a “trumped up” problem, it has been largely brushed under the carpet. Any costs that companies may have had to incur to redress the suffering that their profiteering caused, is still too little, I believe.

Your point that climate change could be a similar scenario, (of over hype), is clearly the “fossil-fuels brigades” last card.

With no evidence to discredit global warming, either theoretically or otherwise; grand conspiracy theories are now your last hope (see Michael Crichton debate a few weeks ago).

These books & opinions will regretably encourage those who either hope the problem will go away, or who have plenty to gain from the energy market status quo.

On your point of acid rain, yes the US problem is less, now. this is because of efforts to deal with acid rain, which have worked, and because US acid rain largely fell on Canada!! Look at soil and lake acidification studies from Sweden (where the UK was unwittingly depositing its acid rain) for proof of a serious environmental problem affecting both nature and agriculture.

Finally, if the ozone was an over hyped issue, why did the chemical companies (whose products were largely responsible for its depletion), support the 1987 Montreal Protocol? would that be turkeys voting for xmas? no, quite the opposite. They realised the threat to the ozone was real, and they were responsible.

Keep shuffling the deck, you may find a trump card. I do believe it is worthwhile to constantly critique what is fast becoming the consensus, I find your postings stimulating, Norbert, and somehow constructive, but it appears this book has nothing to offer.

Norbert, thanks for the link to the antarctic connection site. I read the posting on the discovery of the underwater volcano discovered about 12 months ago. A sustained large geothermal emmission into a coastal shelf area could provide a local warming although coastal current actvity would affect how the heat was distributed. I do not know to what extent this would affect sea ice melting, but it appears that the researchers will be keeping an eye on this over the coming months so it will be worth watching out for further reports.

There is a wealth of other information on this site that I found informative. Thank you.

Whilst geothermal activity would appear to have localised effects, It does not explain the extend of glacial retreat over the large majority of the earth’s surface; the reduction in arctic sea ice and the surface melting of Tundra.

I agree with you that established farming communities are well aware of the need to maintain soil fertility and also to reduce the incidence of disease and pest damage to crops through a range of complementary measures such as providing enough habitat for predator species and crop rotation. The problem of forcing production is an economic one where yield maximisation demands more and more energy and chemical inputs to maintain enormous monocultures. There comes a point where the increased forcing degrades the soil structure and pests and diseases become resistent to pesticides.

This is the real folly of the majority of commercial GM crops. It is not because (as our popular press would have it) it is ‘Frankenstein food’ but because the producer becomes locked into a dependency cycle on a particlar mixture of seed, herbicide and pesticides which need to become more and more concentrated over time.

For large parts of the world’s food supply and indeed timber supply to be dependant on massive monoculture developments is poor risk management from a genetic and disaster avoidance point of view. 1 new pest or disease can wreak enormous damage and there is insufficient biodiversity and soil fibre left to allow for recovery of natural vegitation before soil erosion starts in earnest.

Yes I do agree to a certain extent that in Europe we attempted to subjugate or ecology some time ago and have lived to witness the consequences over several generations. Great Britain in particular is a small and compact country with a wide diversity of landscape types in a small area. We are in a temparate zone with a maritime climate which is relatively benign and stable. Nonetheless, by the beginning of the 18th century much of our native woodland had already been destroyed to provide timber and fuel for the navy, iron smelting, construction and agriculture. Then we discovered coal and kicked off the industrial revolution which enabled us to dominate a quarter of the planet and plunder natural resources of many 100’s of times our natural per capita quota. We did a lot of bad things in the name of empire (we invented concentration camps), and quite a few good ones too, but the legacy of degradation from resource extration has been left far and wide.

You are right to say that it is hypocrisy to tell a poor man not to harm the environment if that is the only way to feed his family. So we get into the cyclical argument about aid, debt reduction, education, employment support, and trade restrictions, landscape and wildlife protection. It is not unreasonable to declare that we made many mistakes in the learning process of the last 300 years, the social and environmental legacy of which communities are still trying to live with, but at the same time that we are starting to learn to live in a more resource efficient way, so we can surely help emerging nations from having to make all the same mistakes we did and reach a level of sustainable development by a far shorter route. There are just not enough resources on the planet for everyone to go through the same wasteful processes we did.

