Lynas vs Lomborg: the debate begins here 12 April 05

forests, which we had discussed last week. The quote below comes from (http://www.fraserinstitute.org/admin/books/chapterfiles/Apr05ffmorris.pdf).

“However, more detailed and comprehensive studies published later showed that acid rain was not causing any significant damage either to trees or to lakes (Howells, 1995). Indeed, the very claim that trees were dying off in large numbers has been disputed. Moreover, an alternative and better explanation for the rising levels of acidity in lakes was offered, namely, that it was the result of increasing concentrations of decomposing acidic pine needles. During the early part of the 20th century, deforestation led to declining levels of acidity in many Northern European lakes, allowing fish and other aquatic life to thrive. However, after the 1940s, reforestation reversed this process: the lakes became acid once more and the fish died.”

This conclusion is similar to the conclusion about what happened to the forests in the Northeast US.

Will enjoy either hearing via web or reading the transcripts of your debate!

from proactive measures to combate GW and apply it to HIV/AIDS. Then you can work to solve both problems.

as Mark did in his “Dear Bjorn” letter, the following article might cast some doubt on the link between warmer water and reef decline.

“Research Shows Overfishing of Sharks Key Factor in Coral Reef Decline”

The research, performed by researchers from San Diego, Calif. and Spain, showed that, “When sharks are overfished, a cascade of effects can lead to a depletion of important grazers of plant life. This is because there are fewer sharks to feed on carnivorous fish such as grouper-causing an increase in their numbers and their ability to prey on parrotfishes. The removal of plant-eating animals such as parrotfishes has been partly responsible for the shift of Caribbean reefs from coral to algae dominated . . . “

http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/article_detail.cfm?article_num=670

I’d like to say how delighted I am by this initiative.

Both of you are very influential figures in the decisions we take to deal with Global Warming and other environmental issues. I believe you both have the highest intentions in doing what is right. By discussing things in this open forum, I think there is a much greater chance that we will get to a better understanding of what should be done.

To help the debate be as useful as I believe it could be, I have a few suggestions:

1. Be humble – Recognise that no-one has a blueprint to deal with the challenges we face. What we need is good decision-making based on the best available evidence and theoretical understanding of how to deal with environmental & social problems. Agree that you will you challenge your own, each other’s assumptions!

2. Try & agree on directions for appropriate solutions – Look to see who is doing good work in understanding how to deal with Global Warming, and see how far it will take us. Recognise that every approach has weaknesses and try and identify them (including each other’s).

3. Don’t get trapped in false debates – There are lots of sterile questions that you should avoid. (As an example of a false debate, is the question “Is it worth sacrificing human wellbeing for nature?” – we should not be developing strategy with such a zero sum game approach.)

4. Value nature for it’s own sake & as integrated with human civilisation – Too often economists just look at human welfare and ignore nature/civilization holistically. (Indeed, Mark & saw Martin Holdgate speak at the RGS last November, where he talked about the dangers of mass extinction – and he believed that there should be much better dialogue between ecologists and economists. He believed that the fate of our wildlife etc. lay particularly with economists.)

5. Recognise the complexity of the world – Try and avoid comments that try and explain the world with a simple solution. You are not politicians!

Personally, I do have some severe misgivings about Bjorn Lomborg’s methodology, which I’ll try and articulate at some point. However, I’ll just make a couple of comments on his letter to Mark, below:

Lomborg writes that richer societies are more environmentally sensitive:

Quote – “Why? Because we are now rich enough to afford to care for the environment. … When humans have enough, they start caring more about nature, too.”

I think this statement is really not insightful as it is far too simplistic. I would challenge Lomborg to change his assumptions on this (maybe along the lines of Javed Diamond in his recent book “Collapse”).

Lomborg also writes that we should prioritise our efforts.

Quote – “And this brings us to our central question: what should we worry about first?”

Surely such a sequential way of dealing with our challenges is also deeply flawed.

Good luck!

Peter

A report in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters presents a serious challenge to the accuracy of the models that IPCC et al use to predict future climate catastrophe. The abstract is at http://www.physorg.com/news3694.html. The full article is at http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005…/2004GL022119.shtml; subscription required.

