Antarctic Peninsula glaciers in meltdown 25 April 05

Crichton claims warming is not taking place, or that warming areas are counterbalanced by cooling areas. Even if they start making the movie now, and it takes 2 years, by then it will be a really funny comedy of errors.

I also read on ClimateArk that Himalayan glacier melt is alarming, exacerbated by lack of adequate snowfall (I think which could also be due to GW?). So the Ganges may wind up being little more than a trickle in decades to come, and many millions would starve.

Another thing, they now have an ice core that goes back 900,000 years covering 10 ice ages & warming periods (whereas they only went back about 2 ice ages & warming periods), so we will now see conclusively whether higher GHGs correlate with warming periods.

They thought that might finally convince Bush, but he will just shift to his next tactics – (1) warming causes GHGs (which I say is a very dangerous feedback, not forcing), (2)warming is good, it’ll lower our winter heating bills & allow longer growing seasons, and (3) we’re funding billions in research on techno-solutions, like putting a bunch or mirrors in the sky to reflect the sun, and the research should be completed by the next century. It takes time to do good research – centuries. Then if that fails to do the trick, we might start talking about maybe turning off lights not in use or going with wind power.

have assembled a video that describes some of the difficulties with the IPCC conclusions about climate change.

If you have a few minutes, you might want to watch it. http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

I hate sound to synical, however, we need to look at Bush motives. I think he is happy about the prospect of poor folk beeing effected by GW. I saves him the problem of killing them himself.

than what many scientists claim, we are not scientists. We hopefully operate prudently on less certainty than scientists need to make claims at .05 significance.

So, it still behooves us to do all we can cost-effectively to reduce our GHG emissions—measures which also help solve a host of other environmental & non-environmental problems, while saving us money or not costing us (& without lowering our individual lifestyles or the national economy).

Having said that, I do believe all or most of the concerns expressed on that website have been adequately and convincingly refuted by climate scientists. See for instance, RealClimate.org

It’s fine that the scientific debate continues & scientists look at all possible data & explanations. Meanwhile back on earth we can be reducing our GHGs by cost-effective and multi-problem-solving measures. I’m sure you will agree with that.

These arguments are all addressed in the literature, but ignored in this argumentation. Old news.

D

that the literature has thoroughly addressed all of the arguments that the video presents.

I am certain that the persons who assembled the video (all of whom are eminently qualified researchers in their fields) are at least as familiar with the literature as you are. We can see in the video that they do not agree that the literature has fully addressed the issues. What you call tired old news could be unresolved technical problems with the AGW hypothesis.

I believe that one cannot be said to have made an informed decision unless he has educated himself about the arguments of those with whom he purports to disagree. Watching the video might be useful to those who participate in this blog. Some might learn that some of what IPCC so glibly dismisses is not without merit.

Tim Ball and Tim Patterson, eh? The usual suspects. Patterson’s a geologist – qualified in his field, certainly. Their arguments presented are old, tired, recycled rhetoric.

Lynn said the same thing, and detailed where the arguments have been addressed. I’m sure it took her about 4 seconds to see thru the ruse. She has critical thinking skills, see.

Anyway, the…um…references page on the web site is not chock full of, shall we say, robust science to back their arguments.

Your clue is their mentioning the Oregon Petition. Your other clue is lack of empirical papers. Yup. There is lots of testimony and some opinion papers, but where are the hypotheses, measurements, data, and empirical analyses from the septics to back their claims? Other than nowhere, that is.

If it’s all so wrong, point out the null hypotheses, data, and empirical analyses to show where it’s all so wrong.

Anyone can write some stuff. Who cares about that?

Test your idea. Test. Test. Test. The IPCC is a scientific body. Test. Test. Test. Test. The scientific method is about testability. If you’re rebutting the science, then test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test.

But, if’n you want to listen to the shills, rather than visit the library, fine with me. Just don’t expect folk with critical thinking skills to look at what is presented there and come along for the rube ride.

D

You say that Drs. Patterson and Ball are the usual suspects. What are they suspected of having done? You call them shills. What information do you have that leads you to that conclusion? For whom do they shill? What possible reason could these scientists have for perpetrating a ruse? If you have information, please share it. If not, you should apologize to those who contributed to the video.

I am familiar with the Realclimate.org web site that Lynn cited. I have been there and read extensively from it. I remain unconvinced. You appear to believe that you are the only person who has read anything. Why?

I have heard that some one signed phony names to the Oregon Petition. That prank does not invalidate the petition. Approximately 20,000 real scientists and engineers signed it. I did. I know that I found at least 50 names of persons whom I know on the list of signatories. I know that the statement with which I expressed agreement said that at the time (ca 6 years ago) the AGW hypothesis was unproven (and still is insofar as I can tell). What problem do you have with the petition?

You ask where the data that support the opinions of the skeptics are. The answer is that they have relied on the same information that the scientists working on the IPCC project used. In fact, many of those that you call “suspects” and “shills” are or have been among the scientists working on the IPCC project. Some, Vincent Gray for example, were lead authors on technical sections. They are well qualified to point out the differences between the technical documents the scientists produced and the Summary for Policy Makers that the politicians at IPCC composed.

For example, McIntyre and McKitrick analyzed Mann’s data and came to a different conclusion. Who is right? You clearly think Mann is right. He might be but the subject is far from closed. I believe that it will be debated during the upcoming IPCC meetings.