Enlightened private ownership is one good method of providing effective stewardship, but not the only one. Worker co-operatives and social enterprises are another. Where they are able to work within a participatory democracy with mature institutions, then they have a better chance of being effective.

Your comments about ‘Natural Capitalism’ are not wholly misplaced: reading it 5 years on from publication, there are some elements which are aleady visible as overoptimistic and maybe a little naive, but you cannot be immune to all enthusiasm to explore the potential for more elegant directions in which to move our world? If you were that cynical you would not persist in prodding us to think and respond to your challenges.

Finally, there is a lot of commercial forrestry in Wales and Scotland: largely due to government tax incentives in the 1960’s. It is almost exclusively connifers of types not native to the UK and which support little biodiversity compared to mixed deciduous woodland. Also, with one of our largest papermills at Shotton having gone over to 100% recycled paper feedstock, much of this woodland is presently uneconomic to fell.

Thanks to Dan for your comments on rainforests as well: I will come back with more on this shortly.

with best wishes for now

Colin

This site below provides a short objective summary of the basics of the GW/CC issues.

http://www.science.gmu.edu/~zli/ghe.html

Dear Norbert, I do consider it basically incorrect for anyone to assert that GW/CC is not real or that human beings are not involved.

I say this because the concept of a Greenhouse Effect is so basic and real that it cannot be denied or it would violate known laws of physics.

Without the Greenhouse Effect, life on earth would not be possible. In order for you or anyone to assert that GW/CC is not an issue, you really have to conclude that the laws of physics are also wrong with the Natural Greenhouse Effect as well.

Now Norbert, if you agree that the earth has a Natural Greenhouse Effect and therefore ascribe to the laws of physics, then let me continue and use deductive reasoning to build my case to the next level.

Scientists have determined that greenhouse gases are responsible for holding the earth’s heat in proper balance. Water vapor is the most important but other gases play a critical role as well and these include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and others. These gases have radiative properties that are well documented and understood and if you believe in the laws of physics, then you should agree that this knowledge is also valid.

Next, we have altered the chemistry of the atmosphere by increasing greenhouse gases in double digit percentages due solely to human activities. The science that is able to determine this is so sound and with results so well documented that this information is irrefutable and has become an established fact.

Finally, the notion that the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect does not exist cannot be supported by the facts I present because it would violate the laws of deductive reasoning. It would be incredulous to think that a double digit percent increase in key greenhouse gases would not produce a “human-induced” enhancement to the Natural Greenhouse Effect!

Now, the uncertainty of how the climate feedback systems work is still an evolving science and with that said we have uncertainty of exactly what the end result due to this Enhanced Greenhouse Effect will be.

The mainstream scientists provide a range of predicted temperatures and the truth can be within that range or if they have something basically wrong in their computational analysis, then it could even be outside this range and that could be either miraculous news or a nightmare of unimaginable proportions.

So, I think even if there is the presence of political forces in the mix and misinformation, I still believe the bulk of this polarized truth simply lies in how we evaluate climate science within the context of uncertainty of how complex climatic systems really work. I do not believe the science is inherently wrong. I see the science as evolving.

People who have this viewpoint are the most credible to me. Mainstream scientists seem to have this viewpoint but contrarians seem to be absolute in their convictions and seem to use any uncertainty as grounds to justify their assertions that GW/CC does not exist or that it is not really significant enough to matter.

Furthermore, any use of non-related environmental concerns to deny GW/CC is also using false logic. DDT has nothing to do with GW/CC issues and when comparisons are made with non-related issues, it can mislead others to create false assumptions and false conclusions about GW/CC issues.

The basic premise for arguing against the science in this way is that a biased cynical attitude must prevail about all environmental issues at the onset and for me this destroys any objectivity when climate science is scrutinized.

The real truth is that no one can claim to have an absolute ability to predict where the climate may go.

Another truth I have learned in studying climate science is that the earth climate systems have a special sensitivity. It simply does not take much to affect the climate adversely for us and other species and rapid climate change has been shown to have occurred in the past.