I agree with your suggestions and I encourage the debate participants to conduct the affair in with the style and taste that you suggest.

I do believe that you have slightly misstated the position that Borg and others take in regard to environmental protection vis-àis economic well being. I believe that all humans would prefer to live in a clean environment, but those who have the misfortune to live in marginal societies cannot afford to expend the necessary effort and resources. Only after humans have secured the base of Maslow’s Pyramid, can they go on to explore the higher levels.

I acknowledge that little experimental evidence exists to document the accuracy of Maslow’s work, but the pyramid is a useful empirical model that describes human needs and nature. Maslow proposed the following levels of human needs:

1 Physiological: hunger, thirst, bodily comforts, etc.

2 Safety/security: out of danger.

3 Belonginess and Love: affiliate with others, be accepted.

4 Esteem: to achieve, be competent, gain approval and recognition.

5 Cognitive: to know, to understand, and explore.

6 Aesthetic: symmetry, order, and beauty.

7 Self-actualization: to find self-fulfillment and realize one’s potential.

8 Transcendence: to help others find self-fulfillment and realize their potential.

I think that enhancement of the environment begins somewhere around level 5 or 6.

You can find a pretty picture and some discussion at http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.html

even if it was just the abstract. The fact that current computer modeling for earth temps is off from actual pinatubo data is intriguing. I wonder if others will be able to replicate what is shown here with other examples? If so, I guess climatologists don’t have everything about global warming figured out yet… hmmm.

I can’t remember where I saw it but some TV program or website (might have been BBC) was showing what an african countries population (can’t remember which) was doing with the goodwill of others in getting condoms to prevent spreading of HIV.

What were they doing with the condoms you ask? (no, not what you’re thinking) They were making colorful braclets from them and selling them!!!!!

Another web story I read was saying some african countries population was afraid of getting shots and the religious leaders were telling the gen. pop. that the vaccinations were a “plot by the US” to destroy them… they were simple polio vaccinations or something like that!!!! How do you counter this kind of idoicy!!!! Ridiculous.

The Bush Admin. has held back on billions (with a B) because the countries in need can’t guarantee the money will be used to help their own people… absolutely amazing…

Those poor people. Sad really when you think about it.

Funnily enough, I was thinking about Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs when I wrote my last post! It’s a very powerful concept.

would more closely relate to Maslow’s #1 & 2 (physiological well-being & safety), since we depend on food, water, & air to survive (& these come from the environment & require a somewhat healthy, working ecosystem), and then #8 Transcendence, concern for others & their needs (including those basic environmental needs). The middle needs could relate to selfish (or self-centered, uncognizant of environment or others) pursuits that harm the environment.

Yes, I think you have pointed out a dangerous mis-match between individual needs and social/community needs.

the negative feedback (cooling effect) from recent volcanic eruptions in their considerations and/or calculations, as to why the climate has not warmed as much as it should have, given the increasing GHGs in the atmosphere.

I don’t really know about volcanos, but what I’m gleaning from my readings is that they emit certain things (ash, particles, aerosols & heavier molecules, like SO2) that cool the climate (act as an umbrella), and some things, like CO2, that would contribute to warming. I think at first the cooling effect is stronger, but those heavier things don’t last very long in the atmosphere; the warming things (CO2) do last a lot longer. They say 100 years, but I read a recent post that 1/4 of our human CO2 emission could last up to 100,000 years in the atmosphere.

Now, I could be wrong on part or all of this – it’s just my limited knowledge as a layperson. However, I do know that it is prudent (not exactly one of our American ideals) to avoid unnecessary risks in the face of limited or conflicting data & theories. So, I’m back to square one of suggesting we do all we can to reduce GHGs that do not cost us in the long run, or save us money.

And we could take measures to reduce GHGs that have other benefits – such as reducing other environmental harms or improving national security.

Another thing that would really appeal to Americans is individual/family energy self-sufficiency. Wouldn’t it be great if many more of us could generate our own energy (or part of it) from small, low-noise wind generators, solar cells, etc., and live “off the grid.” There are those who do it; some with back-up from gas generators.

The article described work that the authors did to use the existing GCMs (which as you say include calculations to predict the effects of volcanos) to predict the effects of the Pinatubo eruption. They then compared the model predictions to measured temperature data. They found that the models did not portray the effects of the eruption accurately.