You appear to believe that Michael Mann’s defense of his “hockey stick” and other pronouncements on a web site that he created for the purpose of defending his temperature rendition should qualify as more than opinion. Why is that more scientific than the pronouncements of skeptics on their web sites? Is it merely because you do not like what the skeptics have to say? Is it a matter of personal taste?

The null hypothesis is that the ongoing warming of our climate is natural, that it is not out of bounds of temperature changes that occurred during recorded history and that there is no reason to believe that carbon dioxide is the primary driver of the current warming trend. Many papers describe the position of those who do not believe that carbon dioxide contributes significantly to the ongoing climate warming. You probably have read some of them. Those papers contain data and analyses just like any other technical papers. I am sure that you are aware that competent researchers have proposed several drivers of our climate changes. Why do you pretend that you do not know those things?

You say that the scientific method is about testability. I agree. One of the more damning criticisms of the IPCC output is that it lacks deniability. The IPCC seems to find any observed weather condition (heat, cold, drought, deluge, storms, stagnation – you name it) to be proof of their hypothesis. Nothing can disprove it. That is the primary reason that it resembles a religion more than a scientific position.

You claim that the “IPCC is a scientific body”. That too is unproven. IPCC appears to be a political organization. Listen to Dr. Gray’s comments on the video. He covers that ground rather well.

Toward the end of your post you began to lapse into your infantile, sardonic and supercilious mode of communication. It is an irritating but not persuasive style.

The null hypothesis is that the ongoing warming of our climate is natural, that it is not out of bounds of temperature changes that occurred during recorded history and that there is no reason to believe that carbon dioxide is the primary driver of the current warming trend. Many papers describe the position of those who do not believe that carbon dioxide contributes significantly to the ongoing climate warming.

Name one.

You say that Drs. Patterson and Ball are the usual suspects… [and y]ou call them shills. What information do you have that leads you to that conclusion?

Their using discredited UHI arguments, solar arguments that haven’t held up, the old satellite argument that ignores all the recent analyses, appearing in a slickly-produced expensive video with Sallie Baliunas, the conflation in the video of policy and science, the non-contextualization of the statements in the video…let me catch my breath…ah, never mind.

For whom do they shill?

I don’t have the time to find out which industry made the video.

What possible reason could these scientists have for perpetrating a ruse?

What possible reason indeed? How does this negate the fact that they are using recycled arguments?

I know that the statement with which I expressed agreement said that at the time (ca 6 years ago) the AGW hypothesis was unproven (and still is insofar as I can tell). What problem do you have with the petition?

Remember, it’s a theory.

And besides the fact that Sallie Baliunas wrote the paper on almost-NAS letterhead, with half-truths abounding? Why, nothing. Nothing at all. Oh, yes. The MDs and DDSs posing as scientists.

For example, McIntyre and McKitrick analyzed Mann’s data and came to a different conclusion. Who is right? You clearly think Mann is right.

I analyze your work and f*ck it up. people point out where I’ve made mistakes. Ah, well, norb. Even though I’m not trained in your field, I’ve analyzed your work and come to a different conclusion. You’re wrong, even though I’m neither qualified nor educated to say so. But my buddy likes me and says what the heck. So my analysis stands, norb. I’m right.

Oh, BTW, there are nearly a dozen other, separate, different studies that reach generally the same conclusion. The HS is totemic.

The IPCC seems to find any observed weather condition (heat, cold, drought, deluge, storms, stagnation – you name it) to be proof of their hypothesis.

You’re conflating media coverage and science. The IPCC hasn’t done what you say.

And it’s theory.

And you’re conflating activism with scientific input. The body analyzes extant papers. They make none as a body.

Your argument looks like a colander. And tell the Heritage Foundation that when they send their girl Sallie out to pony up for a hairdresser.

D

It appears that the persons who participated in the video do not agree with your conclusion that the UHI, solar influence, and satellite data arguments have not held up. You are not the arbiter of truth. Those persons are just as competent as you are in these matters. Your dislike of their conclusions does not invalidate them.

You claim that an industry funded the video, but admit that you do not know which one. That appears to be another baseless accusation. BTW, the video trailer says that the University of Calgary and the Friends of Science produced the video.

You seem confused about your accusation that the video is a ruse.

I asked about your complaint about the petition; you complained about the format of the cover letter. You seem unimpressed with the technical education that MDs and DDSs receive. No one claimed that every person who signed the petition is a climate specialist. I do not claim to be a climate specialist. Persons having better than average technical educations signed the petition. That is all that anyone represented it to be.

McIntyre is by training and experience a mathematician and statistician. He seems fully competent to understand and critique the mathematics in Mann’s paper. Why do you try to paint him an incompetent rube? His criticism is of the math. He is competent.

BTW, you scaled new heights of perfection in word selection when you chose “totemic” to describe the Hockey Stick. Totemic is the perfect word; it captures the essence of the Hockey Stick perfectly. It demonstrates that you understand the pious nature of the obsequious reverence that many in IPCC have for the HS. (“Essence” is a pretty good word too; you might want to look it up also.)

Is Trenberth, the guy who claimed that increased hurricane strength and intensity was the fault of AGW, part of the popular media?