For me, this has become a truth and with that, our ability to influence the climate adversely is both real and serious.

There is an associated high risk with the down-side uncertainty of GW/CC and this risk is very real. On Mark’s site, many of us believe that the uncertainty leans on the side of caution.

In fact I consider inaction to be a dangerous thing with our current understanding. The small changes we make in the climate system have a tendency to add up over time and get worse. The longer we wait, the more difficult it will be to insure that the earth’s heat balance will stay in equilibrium in the future. Procrastination is not an option we have.

It seems that there is a general bias among contrarians who believe the premise that there just has to be economic chaos from designing our infrastructures to reduce the risk of climate change. For me, finding a path that is environmentally prudent and economically viable does not violate any laws of physics I know.

I see economic opportunity and economic security which include diversifying our energy resources and increasing our energy efficiency. The positive economic benefits we have in reducing our emissions and in improving our infrastructure are critical to provide a sustainable path for our future.

Best regards,

Dan

when you say that asbestos killed some persons and adversely affected the health of many others. However, if you look at the record, all of those affected worked or lived (as in Libby Montana) in places where they endured extremely high doses. Many if not most of those affected also smoked cigarettes. My uncle was an example. He was a welder and a smoker. He died of asbestosis (and or cigarettosis).

No data show that the substance has affected persons who received normal to high doses. For example, studies of tollbooth workers, who are exposed to emissions of thousands of braking cars per day, do not show an excess of cancers.

Asbestos was a problem for a limited portion of the population. Those problems were amenable to work practice solutions. The outright ban was overkill.

I have no idea what the “fossil fuel brigades” means.

Perhaps I was not clear in my previous post. The NAPAP report concluded that there was no reason to believe that Midwest emissions had an effect in the Northeast US or East Canada. If the soil and lake acidity has changed in that region (I am not convinced that it has) it has changed because of reductions in more local emissions.

Your assessment of the companies who manufactured the Freons, “They realised the threat to the ozone was real, and they were responsible.” is far too charitable. The companies realized that the momentum was overwhelming and that the end of Freon manufacture meant new markets for even more expensive compounds. In essence they did as companies always do, they pointed out that the problem was over hyped and that the proposed changes would be expensive. However, since such companies profits are normally a percentage of the cost of the products, they do not really care if we force them to make and sell stuff that is more expensive.

We also could add PCBs and chlorinated dioxins and furans to the list. EPA and IARC have demonized those compounds in spite of clear evidence that they are not toxic at concentrations that occur in the environment.

are no doubt due to the warming that is ongoing. No one doubts that the climate has warmed for the past 150 years; the dispute is about the cause (and magnitude) of the warming. The observation that Mark Lynas often makes that glaciers and snowcaps are in retreat does not prove that carbon dioxide emissions have caused the warming. It is possible that the warming is causing the oceans to release carbon dioxide (as warming causes beer to release carbon dioxide) and thereby increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

In addition, the glacial retreat and lessening of ice accumulations is not consistent worldwide. Antarctica appears to be cooling and accumulating ice. Parts but not all of Greenland appear to be loosing ice.

You speak of concentrated agriculture requiring ever-increasing use of chemicals and degrading soils. Those practices have been ongoing in the American Plains for 150 years and the predicted degradation has not occurred. Farmers have learned (e.g. the experience of Southern farmers who depleted their soil with continuous cotton plantings) to rotate crops to maintain needed levels of trace nutrients (e.g. arsenic, selenium) in their soils.

What you claim is the folly of GM food I see as its strength. Through genetic modification, plants can more effectively defend them selves from insect and fungal attacks. The chemical of choice, Roundup® (used for weed control) is non-toxic and biodegradable; it replaces a host of other pesticides. Further, because Roundup® controls the weeds in fields of Roundup Ready® crops, its use significantly reduces energy expenditures because the farmers do not have to till to control weeds. This practice, no-till farming, has the additional advantage of reducing erosion because tilling, which destroys soil structure and root structure, is eliminated. The energy needed to produce the Roundup® is miniscule compared to the energy required to plow a field.