In other words, the models are inaccurate.

They focus intensely on finding food and while doing so ignore the effects their efforts have on the environment. I think that hunger and fear are primal urges, which when acute our conscious selves cannot control.

Famished humans will eat first and think later. They will lay waste to their environs to eat even if they know that they are doing it. They will not starve in the midst of uneaten food. We, as well fed citizens of successful societies want to believe that we would do better, but we would not. If faced with starvation, we would behave just like those who are facing starvation; we would trash the environment to eat. No one in such a situation considers tomorrow or next year; they think only of today.

When faced with an unexpected danger, we tend to panic even though we know in our minds that panic kills most of those who die in accidents. Think of the number of times that you have read about crowds crushing individuals while fleeing burning buildings. Look at what happened during the Hindenburg incident.

The authors didn’t use GCMs for their paper. Try reading it and get back to us with your new analysis.

For Googlers, a synopsis is here.

For people who visit the library, the paper is

David H. Douglass and Robert S. Knox 2005. Climate forcing by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Geophys Res Lett VOL. 32, L05710, doi:10.1029/2004GL022119.

Abstract:

[1] We determine the volcano climate sensitivity λ and response time τ for the Mount Pinatubo eruption, using observational measurements of the temperature anomalies of the lower troposphere, measurements of the long wave outgoing radiation, and the aerosol optical density. Using standard linear response theory we find λ = 0.15 ± 0.06 K/(W/m2), which implies a negative feedback of −1.4 (+0.7, −1.6). The intrinsic response time is τ = 6.8 ± 1.5 months. Both results are contrary to a paradigm that involves long response times and positive feedback.

and the Analysis says:

We use the AOD time dependence to obtain a solution of this equation, assuming with Hansen that ΔF is proportional to AOD, ΔF = −Aq(t), where q(t) is a function that very closely fits the AOD data,

and nowhere in the text is a GCM used. And D&K use the TLT and datasets, BTW, not all of the available ones.

But the paper’s point remains that the GCMs didn’t do a good job at uncommon forcings.

HTH,

D

Check the papers that talk about coral bleaching, not coral decline. Thanks.

D

Books that study forestry, rather than markets, can detail the damage that acid rain causes. The Howells reference has been cherry-picked, as it finds that the effects vary, not that there are no effects.

HTH,

D

As I read it, the reference says that the “acid ran was not causing any significant damage either to trees or to lakes”. Neither the book nor I said that there were no effects.

You claim that the book finds that “the effects vary”. Can you quote some text wherein the book says that significant effects are among the variable effects? Or, is this just another of your thinly veiled misdirection plays?

Mark’s comment to Bjorn was, “a fifth of the world’s coral reefs have already been lost, and another fifth degraded”

Do you see the word bleach in there anywhere? I thought not.

- It’s not an abstract.

- Eruptions are a small part of the forcings and since there have been so few to study, it is not surprising we don’t understand them well.

Nevertheless, not handling an event that occurs rarely cannot be conflated to GCMs being utter failures.

Lastly, D&K’s text does not specifically say they did not use GCMs, rather they give the equations they used to solve for their data.

Best,

D

The issue with warming of the oceans is coral bleaching. Your linky was about overfishing has altered the trophic balance, thus degrading the coral by introducing competition.

The signal you want to look for is a suite of papers that say coral is dying solely due to the competition factor. since you cannot find that suite of papers because it does not exist, you should instead learn the context of the issue. In this context, “lost” has multiple causative factors. You attempted to explain “loss” with only one factor.

HTH

D

The passage attempts to downplay the significance of acid rain, and give other causative factors.

1. Effects of acid rain vary. 2. They are real. 3. The article by the conservative think-tank also claimed the vast die-off of forests was not caused by acid rain, but did not say what was the cause, IIRC. 4. Your question: Can you quote some text wherein the book says that significant effects are among the variable effects isn’t quite right. You’re trying too hard.

Try: Can you quote some text that says there are no significant effects?

To which I will reply: No, I don’t have the book, but I have secondary text that quotes the book. Is that good enough?