A theory is “A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.” (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory). A hypothesis is “A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.” (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypothesis) In my opinion, existing models do not have sufficient power to make accurate predictions about natural phenomena and the word “hypothesis” is a better descriptor of the current state of the art in climate science. You probably will disagree. I can live with that.

PS, it is Rhetorical, not Rhetoricol.

Why would they say the UHI is the reason for the surface temp increase? It is demonstrably false. This video is not based on valid scientific claims.

o You haven’t supplied a paper finding for or against your null hypothesis: [ that the ongoing warming of our climate is natural, that it is not out of bounds of temperature changes that occurred during recorded history and that there is no reason to believe that carbon dioxide is the primary driver of the current warming trend. Many papers describe the position of those who do not believe that carbon dioxide contributes significantly to the ongoing climate warming.]

Bjorn Lomborg disagrees with this, BTW.

o It appears that the persons who participated in the video do not agree with your conclusion that the UHI, solar influence, and satellite data arguments have not held up. You are not the arbiter of truth. Those persons are just as competent as you are in these matters. Your dislike of their conclusions does not invalidate them.

1. They are not my conclusions.

Why do you insist on misinterpreting what I say to try to gain rhetorical advantage? It hasn’t worked before, so why do you trot it out every time? Old habits die hard, I guess.

Anyway, they are the conclusions of the score of studies on the UHI, the most recent handful of papers studying the solar influence, and the most recent analyses of the MSU data.

2. The persons who participated are not as competent or as trained as the people who do the actual work and publish the papers. Remember, it’s not about me, it’s about the people who have published in these areas.

3. The septics in the video have not published papers stating the UHI is the reason for the temp increase. The septics in the video have not contributed to the empirical studies of the MSU data. Only Sallie has studied the solar influence on climate.

o I asked about your complaint about the petition; you complained about the format of the cover letter.

I mentioned the half-truths too. Don’t forget those.

o Your argument about me being confused might hold more weight if you looked at the science advisory board. All the same septics, Sallie trotted around by Heritage and Marshall…

Sure, sure, these poor scientists can produce a video like that in conjunction with a university. See, the busy scientists forgot about the current science in the pressure of making their own video. And not spending the time tracking it down is different than being unable to find who funded it. I’m sure it’ll be found out soon enuf.

o Rhetoricol has the same ending as vitriol. Like polemic and totemic.

o Thanks for the theory def. Right in line with what the people who do this work for a living have found.

o And thanks for pounding the HS meme, and ignoring the other papers that find roughly the same thing. See, if the Hokey Stick^TM can be made a totem, then it can be knocked down, see. Never mind those other papers, see. Just focus on the one. Focus. Foooocus. Foooocusssss…

The tactic is right in line with the Sallies and Timmies in the video and the selective information presented.

OK. I’ve spent enough time with the willfully uninformed.

D

It was raised by the video you cite. Even though it is unlikely to be causing the glaciers to melt and the ocean to warm, it occurred to me that it’s a serious problem that needs to be addressed. It’s could be contributing to heat deaths, ozone pollution, etc.

So does that institute or any other skeptic have any ideas what to do about it. Maybe that’s your calling, to work on that problem.

about climate change. I believe that the following quote, from his book, summarizes Lomborg’s position.

“Temperatures will increase much less than the maximum estimates from IPCC—it is likely that the temperature will be at or below the B1 estimate [the lowest emissions scenario] (less than 2° C in 2100) and the temperature will certainly not increase even further into the twenty-second century.”

If I may paraphrase, Lomborg is saying that he believes the IPCC has greatly overestimated the extent of potential carbon dioxide induced warming, that the total increase will be less than 2 Celsius degrees, that such a change is tolerable and that we are better off to learn to cope with the change than to begin Quixotic attempts to control carbon dioxide emissions. I believe that to be an accurate prognosis.

I agree that you probably did not originate the conclusions, but maintain that you have adopted them as your own. The distinction is trivial. The point is that other competent climatologists have reviewed the same information and reached different conclusions.

Are you the world’s arbiter of the competence of those who publish in the field?

Actually, I have recently seen papers by both Balling and Michaels on the subject to UHI interference with measurement of temperature. I have seen other papers as well, including the one that Dan Kellogg linked on this site in which the researcher measured UHI temperature increases up to 15-Fahrenheit degrees 5 to 6 miles downwind from Fairbanks, Alaska. I seem to remember that a few weeks ago you claimed that the literature contained numerous papers that debunk the UHI influence and just one “outlier” paper that disagreed. It seems that at least 3 papers conclude that the UHI is a factor. Could there be more?

You claimed that the Oregon Petition contained half-truths but did not enumerate any. I ignored the claim.

I have not ignored the other papers containing temperature reconstructions for the past. I have seen several. Some report trends that are close to the Mann rendition, others show much greater differences between the MCO and LIA temperatures. The latter are more consistent with the written history of the world.

Why always is it Bush’s fault for the GW causes or that he is not doing enough…

On Clinton’s watch the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel combustion grew by 17 percent (796.3 Tg CO2 Eq.) from 1990 to 2002 and were responsible for most of the increase in national emissions during this period.

Since Bush has been in office the CO2 levels have actually stayed the same around 7000 Tg.

So it’s all Clinton’s fault! On his watch the CO2 emissions grew by close to 1000Tg!!

source: http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/RAMR5WNMKA/$File/04trends.pdf

Bush wants to kill the poor? Give me a break!