Your next paragraph sounds like the angst of one who rues the behavior of his ancestors, a thing over which he has no control. Does the legacy of degradation really outweigh the legacy of democracy and industrialization that the British Empire spread around the globe? I think not. Compare Hong Kong to Peking (or is it Beijing this week?) Compare East Africa to West Africa. The former British colonies fare far better.

It seems to me that the most important problem in the developing world is government corruption. I think that as long as despots can export national resources to Swiss bank accounts, nothing beneficial to ordinary citizens can come of aid packages.

Could you please provide some examples of successful worker co-operatives and social enterprises?

I am not at all opposed to exploring more elegant directions for our world. That is the process whereby we arrived at our current excellent state of civilization and technology. I am not at all enamored or impressed with the success of government planners at effecting new technology and processes.

The American south is replete with tree farms; enormous stands of softwood (conifers), which the paper companies have planted to provide wood for paper making. As you say, they are ecological deserts, but in spite of their size, they represent a small portion of all American forests.

Such tree farms left untended slowly become mixed wood forests and eventually become hardwood forests. It seems that is the natural course of woodland growth. The conifers exist quite well on poor soils even those with a relatively high salt content. The conifers improve the soil with their needles, branches and dead trees, making an environment that is hospitable for oaks and other hardwoods, which ultimately overwhelm the conifers and ban them entirely.

Recycling of paper is self-limiting. Each time a paper undergoes pulping and reprocessing its average fiber length lessens. A high quality softwood pulp makes excellent, high strength cardboard. Its strength comes from the length of individual fibers. Hardwood fibers are shorter; they are suitable for corrugating medium (the wavy stuff in the cardboard sandwich, and for personal paper products, e.g. facial and bathroom tissues. Each recycling lessens strength and moves the longer fibers down the quality chain toward tissue products. The gray pulp in cereal boxes etc is normally recycled newsprint; newspaper ink is hard to remove from pulp.

I will make a few comments about climate science and leave the discussion between you and Colin on the agricultural and forestry aspects.

There is no real dispute anymore about the cause of the warming since any statement which says we are not responsible simply violates the laws of physics and I made a logic tight argument for that in my previous post on Climate Basics.

Now, please tell me how the enhanced greenhouse effect is false? If it is not, then tell me how you can continue to post that carbon dioxide is not causing the observed warming?

By stating that carbon dioxide must not be the cause, you implicitly imply that there is no such thing as an enhanced greenhouse effect and this further implies that the natural greenhouse effect must be wrong because the same laws of physics apply to both.

The simple correlation of the enhanced greenhouse effect and the observed warming coincide so conveniently but this does not even seem to impress you.

Norbert, are you implying that our carbon buildup is caused by a simple ocean burp from some unknown source of warming which you never seem to be able to explain?

Now, I wonder Norbert, where all that carbon we emit from burning fossil fuels is going? If the oceans are releasing carbon from your unknown warming source then, by your theory, the fossil fuel carbon cannot be going there! Oh, how mysterious! Where did this carbon go? How about those forests? We have less of those now, so it must not be going there.

Now, let me share proof why your ocean-burp theory as being the primary cause for our carbon buildup is so incredulous.

First, radioactive carbon-14 is an indicator of mostly carbon dioxide which occurs naturally. It is not an indicator of carbon dioxide coming from fossil fuels since all that carbon-14 in those fossil fuels decayed long ago underground.

Now, the relative concentrations of carbon-14 in the carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans and in our atmosphere have clearly shown that our carbon buildup is from fossil fuels.

The oceans are absorbing fossil-fuel carbon and no unknown source of warming is causing the oceans to release carbon dioxide unless carbon dioxide in the oceans is being released from the warming caused from the enhanced greenhouse effect initiated by “guess what”? .... Carbon Dioxide!

Now about the magnitude: There is uncertainty about that and this is nothing new. I already discussed that in my last response to you in a previous post about climate basics so go there and read it and respond back if you like.

I have already posted my thoughts about glaciers and melting ice enough and you can go and read any of those posts and respond to what I said, Mark said, and others discussed at that time if you like. You can consult Mark’s cited references to learn even more.

Dan

Hi Norbert I just reread my posting to, I apologise if it sounded like I was trying to use emotive stories to make a point.