D

I can see norb’s point that the paper summary said what it says. I guess you have to read into what “Both results are contrary to a paradigm that involves long response times and positive feedback.” means exactly and what papers they cite (eg. papers on GCM’s). I don’t have access via web either and I’m no scientist so I would probably be limited as to what I’d get out of it.

However, I can look and see what else they have published and what their credentials are. Notice the vita below.

I also found more of explanation on the University of Rochester site press release-

“Douglass and Knox point out that the mechanism producing the negative feedback may be the “Infrared Iris effect” due to clouds proposed by MIT professor Richard Lindzen. Clouds can both cool the Earth by reflecting light from the Sun, and warm the Earth by trapping heat between them and the ground. Since cloud formation is influenced by temperature and humidity changes in the atmosphere, the team suspects that clouds may form and dissipate in a way that tends to push the global temperatures back to steady normal.

Since the explanation of Pinatubo by the computer models was wrong in regard to the response time and the negative feedback, Douglass asks, “Are the computer models right when they consider the change to the climate caused by carbon dioxide?” “

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/

Douglass vita

David H. Douglass. Publication and Talks (as of Dec 2004)

Climate Forcing by the Volcanic Eruption of Mount Pinatubo. David H. Douglass and Robert S. Knox. accepted. Geophys Res. Letters. 2004

Iceland as a Heat Island D. H. Douglass, V. Patel, and R. S. Knox. accepted Geophys Res Letters. 2004

Climate sensitivity of Earth to solar irradiance: update. David H. Douglass, B, David Clader, and R.S. Knox. Physics, abstract physics/0411002. 2004

Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation . David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, and S. Fred Singer Geophys Res Lett, VOL. 31, L13208, doi:10.1029/2004GL020103, 2004

Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence. David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer, Paul C. Knappenberger, and Patrick J. Michaels. Geophys Res Letters, VOL. 31, L13207, doi:10.1029/2004GL020212, 2004

About those Nobel Prizes. David H. Douglass. Tech Central Station. July 2004

Temperature response of Earth to the annual solar irradiance cycle David H. Douglass, Eric G. Blackman, Robert S. Knox Physics Letters A 323 p315–322. 2004

Comment on “Can Slow Variations in SolarLuminosity Provide Missing Link between the Sun and Climate?” Eos. Trans of AGU vol 81 Dec 2003 p532-5

Test for Harmful Collinearity among Predictor Variables used in the Modeling of the Global Temperature . David H. Douglass, B. David Clader, John R. Christy, Patrick J. Michaels, and David A.Belsley. Climate Research 24 15-18 2003

On the Nature of the El Niña Niñvents . David H. Douglass, Drew R. Abrams, David M. Baranson B. David Clader LANL Archives. Physics/0203016. 2002.

Determination of the Climate Sensitivity of the Earth to Solar Irradiance. David H. Douglass, B. David Clader. Geophysical Research Letters 10.1029/2002GL015345. 2002

Talks and presentations:

The Musical and Scientific Revolutions of the 16 th Century: Vincenzo and Galileo Galilei. David H. Douglass, David Headlam. Colloquium: Physics and Astronomy Jan 26, 2005

Climate Sensitivity to Solar Irradiance and Climate Models (invited talk). SORCE meeting on Decade Variations in the Sun and the Climate. Merideth NH . Oct 28,2004.

The Musical and Scientific Revolutions of the 16 th Century: Vincenzo and Galileo Galilei. David H. Douglass, David Headlam. LLE seminar. Oct 1, 2004.

The Musical and Scientific Revolutions of the 16 th Century: Vincenzo and Galileo Galilei. R. Wason, D. Headlam, P. O’dette, and David H. Douglass.Freshman Collquium. Kilbourn Hall ESM. Sept 14, 2004

The 2003 Nobel Prizes . David H. Douglass. S. Teitel, Nich Bigelow. Physics and Astronomy Colloquium Feb 25, 2004

Global Warming and Cooling . David H. Douglass. University of Rochester Wednesday evening Alumni Lecture Series. September 25, 2002.

Construction of a Template to Represent an Ice Age Climate Cycle . David H. Douglass, Alphonso Magri. Paper presented at the AGU San Francisco Meeting. Dec 10-15, 2001

Determination of the Parameters of the Earth-Climate System due to Forcing from the Solar 11-year Cycle and from the Mt. Pinatubo Volcano Event. David H. Douglass. Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics June 6, 2001.