I think the fact he has had the nads to challenge the slacker UN shows he wants to do the right thing…

reported finding a heretofore-unknown volcano off the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. Their report (http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/news/2004/052104-volcano.shtml) says that the volcano is relatively young (geologic time) and appears to be warming the water around it. They also say that their discovery is consistent with persistent reports by fishermen of discolored water in the vicinity.

I read the article in Science that Mark cited here. The authors reported (among many other things) that they could find no clear link between air temperature and glacier advance and retreat. They also say that the amount of air warming that would be necessary to have caused the observed glacier retreat is higher than any warming rate observed. The authors say that the glaciers with marine terminals appear to be retreating faster than those that contact water only at high tide, and they acknowledge that the observed retreat is consistent with melting by warm seawater. Finally, they report that the retreating has progressed from North to South. That is the glaciers on the northern end of the peninsula began retreating first and the band of retreating glaciers has steadily progressed southward along the peninsula.

I wonder if recent (100 years or so) and cyclical volcanic activity could be the cause of the observed glacier retreats.

The authors of the Science article reported that they could not relate the retreating of glaciers to water temperatures because there are few water temperature measurements.

It would be interesting to know what the ocean current profile is in the area. Does the ocean water flow southward from the tip of the peninsula along its western coast?

I wonder if the volcano could explain why the climate of the Antarctic Peninsula appears to be warming while the rest of the continent appears to be cooling.

I campaigned really hard in the ‘92 primaries for Jerry Brown, precisely because I thought he’d be much better than Clinton on GW. Gore was pretty good on GW. Unbeknownst to Americans he retrofitted the White House & many government properties with energy efficient measures that saves the American taxpayers over $1 billion a year.

I am also not impressed with Kerry. I know he had a better attitude toward abating GW than Bush, but he hardly mentioned it at all in the campaign. He lost anyway, but he could have used the campaign trail to make Americans aware of the problem and all the cost-effective measures they could take.

Pooh on both Republicans & Democrats!!!

I do not have any answers but it seems that the volcano could be part of the problem and this should be accounted for by the researchers.

It seems by your post they do not know about the volcano. If so, then why don’t they? It is even on the Internet!

Dan

I do not have answers for any of them.

The article about the melting glaciers did not mention the volcano, so I also assumed that the authors know nothing about it. I do not know why they do not.

Perhaps they know and also know that the volcano could not be causing the melting.

We still do not know the direction of the ocean currents in the region. Perhaps the heat flows away from the glaciers.

Jimmy Carter had the most progressive focus on long-term energy policy. We have never gone back to that and actually reversed policy by going to larger vehicles and larger homes. The focus on cheap energy has fueled our economy at a cost to our future which is now upon us today. All Americans will look back and wonder why we took the path we did. Peak Oil may not be that far away and it appears that within the next 5 years we will experience some oil shocks that will not go away. Even if this can be postponed, it will come more sooner than later.

Bush’s focus on energy security through the use of military may buy some short-term gains (maybe) but this focus is short sighted because unless we change domestically, then our problems can only get worse. In addition, the national debt and yearly deficits are ruining our economy to be able to handle increases in energy costs. This further exacerbates our problems in converting over to a new energy infrastructure because we still are paying for many capital expenditures of the current energy infrastructure in terms of trillions of dollars. We are not alone in this as the UK and others struggle with this energy transition. We have problems but so does everyone else.

Using a metaphor, we are all in the same boat and it may be the 21st century equivalent of the Titanic. Will we have any life boats to use and will there be anyone to pick us up if we get stranded? Or can we take control of the ship and steer it away from the ice berg in time? At least many of us see the ice berg ahead and that is to our advantage.

Another statistic relevant to this discussion is the Iraq War. I always knew that the energy use of the military must be high. Jet fighters, helicopters, heavy tanks and armored vehicles must get very low gas mileage if you think about it. I recently read “The End of Oil” by Paul Roberts which is one of the best books I have ever read. He shared a few statistics in the book including how much crude oil is consumed by coalition troops trying to secure Iraq. It is 400,000 barrels of oil a day!

Only an idiot would not see something flawed in a military strategy which defends a depleted energy resource and promotes higher consumption of the same resource while this resource is needed by the military so let’s engage in more military action so we can use more of this resource even faster as we protect it so we can secure our long-term future. Forget about any real effort to change our infrastructure. Let us float bonds borrowing more money to support our military as our economy sinks to the depths while others are not so strapped by this effort.

Kerry is also inept and actually suggested during the 2004 election that we should be taking oil out of the strategic oil reserves and using it to lower prices here. First, we should be adding oil to our strategic reserve no matter what the price is for energy security purposes. All countries dependent on oil imports would be prudent to do this. Second, the price is going up anyway so the name flip flopper does apply to Kerry. Kerry should have been articulating energy taxes and how we are going to transform our entire energy infrastructure.

Lowering prices artificially by taking them out of the strategic reserves would not be part of any prudent energy plan. Gore proposed the BTU Tax concept which focused on this issue of promoting energy efficiency and conservation. Ross Perot even promoted energy taxes as an alternative source of internal government revenue.

Kerry must have needed votes so he appealed to the average energy illiteracy of Americans blaming high oil prices on Bush instead of attempting to level with us and educate us about the real issues or maybe Kerry was simply inept and energy illiterate as well.