I think you will find though that asbestos related illness can affect people with minimal exposure, there are plenty of incidences where wives have contracted such illnesses just thru ironing husbands clothes( wh were exposed to asbestos at work). Like any deadly pollutant, exposure itself is enough to cause death, and science has not yet been able to deter what causes some to be more suceptible than others, but amount of exposure is not always the issue, therefore making a big noise was worthwhile to protect the lives of those who may have been more suceptible.

By the way brake pads contain crocidolite, usually, and in a very encapsulated form, which results in very minimal risk no matter what you do to them.

Acid rain has been proved (in europe at least!) to cause continental/regional acidification, (Uk to scandinavia; germany to poland and former czechoslovakia). It is simple carried by the weather, there is really no doubt about that one, as falling so2 production and acidification levels in those areas has shown.

I do accept your point on ozone depletion; the companies involved signed up though, not because they had more profitable lines of production, but just simply because they had a viable alternative which they could take to market.

this lack of a viable alternative is, I suspect, the only thing which is holding back the collapse of the fossil fuels industries, and forcing them to stand by their blantantly GW responsible products until such alternative products are available.

regards

Brendon

is proof that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are the cause of our warming climate. I will use this common descriptor of the effect of our atmosphere on the temperature of the climate even though it is a flawed analogy. A greenhouse has a glass roof and sides, which are transparent to the relatively short wavelengths of solar radiation and opaque to the longer wavelengths of the radiation of the objects inside of the greenhouse. The glass effectively traps heat.

The atmosphere works in a similar, but different manner. Some constituents of the atmosphere are transparent to short wave radiation and absorb the longer radiation that the earth sends spaceward. Nearly as soon as those molecules absorb a photon of heat they re-most of its energy. Their radiation is at a longer wavelength, because they are cooler than the surface of the earth. They radiate the heat equally in all directions. Other molecules absorb the heat and re-radiate it. The effect is extension of the time required for the heat to ultimately radiate into space; it is not a heat trap.

I am certain that you know that water vapor is as strong an absorber as carbon dioxide and that because of its much higher concentration (about 1.5%); water vapor does about 95% of the heat absorbing. Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and the other minor absorbing gases, perform about 5% of the work. I am sure that you also are aware that the increase of the carbon dioxide concentration from 0.028% up to 0.037% or even up to 0.07% cannot cause the atmosphere to warm by more than a few tenths of a degree Celsius. I am sure that you know that because you mention the enhanced greenhouse effect, which IPCC has invoked solely for the purpose of making their models predict higher temperature increases.

The enhanced greenhouse effect in essence says that the warmer atmosphere will warm the oceans and that will cause evaporation of additional water vapor. The increased water vapor concentration is to cause the higher temperature rise.

Unfortunately, NASA data show that there has been no discernable increase in the concentration of water vapor in our atmosphere during the past 30 years or so. That means that an increase in water vapor concentration did not cause the recent, putative record high temperatures.

I have not denied the existence of the warming properties of the atmosphere; I merely deny that it has changed in response to a trivial increase (about a 30% increase) of a compound that does less than 5% of the job is not causing the existing warming.

Where did all of the carbon that we emitted go? You say that it did not go into forests because we have less of those now. That is not true; we have more forests now than we did several decades ago. And, yes, some of the emitted carbon can be going into the oceans even if the oceans were net emitters. An increase in ocean temperature should increase the rate of phytoplankton growth and thereby increase sequestering of carbon by the sinking of their dead bodies into Davy Jones locker. Perhaps the increase growth of phytoplankton cannot keep up with the accelerated release of carbon dioxide from the oceans.

I do not consider any of that likely anymore than I consider the oceans to be the primary source of the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I said that it is possible and it is possible. The point is that a simple correlation between two variables cannot prove that one causes the other, but that a logical conclusion of an observation of correlation of temperature with carbon dioxide concentration is that the warmer ocean waters released the carbon dioxide. In addition, if you do the math with Henry’s law constants for temperature and solubility, you find that the existing equilibrium between air and water conforms to expectations. However, my primary point is that one could develop an excellent correlation between lung cancer and ownership of ashtrays and using your technique, conclude that ashtrays cause lung cancer.