Global Warming? David H. Douglass. Seminar at CFACT Leadership Institute. Arlington Va. July 12, 2001.

Determination of the Parameters of the Earth-Climate System due to Forcing from the Solar 11-year Cycle and from the Mt. Pinatubo Volcano Event. (Invited Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Global Warming and the Next Ice Age.19-24 August,2001 Halifax , Canada . D, H. Douglass and B. David Clader.2001

Were the Ice Ages Caused by Oscillations of Atmospheric CO­2 ? David H. Douglass. Science and Technology Seminar. Laboratory for Laser Energetics Dec 17, 1999

Global Warming ? David H. Douglass. Sixth Annual Myron W. Cucci Visiting Scientist Address. Monroe Community College . Dec 10, 1999.

food for thought… even if it may be hard to digest

Jimbo:

1. The infrared iris effect hasn’t been replicated, and the paper itself hasn’t withstood peer review thus far. The D&K result, which uses TLT and longwave data (not from MSU, and the datasets aren’t made equal) but not balloon data [hence analyzes different latitudes but doesn’t explain how that variance is handled, accounted for, or the resultant differing effects is considered] or the combined satellite longwave and shortwave data (as that’s what gets measured and shortwave is what strikes the ground, so variance is not considered), may point out an issue the GCMs don’t handle well.

The point is, Norb is trying to imply GCMs don’t work well at all.

2. The actual publications listed above can be checked for their value by how many times they are cited by other papers. It is illuminating to do this. The next time you visit the library, check it out.

That is not to say Douglass does not contribute to the dialogue.

Best,

D

I’m not a climatologist or physicist and won’t pretend to be one.

But common sense asks, is anyone else checking their numbers? They mentioned using empirical numbers from some sort of satellite data so it must be available to the science community. I wonder if anyone else is even bothering to replicate since it seems the community already has bought into current GCM’s. (I’m sure someone could write them and ask to see the data sets to run the numbers themselves)

I don’t know the answer but ask the questions. Have the current GCM’s been replicated against actual real numbers?

did I claim that coral bleaching is solely the result of over fishing of sharks. It appears to me that the answer to the increased bleaching is that contact with humans and their effects on the water exacerbate the effects of rising temperatures. Corals have withstood increased temperature in the past, but this is the first time that they have had to contend with us as well. Over fishing of sharks is but one of the effects of humans on corals. Attributing the bleaching of corals solely to increased temperature is probably as silly as attributing it solely to shark fishing.

It appears that corals evolved circa 200 million years ago when the temperature was 10 to 15 degrees Celsius higher than it is today. Data indicate that the temperature during each of the 4 interglacial periods going back 420,000 years was 1 to 3 degrees higher than it is today.

Attributing widespread bleaching of corals, which withstood higher temperatures in the past to increased temperature today, may not be a complete answer. The current attribution of bleaching to temperature apparently finds basis in the observation that bleaching has increased as temperatures have risen. A simple correlation does not demonstrate causation.

Almost facetiously, I note that the putative relationship between rising temperature and rising carbon dioxide concentration finds its basis in a similar correlation. Why do we blame the warming on carbon dioxide and not blame the warming on coral bleaching?

I note that no one has proven that the rising temperature is the result of the rising carbon dioxide concentration; that is just the hypothesis of the IPCC.

In any case, I have listed a few references to articles that find things other than increased temperature to be the cause of coral bleaching.

CONTACT WITH HUMANS AND THEIR POLLUTANTS

Nordemar, I., Nystrom, M. and Dizon, R. 2003. Effects of elevated seawater temperature and nitrate enrichment on the branching coral Porites cylindrica in the absence of particulate food. Marine Biology 142: 669-677.

Hawkins, J.P., Roberts, C.M., Van’t Hof, T., De Meyer, K., Tratalos, J. and Aldam, C. 1999. Effects of recreational scuba diving on Caribbean coral and fish communities. Conservation Biology 13: 888-897.