In the end of the day, it is the people in the USA who have to live with our ignorance and corrupted leadership. Any American who embraces any obsolete political ideology does not understand that maybe most of the leadership here from either political party is insufficient to guide us correctly. That is one reason why we engage on Mark’s site. Hopefully we are learning form the experience as we share information and insights.

Again, we are not alone and the people in the UK and other countries are also struggling with many complex issues. The one thing is clear to me is that many of us here on Mark’s site are becoming ever more knowledgeable than our mainstream populations. I think this may put us over the top of our political and corporate leadership.

In any event, it is my belief that we should continue to develop relationships among concerned citizens of both the UK and the USA. There is no way that the world will make it without both the UK and the USA collaborating on solutions. I feel it and I wonder if I am not alone in thinking this.

I promoted on this website that it is the questions we ask which may be more important than the answers we seek. We should continue to challenge even our own assumptions which may be either false or flawed. We have to strive to get it right since it appears we have little margin for error.

Hopefully, we will act based on objective analysis of both the short-term and long-term global situation. It would help if we knew how to develop a comprehensive plan to take us through this next century. This plan is required and one day maybe some of us will develop this plan and implement it. Bush has a plan and it is asking his Saudi friends to increase oil production. One day this plan will simply not work anymore!

Best Regards to everyone!

Dan

It was Nixon who created the Department of Energy during the Oil Embargo of 1973. Nixon also proposed the goal of the US becoming energy independent through the use of less petroleum consumption and also through alternative fuels.

I found an interesting and surprising statistic. Do you know how much the US has grown in total petroleum consumption since 1972? Remember our economy since that time has grown by trillions!

Only 2.2 million barrels per day which translates to a mere .5% per year for 25 years follwoing 1972. That is a remarkable feat considering how much the US economy and society has grown. Nixon gets the credit for the department of energy, increased awareness of energy use and CAFE standards used in cars mileage. OPEC during the oil embargo did nothing for the rest of us but raise the price of oil. Oil prices tripled after the end of the embargo 12 months later. source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/25opec/sld007.htm

Carter was a disaster for the US. We won’t even discuss things like the Iranian hostages which put American morale at a real low! I’ll just say he literally ran the country into the ground economically. The military was run on a shoe string budget. He did nothing to promote the US around the world. I would neveer want to live in another Carter administration… 18% mortgage rates… oh yea … can’t wait for that one again!

Here’s an interesting article found on some of Carter’s other accomplishments regarding national policy and who he prop’ed up around the world.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=2463

As far as those who complain about Carter’s solar home programs being cut by Reagan… just remember that someone was paying for the program… on the backs of the US taxpayer and the backs of needed programs (like national defense). If it was a money making venture we’d be living in sloar powered home today. It costs money to make the stuff and does not save as much as promised… it was a capitalistic loser plain and simple.

It seems that most people here and elsewhere have made up their minds about this issue (GW).

If you believe it exists and that people contribute to it, then you see the evidence seeming to support it.

If you don’t believe it, then you see the evidence NOT seeming to support it.

I believe it exists.

I did not realize the contributions of Nixon in this and associated Jimmy Carter with much of that initiative. Your other points about Carter are understood.

Jim, our economy did take off and this was in part due to cheap energy. Our efficiency of energy use is a low percentage of our GNP as you posted before. As Americans, we decided to use our efficiency-efficiency dividend to use ever greater amounts of energy until we have become very high energy users. This part of our focus was not in our long-term best interest and we will be paying a huge price for this extravagance.

Instead of larger heavier cars and large mansions relying on depleting fossil fuels, we should have opted for a lower energy budget and used some of that efficiency dividend to be less reliant on foreign sources of energy. We should have been building up a renewable energy market all along.

If we did these things, we may not have needed to go to war with Iraq to secure our dependence on oil. Part of our energy security is simply in using less energy. The fact that your own home uses more energy was a bad use of the energy-efficiency dividend.

Your home and that of others should be better and more comfortable but still use less energy. This would have been a more balanced focus instead of wasting energy resources like they were an inexhaustible ocean. With climate change issues, this situation has become more problematic.

Americans are out of balance with energy use. It was not so bad to increase in prosperity but we set ourselves up for a big downfall with being so extravagant. Most of our oil now must be imported and Peak Oil will soon be here. Our focus should be developing more sustainable sources of energy and simply use less energy through more efficiency plus totally reevaluating why we think we have to use so much energy to support our lifestyle.

Jim, I read a very good book on this subject that I would recommend to anyone to buy which is “The End of Oil” by Paul Roberts. I think Paul Roberts did an excellent job in helping me to see the BIG picture and interestingly Jim; his thoughts include aspects on things you have posted as well as others. In other words, he seems to have placed many aspects of the energy picture in the correct context. He showed many sides of the issue in a very balanced way.

Anyhow, thanks for your thoughts. I hope you buy “End of Oil” by Paul Roberts. I think you will be as enlightened as much as I was.

Best Wishes,

Dan

Especially since the language in the quote is not scientific (hint: certitude. Who is certain about something that hasn’t happened yet?).

I seem to remember that a few weeks ago you claimed that the literature contained numerous papers that debunk the UHI influence and just one “outlier” paper that disagreed. It seems that at least 3 papers conclude that the UHI is a factor. Could there be more?