Where did all of the carbon that we emitted go? If you do the arithmetic, you find that about 40% of our carbon emissions showed up in the atmosphere. The presumption is that the other 60% living plants sequestered the other 60%, but I know of no reliable attribution among various plant species.

On the subject of correlations, there is an excellent correlation between solar irradiance and atmospheric temperature. This correlation does not suffer from the ugly period between 1940 and 1970 during which carbon dioxide concentration increased rapidly while temperatures fell rapidly. Those who have done the math claim to know that the difference in solar irradiation is insufficient to have caused the observed warming. Perhaps they have not discovered the mechanism by which the ecosystem enhances the increased solar warmth.

Nobody knows. That includes the conclusion that carbon dioxide is causing the increased temperature. Only the GCMs, which climatologists designed to blame temperature rise on carbon dioxide, demonstrate that carbon dioxide has caused the warming. No physical evidence demonstrates that it is so.

is definite proof that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are the cause of our warming climate.

My analogy is not flawed in any way and your description of a greenhouse was not necessary. You know enough of what I am talking about and I already know about how the radiative physics works so your description there was also unnecessary.

I already proved your ocean-burp theory that the carbon dioxide comes from the ocean is bogus by explaining that the radiocarbon 14 measurements correlate well with the distribution and buildup of carbon dioxide from carbon fuels.

There are data sets that log the carbon concentration in the oceans I am sure. Go research that and provide some evidence or even anyone on the planet who has done a study on YOUR theory.

My point was that you do not honor this reliable analysis of carbon 14 data. The carbon buildup comes from our emissions plain and simple.

Somehow it seems difficult to suggest otherwise from all the data and knowledge we have from measuring carbon dioxide precisely.

It also is very intuitively obvious that the enormous amounts of carbon we emit would buildup in the atmosphere. To suggest otherwise not only violates the physics of carbon-14 data measurement and deductive reasoning but also it violates simple street-wise common sense.

It is like saying that the rain did not make that puddle and the water in that puddle must have bubbled up from the ground instead.

There are complex reasons I am sure as to why the satellite data is not showing enough warming and even Christy and Spencer agree that warming is taking place.

It appears that there may be complex atmospheric chemistry going on in the upper troposphere and stratosphere which involve the combination of radiative warming and reflected sunlight from the global dimming effect.

Admittedly, this topic is one that I am not well versed on enough to make a quick comment.

Also, the ratio of increased surface warming to upper troposphere may be caused by the decreased albedo of paved surfaces and the exposed ocean and land from melting ice.

I am not sure on this but the surface area of paved surfaces equals 150,000 square kilometers in the USA alone and accounts along with dark roofs for all those heat island effects you like to use showing that warming is causing the temperature readings to be higher so are assessment of the warming is wrong.

Granted that surface measurements can be affected but have you ever wondered as to the extra heat being absorbed by all this decreased albedo? The heat island effect is also a heat source as well. How much in relation to other things I have not calculated but 150,000 square kilometers is a chunk of land surface, is it not? Maybe not enough to matter much but I wonder what its contribution really is.

Somehow, it seems that there is an answer to this dilemma you share as critical to verifying the valid analysis from the computer models. You thoughts on this are worth investigating in more depth.

However, there may be other reasons. Your satellite data from Christy and Spencer which I looked at a long time ago and suggested that there may be some errors in it have actually been addressed by the same people you use for your information.

The errors include things like orbital drift, orbital decay, and instrument body warming. In my quick scan, I noticed that maybe these problems have been addressed but I do remember the data had an unexpected spike during one year and it showed a previous cooling trend and after later it showed a warming trend. All I remember is that the data did not seem to have a consistent magnitude of variability throughout the data set which is why I posed the question back then.

Now, I have not read this document below but it is the actual report on the subject by Christy and Spencer and I share it because I know that whatever you post seems to be consistently out of context with any actual work.

So, since I do not have time right at this moment, I invite others to read the following document and discuss this topic at an objective level and not just buy into your assessment. I will come back later to read what others post or when I have more time, I will read it and make some comments.