Scarlett, A., Donkin, P., Fileman, T.W. and Morris, R.J. 1999. Occurrence of the antifouling herbicide, Irgarol 1051, within coastal-water seagrasses from Queensland, Australia. Marine Pollution Bulletin 38: 687-691.

Meehan, W.J. and Ostrander, G.K. 1997. Coral bleaching: a potential biomarker of environmental stress. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 50: 529-552.

PATHOGENS

Rosenberg, E. and Falkovitz, L. 2004. The Vibrio shiloi/Oculina patagonica model system of coral bleaching. Annual Review of Microbiology 58: 143-159.

Nugues, M.M., Smith, G.W., van Hooidonk, R.J, Seabra, M.I. and Bak, R.P.M. 2004. Algal contact as a trigger for coral disease. Ecology Letters 7: 919-923

Fine, M., Banin, E., Israely, T., Rosenberg, E. and Loya, Y. 2002. Ultraviolet radiation prevents bleaching in the Mediterranean coral Oculina patagonica. Marine Ecology Progress Series 226: 249-254

Shinn, E.A., Smith, G.W., Prospero, J.M., Betzer, P., Hayes, M.L., Garrison, V. and Barber, R.T. 2000. African dust and the demise of Caribbean coral reefs. Geophysical Research Letters 27: 3029-3032

Ritchie, K.B. and Smith, G.W. 1998. Type II white-band disease. Revista De Biologia Tropical 46: 199-203.

Kushmaro, A., Rosenberg, E., Fine, M., Ben Haim, Y. and Loya, Y. 1998. Effect of temperature on bleaching of the coral Oculina patagonica by Vibrio AK-1. Marine Ecology Progress Series 171: 131-137.

Kushmaro, A., Rosenberg, E., Fine, M. and Loya, Y. 1997. Bleaching of the coral Oculina patagonica by Vibrio AK-1. Marine Ecology Progress Series 147: 159-165.

SEDIMENT

Hendy, E.J., Gagan, M.K. and Lough, J.M. 2003. Chronological control of coral records using luminescent lines and evidence for non-stationary ENSO teleconnections in northeast Australia. The Holocene 13: 187-199.

Wesseling, I., Uychiaoco, A.J., AliñP.M., Aurin, T. and Vermaat, J.E. 1999. Damage and recovery of four Philippine corals from short-term sediment burial. Marine Ecology Progress Series 176: 11-15.

Umar, M.J., McCook, L.J. and Price, I.R. 1998. Effects of sediment deposition on the seaweed Sargassum on a fringing coral reef. Coral Reefs 17: 169-177.

Nowlis, J.S., Roberts, C.M., Smith, A.H. and Siirila, E. 1997. Human-enhanced impacts of a tropical storm on nearshore coral reefs. Ambio 26: 515-521.

SOLAR RADIATION

Brown, B.E., Le Tissier, M.D.A. and Dunne, R.P. 1994. Tissue retraction in the scleractinian coral Coeloseris mayeri, its effect upon coral pigmentation, and preliminary implications for heat balance. Marine Ecology Progress Series 105: 209-218

Brown, B.E., Dunne, R.P., Scoffin, T.P. and Le Tissier, M.D.A. 1994. Solar damage in intertidal corals. Marine Ecology Progress Series 105: 219-230.

Lyons, M.M., Aas, P., Pakulski, J.D., Van Waasbergen, L., Miller, R.V., Mitchell, D.L. and Jeffrey, W.H. 1998. DNA damage induced by ultraviolet radiation in coral-reef microbial communities. Marine Biology 130: 537-543.

Williams, D.E., Hallock, P., Talge, H.K., Harney, J.N. and McRae, G. 1997. Responses of Amphistegina gibbosa populations in the Florida Keys (U.S.A.) to a multi-year stress event (1991-1996). Journal of Foraminiferal Research 27: 264-269.

SALINITY

Ferrier-Pages, C., Gattuso, J.-P. and Jaubert, J. 1999. Effect of small variations in salinity on the rates of photosynthesis and respiration of the zooxanthellate coral Stylophora pistillata. Marine Ecology Progress Series 181: 309-314.

1. Your news article was about the decline of Caribbean coral reefs. You tried to conflate that decline with warming and coral reef decline [might cast some doubt on the link between warmer water and reef decline]. You don’t understand the difference, apparently.