Noooo, I supplied numerous papers, and quoted from them. You found after reading those papers that the UHI is spatially limited. You also found repeatedly tested equations, models, and parameters that quantified the influence. Remember?

Thought not.

The null hypothesis is that the ongoing warming of our climate is natural, that it is not out of bounds of temperature changes that occurred during recorded history and that there is no reason to believe that carbon dioxide is the primary driver of the current warming trend…

“There is no doubt that mankind has influenced and is still increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and that this will increase temperature. I will not discuss all the scientific uncertainty, but basically accept the models and predictions from the 2001 report of the UN Climate Panel (IPCC). Yet, we will need to separate hyperbole from realities in order to choose our future optimally.” [emphasis added]

D

Yes, there is a very strong urge to seek evidence to support one’s beliefs and theories.

If we wish to debate these matters, I think it is our primary obligation to fight this urge and always look for counter-evidence and employ a degree of sceptism.

(BTW, I do currently believe in “Global Warming” as well).

Actually, I do think that people are constantly changing their minds about big issues such as this. I am personally fascinated (& quite ignorant) of what causes people to change their minds.

For instance, Teddy Roosevelt. I believe he started the preservation of wilderness.

And John McCain is excellent on GW. I would have voted for him, if he’d been running.

And there are many others. The idea of “conserve” is a conservative idea.

My family was staunch Republican for generations. I changed to Democrat around the Reagan era for other reasons, unconnected with environmental issues.

I do think Bush (not all Republicans) is very bad on environmental issues, much worse than Reagan & his father. However, I don’t attribute this to his being Republican, but to oil (and other big industries) corrupting politics.

An interesting tidbit: the oil industry funded the Clinton campaign about the same amount as the Bush Sr. campaign. Oil does not have a favorite party – they just want a door to the Oval Office. And they already control the media – look at all those car ads (& my understanding is that oil owns the automotive industries, or there are very strong ties).

would lead one to expect the worse (while hoping for the best), and do what’s possible & feasible to avoid the worst. That’s why I started reducing my GHGs in 1990, 5 years before science achieved 95% certainty on GW.

It amazes me that the whole world didn’t start vigorously addressing GW before it reached scientific certainty. Scientists have to be prudent with their reputations, or no one will believe them. You’d think most laypersons would be prudent with the life of the world, including their own progeny.

Now we have so much evidence - from melting glaciers to heating oceans to increasing heat deaths to paleoclimatological findings about past GW & GHGs - it truly boggles my mind that sane persons who are not diabolical killers could fail to take GW seriously & strive to abate it.

Do you think if the evidence increases even more and our support systems collapse even further skeptics will still refuse to believe? What will it take. It seems even now that it is extreme arrogance, evil, and/or lack of information or disinformation that blocks laypersons from accepting GW as a danger that needs to be addressed. I do not fault skeptic scientists for continuing to seek alternative evidence & explanations, as long as they do so honestly. But laypersons should be actively reducing their GHGs.

Last century was pegged as the worst century re genocide. It may be that this century will top it, if you combine eco-genocide and genocide triggered by collapsing life support systems from environmental degradation, with regular genocide.

I still hope and pray that people can turn to good and desist from evil. It only hurts to admit one’s wrong at first and for a brief moment, then afterwards it is a great joy and liberation. Humble people exude a radiance of happiness. Persisting in wrong-headedness consumes a lot of psychic energy & is upleasant & stressful (I’ve been there, done that).

Political party loyalty is not really very helpful and can cause us to buy into false assumptions made by politicians and not think for ourselves. Enlightened visionary people are usually ahead of most politicians. I would consider most of the people who post on Mark’s site to be in this category which makes me believe that many of us will be more engaged in the future when crises hits.

In fact, when the issues become so global in nature, it seems that national boundaries and differences in cultural aspects become obsolete. It seems that visionary people everywhere are way ahead of their own national politics at some level. So, it seems natural to me that we should continue to work together and view each other’s problems among other countries as well as if they were our own personal problems to solve.

Again, both political parties and national boundaries may be obsolete with respect to the global problems we face. We are so interconnected in this global economy that any focus which creates a win-lose philosophy will only create a lose-lose result. Only a win-win collaborative focus can ever succeed. This thought should affirm your own personal beliefs and focus.

All the best,

Dan

Hi,

I was being ironic. However, I was interested in your comments on the UN.

I do feel they are in need of a big shake up. They do appear to be very ineffective right now.

Do you think that might have anything to do with Bush and Blair not seeking a second resolution after 1441?

It is interesting that now, both parties are trying to make up the ground.

of 20-30 years ago, when smokers denied any side-effects of 2nd hand smoke and so on. Now, even though I live in a major tobacco town (Winston-Salem, NC) we have very few restaurants or businesses that and not smoke-free.

There has been a major shift since then. I hope the same thing happens with GW and the environment in general. We can’t force people to see it, but maybe we can help them discover the truth for themselves.

Hi Dano,

I am mostly observing and have mostly refrained from entering this debate between you and Norbert since you specialize in climate and I cannot take the time to research climate science as thoroughly as you have done. The same can be said with regard to Norbert’s contrarian focus. My focus should remain with energy solutions where my background is more suited for and the best application of my time and talent.

I think both you and Norbert are raising some good points but I still may trust your opinion on important questions which Norbert raised long ago which will be at the end of my post.