At least we have the actual assessment of what you are trying to convey and now with a direct source of information, our conversation will improve and I hope it will eventually shed more light and hopefully we can discern at some level the validity of your assertions of your main point that the upper troposphere has not warmed enough to make carbon dioxide a viable greenhouse gas contributor and why the water vapor has not increased enough to satisfy model predictions.

Fair Enough?

http://www.uah.edu/News/climate/25years.pdf

Later,

Dan

Sorry for the intermittent replies, I have a fairly busy two weeks coming up and am away from home for much of it.

Firstly my ‘angst’ as you put it. I would not say that I am particularly hung up about our colonial history only certain actions which were perpetrated out of ignorance greed and prejudice. I am pleased you agree that there have also been immense benefits in terms of transport & communications, legal and political reforms, healthcare and education as well as a result of the approach of many of our more enlightened forbears. I was more concerned that you were going to snarl at me for being jingoistic if I mentioned too many benefits of the 19th & early 20th centuries (Particularly railways!). In terms of our own landscape and ecology, Britain is lucky that it has a fairly benign, moist climate with the support of the Gulf stream. The landscape has adapted to extensive and diverse farming and production techniques without significant stress until large-scale mechanisation after WW2. There is a lot of information emerging on all kinds of unpleasant side effects of intensive livestock rearing, crop production and factory farming which have been largely brought about by myopic production subsidies: increased rain-water and faecal effluent run off from fields into water courses; high levels of nitrate contamination of ground water in the East of England, destruction of hedgerows and field margins to improve mechanisation of cereal production land, reducing habitat and biodiversity and the growing tolerance of bacteria to antibiotics due to indiscriminate use in factory livestock production to name but four.

You wanted examples of social enterprises: here are two.

One is in Eugene, Oregon, the St Vincent de Paul society which started as a religious philanthropic movement providing outreach welfare and support and is expanding rapidly into social housing, energy conservation and recycling and is expanding its business operations.

http://www.svdp.us/mainsite/about.html

the next is a London, UK based operation ECT which operates recycling collections, childcare services, public transport bus and rail contracts etc and is expanding by effectively providing high value services to public service procurers.

http://www.ectgroup.co.uk/

Now I know that social enterprises and employee cooperatives are not going to change the world on their own, but they are a very important part of a mixed, multi-sector economy and in the UK there is increasing crossover and learning between businesses being set up as trading arms of charities etc. with major corporates desirous of improving their Social Responsibility Policy. In the more advanced cases we are starting to see joint private/community sector ventures, such as wind farms and biogas/CHP units.

Finally, I note in the Financial Times of last Thursday that several US states are attempting to bring a combined action against the US EPA for its exclusion of CO2 as an atmospheric pollutant. Perhaps the debate may start in earnest on your side of the pond and you can have the pleasure of sparring with more intellectual heavyweights than myself closer to home!!

I will return with more later!

all the best

Colin

Years ago I saw a program produced by Richard Leaky (son of Louis & Mary) about how mule logging in hardwood forests in the U.S. is more economical and less harmful to the environment. Of course, the costs are very low compared to using big machines. Loggers go in, cut some select mature trees, then chain them to mules, who drag them out, without much harming the saplings or forest floor. They did a cost-benefit analysis & mule logging won out, even without considering the environmental benefits. This perhaps may not be cost effective for pine forests & softer woods.

in light of the fact that nature is also emitting GHGs in the form of volcanos. We can’t stop those, but we can reduce our drive or drive more efficiently (multiple errands, etc.). The really bad case scenario is that nature starts emitting massive GHGs through volcanism, etc., and that added to our emissions just barely adds up to pushing over the brink to a point of no return – runaway global warming & enormous death and tragedy.

We should, if we be moral beings, do what we can, without jeopardizing our own livelihood & well-being.

There are lots of positive feeback loops to be cognizant of. All the more reason we need to reduce our GHG contributions ASAP.