And don’t do your usual making sht up and put words in my mouth, like ‘solely’. I understand you are over your head as far as knowledge goes, but stop before you make sht up, because others can see your tactics that way.

2. I note that no one has proven that the rising temperature is the result of the rising carbon dioxide concentration;

Science doesn’t prove anything. That’s not what it does.

But certainly science can do a probabalistic assesment (which is what it does). Of course the linky is just the latest in a long line of studies that have found the same thing.

D

Civilizations have collapsed and land been degraded because people worked to fill basic needs. Some anthropologists suggest that (at least in some cases) they probably understood they were degrading their land, but because it was circumscribed by other peoples and societies, they continued to degrade it until crops diminished and forests were gone. [My husband’s best friend, with a little captial, helped reverse this process in India; he would enrich the land with cow manure, sell it at profit, then enrich more land.]

On the other hand, it is not the poor who are driving around in Hummers or leaking perc (they can’t even afford dry cleaning) and other toxins into water, or using and abusing synthetic fertilizers and pesticides (they can’t afford those either).

I think it is the self-actualizing rich (including middle class Americans) who are causing the most harm. If poor countries are polluting their land and using dirty energy to produce industrial products, then it is the rich around the globe who are buying those products and creating those markets.

Take nucelar power. Many fear the dangers of generating it and disposing of its waste, but few know that uranium mining has had enormous cost from loss of Navajo miners’ lives (they were sent in without protective gear in the past) to degradation of Niger subsistance lands people too poor to use electricity depend on for their livelihood. [When I lived in Illinois, I asked ComEd where they bought their uranium – they said on the spot market, which might have included Niger & U.S. mines.]

Over the years I’ve become increasingly aware of case after case of poor people harmed by the interests of the rich through environmental harm, land seizure, slavery (which I think is greater now than any time in history), and unjust/non-living wages and oppressive, unhealthy working conditions. My sense it this immorality is increasing. I know Europeans are more aware. We have a German friend who works for Fair Trade to help people in Ghana.

I think the final insult to the poor is global warming & its threat of very grave future harm to them and their livelihood—something mostly caused per capita by the rich.

Since people don’t like to take responsibility for the negative repercussions of their actions, we probably won’t be able to head off GW. It’s become apparent to me that even if it is in their self interest to save money, people would rather burn it, than admit they are doing something wrong.

It’s absolutely no consolation to me that many rich may end up in a much hotter place than a globally warmed world, if they don’t repent and start acting justly with compassion.

and then using your misinterpretation to prove that they were wrong.

I tire of your supercilious attitude, your profanity, your infantile phasing (i.e. “linky”) and your refusal to consider the work of persons whose opinions differ from your own. I have seen you disparage such papers by describing them as products of right wing think tanks, and as minions of the energy industry. You appear to believe that such descriptions invalidate the analyses and conclusions of those papers so you discount them.

Mark appears to worship at the altar of Pan. You appear to have a better technical education but to be no more open to the ideas of others.

It should be possible to do an objective study to quantify the impact on the environment of rich civilizations compared to poorer civilizations (including net outflows of pollution).

Arguably, richer societies have the potential to implement environmentally friendly technologies, but clearly they do not always do it.

BTW, has anyone else read Jared Diamond’s book “Collapse”? I have only flicked through it & it looks a very interesting study of exactly these issues. From a cursary read (whilst trying to amuse a baby), he looks as though he admired the Dutch and their Polder mentality.

Perhaps it already has been done.

We would have to attribute pollution and environmental harm, though, to the persons who purchase and consume/use the product, not to the producers, because many poor nations produce goods for the rich (including those in other nations) which they can’t even afford. So that would be the only fair way to do it in a global economy.

But as far as GW goes, it seems to me that is mainly per capita caused by the rich, who can afford to do things (buy cars, travel, buy more products) that create GHGs.

1. Which of the 35 different models on that site is correct one? They all generate different simulation numbers?

I did not see any hindcasting (could have missed due to glazing eyes), like the douglass study, with comparing actual real earth data to a model. I saw only a lot of simulations studies.

2. I don’t think an accelerated review process is a necessarily positive thing given the potential decisions made on supposedly valid data of the models. As we know, decisions made on false data can be detrimental.