I still have many comments to make and for Norbert’s sake, it is best that I do refrain because it may not help his case that much. I did see his videos (interesting propaganda) that he posted and I would like to see conclusive evidence that the sun is causing our current warming and how our galaxy affects our climate!

Do we not monitor the sun’s output? Would we not hear about how the sun’s increased output is warming our earth in our news by now?

I still have an interest in the climate debate as it affects the overall energy focus for the future and how it may affect energy solutions and decisions. So my main question has to do with Norbert’s previous assertion about the lower troposphere warming not being high enough in comparison to the ground surface warming.

Norbert’s case has merit because the satellite temperature data have been confirmed accurate from balloon temperature measurements. This data seems to suggest that the lower troposphere is not warming enough to influence the ground temperatures according to a main assumption in the general circulation models.

It appears that this is a critical assumption used in the general circulation models concerning the role of carbon dioxide according to Norbert. The general circulation models, I believe, depend on carbon dioxide absorbing radiation emitted from the ground and redirecting about half of this energy back toward the surface.

I did find the source that Norbert uses concerning this aspect. The authors indicated that they sent their findings directly to the IPCC. So, are the findings by Spencer and Christy incorrect? Or does the IPCC ignore contrarian information when they make their assessments because it would be politically incorrect to be influenced by a contrarian perspective no matter how valid it may be?

So, I ask you to personally review this website at the end of my post and provide your commentary since my questions are relevant and the controversy is real enough and causing confusion for even the people who are most concerned about GW/CC issues (even if they do not admit it). I will admit it! I am confused!

I will ask that you consider the general audience on Mark’s site in that you are much more highly refined about climate science then most of us and this includes me. So, a few extra words helping to explain what you know in layman’s terms to a wider non-technical audience would be most helpful.

My technical posts may confuse some but I do try to make them easy to understand. I used to teach physics and so I understand the importance of this. We have to realize that we may have more understanding about our given specialty than others and an extra effort to explain in simple terms has the most benefit. Remember, your debate is not so much to reform Norbert but to help us all to be less confused over this complex science.

Dano, you provide a valuable service since it is more than my opinion that Norbert does not always provide the complete objective story. His videos which suggest that carbon levels can be many times higher than a mere doubling over pre-industrial levels is simply great for growing plants seems to me to be quite a stretch to believe when so many people have a gloom and doom outlook for much less of an accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Also, the assertion that colder weather affects hurricanes more than warmer weather is an interesting theory based it seems solely on historical references and proxy data of a very long time ago. Wow! It seems that there is a lot of uncertainty among atmospheric scientists if we have such extreme views of the climate physics.

For me the hockey stick may be irrelevant at some level as any contrived mathematical procedure can be used to draw almost any line through the original data and no matter what the mathematical expertise, the underlying assumptions about temperatures and their uncertainties must be even more valid than the mathematical procedure.

So, Norbert’s assertions about the mathematical expertise still may be contingent on a bias of the validity of the assumptions used concerning proxy temperatures and developing formulas to take uncertainty factors into consideration when creating the curve.

Interestingly, the entire contrarian point in Norbert’s videos on the Hockey Stick curve is focused entirely on the most unreliable proxy data of many many centuries ago while all modern temperatures used to confirm 20th century proxy data is flawed because of urban heat island effects.

So, the contrarian viewpoint is that the ancient proxy data is more reliable than more recent proxy measurements as compared to our instrument temperature records based on such an unreliable temperature instrument called a thermometer!

OK, I could not resist challenging our contrarian friend Norbert’s posted information even though I am not as qualified enough to comment professionally on climate issues. Norbert does make some good points of which I have failed to give him credit in the past when it was due him. As you can see, I am much kinder to him now. I am only going to take the side of objective analysis as we have little margin for error even with all the uncertainty when it concerns our future.

The website below for your review, analysis, and expert commentary is at the end of my post and I do look forward to reading what you have to say Dano with any cited references which can help me discern the findings of Christy and Spencer better.

I need no commentary on the intentions or motivation of the authors or even their competence. I just want a decent technical assessment written in layman’s terms of the credibility of their findings and main conclusions about the role of carbon dioxide based on the 25-year satellite temperature record and what it may suggest about the general circulation model’s validity one way or the other.

If the general circulation models cannot be trusted to provide a reliable temperature forecast because of flaws in their basic assumptions then the temperature forecasts will be suspect as Norbert asserts. Mark Lynas is writing a new book on the ecological assessment on the basis of temperature rise which will be a valuable contribution.

Now, we need to be absolutely sure about the rising temperatures relating specifically to carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is important when it comes to my focus on energy solutions since some solutions are more carbon intensive than others.

It would be easier to transform our new energy infrastructure from oil if the role of carbon dioxide were not such an important consideration and this does not mean that carbon dioxide levels should not be reduced but how much and how fast they are curtailed is an important economic consideration.

Since Peak Oil issues are becoming an ever more important concern, having a better handle on carbon dioxide’s specific role is even more critical on how we proceed in both the short-term and long-term solutions since carbon-based fuels are required in the short-term in any valid assessment on how we transform our energy infrastructure.