The skeptics may eventually be right – there is nothing we can do anymore to prevent GW, because runaway GW has kicked in. That will be a very sad day for humanity, full of regrets for those who had good hopes for their progeny, regrets they did not care enough about their progeny to buy a fuel efficient vehicle and turn out lights not in use and buy a low-flow showerhead and a host of many other things they could have done to prevent runaway GW that would not have harmed them (& would have saved them money).

that smoking caused cancer. There were only correlations, and correlation does not prove causation, as the tobacco industry gleefully used to point out. But correlations, especially with many other factors are controlled for, do suggestion causation. We don’t have several worlds on which to do controlled experiments. In the real world we often use correlations to indicate causation. We do the best we can. So, now we simply have to do the needful to reduce our GHGs (which will reduce many other problems, as well, and greatly strengthen our economy). So let’s stop dragging our feet by discussing whether GHGs cause GW or not, and start acting prudently.

Are you implying, norb, that pollen is not an aerosol, or it is not in the atmosphere?

Tell that to the allergy sufferers.

And the fungi, bacteria, viruses, etc…are you implying that these are not in the atmosphere? Surely the medical establishment is not in on the lunacy about climate change, too?

Gimme a f’n break. What a dissembler you are.

D

Just back from a couple of weeks working away. Noted an interesting post on realclimate :http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=146

This relates to the retreat of Northern peninsula iceshelves and increased glacial flows. The item points to a lack of correlation between atmopheric temperature increases and glacial retreat during the 1980s and 90’s but notes that the maine ice-shelf loss may be more closely linked to sea temperature rises, presumably as the amount of heat transfer from the ocean would be greater than from air and because there would be a larger surface area of submerged ice in contact with water than the top surface in contact wih the atmosphere.

Another anomaly to keep an eye on.

regards

Colin

Just a guess.

As the oceans warm, from whatever cause, the thermocline drops. I think that CO2 is a dissolved gas above roughly 50 metres, and a dissolved liquid below it. As there is about 20 times the CO2 dissolved in the oceans as in the atmosphere according to rumour, a drop of the depth of the phase boundary of even just a metre would perhaps release a lot of oceanic CO2. It may just be that it is this oceanic CO2 and its physical phase behaviour that is buffering the atmospheric CO2. On Mars, there is this odd coincidence that the surface pressure is 6 millibars, which is the triple point pressure of water. So there, a minor gas seems to be buffering the system.

It may be that on Earth we should look to pressure on the the bottom of the ocean, rather than the one atmophere of the land and sea surface, to find some pressure close to the triple point pressure of CO2, which from memory I think is 5 ats.

All this is guesswork, which someone please sink if it needs sinking. But if it is feasable, then the climate change we are seeing may be temperature-change induced, and that may change may not be biosphere driven. The Vostok ice cores show the temperatures rising from 300 to 3,000 years before the CO2 rises, or at least, they have been interpreted that way by some. The driver may be the variability in solar radiation, or it may be anthropogenic. Some relative numbers for heat sources might help.

Peter Ravenscroft

this was an intresting conversation i researched global warming some years ago. And found out that in the past global warming leads to global cooling. I know a contradiction in its self you are thinking how does that work.

Temperate latidutieds should acturally have a much cooler temperature more like the tundra, the reason northern Europe, America, Asia and England and southern Australie are warm is because of ocean covayer belts (warm salt water currents) e.g North Atlantic Drift.

The problems occurs when you have warm salt water meeting fresh ice water. You can see this if you use a glass pour boiled water into it look you will see patterns in it, then add cold tap water the patterns disappear.

Now for the salt peice water that is warm and has more salt in it raises to the surface as it cools it sinks and starts its cycle again, but the melting polar ice caps and glaciers dump fresh water into this slowing the cycle eventually it stops and because of the lenght of time one loop takes the whole system collapses.

But what you have to understand is that we are already in an ice age, in the part called glacial retreat the next phase is glacial expanision this has already happened over 20 times just in the present ice age most people think the ice age end 14,000 years ago but there have been more resent glacial expansions 11,000 years ago 8,000 years ago 3,000 years ago and in the 1700’s so you can see this is quite common thing to happen they each happen forn diffrent reasons but all of them have Cabon Dixiode in common whether its a super volcano e.g yellow stone national park deforestation or man made.

The point is it happened before it will happen again scientist aurgue over how long before the next glacial expansion. I have my own timeline my point is dont argue about who did it and how!