The fact one study criticizing a model (or models) is attacked so much makes me wonder what is really being reviewed here. Also for a particle physicist he has sure published a lot of stuff on climate (see earlier posting of his vita).

3. The “community” is the global warming crowd (not you D) which seems to blame mankind, the US and Bush in particular for all the worlds ills.

All I’m saying is give critical studies a chance to show what may be flawed. Peer review is part of the design to better the process. D&K et al used real earth data and ran it against a model or models which came up with different results. These models may not be as accurate as thought. We have to make sure they are valid in the results before eco-mandates are broadcast and the end of the earth is foretold.

I thought it was an interesting summary article and D&K may not agree with your assessement of their study. I don’t know all the science behind climatology and physics but find this interesting information.

Your argument is with them, not me. You could send your critique of the studies shortcomings to them. This way they can at least have a chance to address your concerns. I’ll be interested to read their response. Let me know when they do.

Thanks

Hi Jimbo;

1. Their results and numbers are detailed in another section with the list of papers generated.

The hindcasting is the NOAA GISS model. Tracking it down might be fun.

2. Agreed. And condensed matter physics is almost all modeling.

3. Well done on that last part! I disagree with your rhetoric but the argument is well made.

Best sir,

D

“In Sweden, 18,000 lakes are acidified, 4,000 of them seriously. Thousands of once-productive Scandinavian lakes can now no longer support fish”. If they were previously acidified, then where did all those fish suddenly arrive from, operating as part of delicate ecosystems?

The conclusion of Flower and Battarbee, (1983) was that Loch Enoch was already acidic in 1800 (similar to your claim), but has become more so since 1940 as a result of industrial emissions rather than a change in land use.

The acid rain phenomenon has been known about since way back in the 1800s, when it was discovered outside Manchester (UK) to be impacting on surrounding vegetation by Angus Smith. Since then its effects have been studied, and more of its impacts fully understood. Larger power stations, with higher chimneys (to appease locals) have the effect of wider dispersal of acid rain, ie UK to scandinavia, & US to Canada.

here is proof that dealing with SO2 NOx emissions is affecting acid levels in the US too: “Surface water chemistry in the northeastern U.S. has changed significantly as a result of changes in atmospheric deposition during the past 20 years. During 1990-2000, sulfate concentrations in deposition declined significantly at a rate between -0.75 and -1.5 µeq/L/year. Nitrogen concentrations (nitrate + ammonium) declined slightly. In response to the changes in deposition, sulfate concentrations in sensitive Maine lakes have declined by 10 to 25% since 1982, in part due to the 1995 implementation of Phase I controls of the Clean Air Act Amendments and in part to other long-term pollution reduction efforts”. (Lakewater chemistry at Acadia National Park, Maine, in response to declining acidic deposition. J.S. Kahl etal)

To disagree with acid rain is to almost disagree with with chemistry and chemical processes. (much like disagreeing with GW actually!)

regards Brendon

As a member of the Royal Geographical Society, I have just received their latest edition of the Geographical Journal (March 2005) on “Poverty & the Environment” which is devoted to this issue.

I don’t really have time to discuss it, but very briefly, the evidence seems to be against “poverty” causing environmental damage.

Back in 1987, the Brundtland Report talked about poverty being a major scourge to the environment since “the poor and hungry will often destroy their immediate environment in order to survive”. There was a need for sustainable development etc. – and this was taken further at the 1992 Rio Conference.

However, this approach is not supported by the evidence presented with these papers. However, was has been recognised, more and more, in the last 10 years is the destablising effect of population growth. This wasn’t addressed at the 1992 Rio conference at all, but subsequently from the 1994 Cairo conference onwards.

From a personal perspective, I think there is a philosphical error that almost all social scientists make – and that is determinism. They look at what happened in the past and think it was (somewhat) inevitable. Whilst society has a certain momentum, to a large degree, the future is what we make it, and the choices we make.

Relevant to this discussion – maybe the rich have been more polluting than the poor in the past. In particular, some of the extractive capitalistic enterprises look to have a very poor environmental record compared to traditonal (poor) activities.

That doesn’t need to be the case in the future!!