Our carbon dioxide assessment also affects the assessments of our nuclear options as well. According to the author, Paul Roberts, in “The End of Oil” (page 328) below:

“If all electricity that is currently produced by nuclear plants were to be produced by coal-burning power plants, Valcav Smil says that global emissions would be about a third higher —2.3 billion tons than they are today. “Curiously” Smil notes, “this impressive total of avoided emissions is almost never mentioned in current debates about the management of greenhouse gases.”

So, at the end of the day, it always comes back to the carbon dioxide assessment as being the prime driver in all our decisions concerning both GW/CC and energy issues. I hope all want the prevention of catastrophic climate change to be our primary focus!

So, forgive my extensive long prose. Dano, I await your best assessment. It would be very useful to me and I think helpful to others!

You now have the whole world on your shoulders at the moment Dano so what you say about the satellite temperature data is a big deal and can make a great contribution.

Give it your very best shot!

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

Yours Truly,

Dan

For all Bush-a-phobes: he ain’t no sceptic no more….

Bush has now signed up to serious efforts to deal with climate change, and he has put money where his mouth is, only problem is his methods do not tie in with the “accepted” ideas on reducing GHG emissions.

Bush’s proposal includes tax incentives worth $2.5 billion over ten years to encourage consumers to buy vehicles powered by clean-burning diesel engines, OK not much money, but this is an ADMITTANCE that the problem really exists….

He is promoting cleaner coal technology (US has 250 years worth of coal) “To make cleaner use of this resource, I have asked Congress for more than $2 billion over 10 years for my coal research initiative,”

Bush has further asked the U.S. Congress for an additional $500 million over five years to help move advanced technology vehicles from the research lab to the car showroom.

“We need to get on a path away from the fossil fuel economy”. WOW!! thats Bush speaking there!

These developments come in his new energy bill (28th April) “the energy bill must diversify our energy supply by developing alternative sources of energy like ethanol or biodiesel. We need to promote safe, clean nuclear power. And to create more energy choices, Congress should provide tax credits for renewable power sources such as wind, solar, and landfill gas. We must also continue our clean coal technology projects so that we can use the plentiful source of coal in an environmentally friendly way. The bill must also support pollution-free cars and trucks, powered by hydrogen fuel cells instead of gasoline” He’s singing like a bird now!

http://www.h2cars.biz/artman/publish/index.shtml

This does though raise alot of questions, is he promoting coal and nuclear, and just talking about clean technologies to get us to buy it?

I know hitherto, the consensus has been that regulation, Kyoto style, and energy efficiency are the solutions. Is it time to accept the political paradigm we are in, and if Bush wants to merely promote clean energy, and incentivise that, then egg him on to double, & then triple the money he willing to put up to do this.

I dont know if we can wait another 4 years for a new president, and if this one is now talking the talk, shouldnt we encourage him to do as much as possible??

regards

Brendon

Maybe his friends in Saudi Arabia could not increase the oil output he recently requested from them so they could influence the markets to lower crude oil prices. Maybe Americans recent disapproval of his energy policy helped. Americans do not know much about energy policy except high gasoline prices do grab their attention.

I downloaded the entire Bush Energy Policy years ago when it came out soon after Bush was elected to a first term. Bush’s report included many chapters on renewables, and energy efficiency but it also included 1500 more power plants (mostly gas) to be built and a strong focus on oil.

This Administration is composed of many oil men like Dick Cheney and let us not forget the “oil woman” (Condoleezza Rice had an oil tanker named after her, link below) so these guys do know about oil and would know something about depletion issues.

On climate, Bush’s hand is forced. Politicians are influenced by money and votes and maybe approval ratings. As long as they have money, votes, and approval, they will always do what they want to do.

Bush has to show that he is addressing the issues. Americans are asking questions now wondering why the gasoline prices are so high. Bush is getting the blame.

Then there is the Internet!

http://aztlan.net/oiltanker.htm

BTW, I did find a partial answer to my nuclear question. If all nuclear plants were replaced by coal power plants then we would have 2.3 billion tons more carbon dioxide emissions annually.

Enjoy,

Dan

I am aware of the Bush administrations oil links, and of his 2003 energy bill: I just thought it interesting that he would persevere after he has won the second term. This seems to demonstrate that it was not mere electioneering.

He seems to have conceded the point, i think momentously, that we need to move away from a carbon economy. I can tell by the amount of money set aside that it will have minimal impact, but my point was that, should not this new look Bush, be encouraged?

My other point was more pragmatic; the existing consensus for CC mitigation revolves around regulation (Kyoto etc). Regulation has mixed records in the environmental arena. Bushs approach is market led, and more technocentric.

I believe that it will be new energies, not regulation and energy efficiency that will ultimately resolve our fossil fuel profligacy. If Bush is getting involved in this area (albeit minimally), then I think this is progress.

You are correct about him failing to get the House of Saud to increase oil output, but that might be due to output running at near capacity.

Oil is now scarce, in the economic definition, as there increasingly not enough to go around (although there is still alot of it). Happily this will force new energy decisions, much like the Nuclear ones we were discussing recently.

I am trying to write an article on this very issue right now; on how oil prices could be forcing us into the new hydrogen age. Unfortunately the evidence seems to suggest the technology has some 10-15 years to go.

I beleive it takes that long to get nuclear power stations designed, built and producing energy. So this DOES mean that in the short term, energy efficiency is the only way to reduce GHG emissions.

So, contradictorily, this would mean that methods to encourage efficiencies are now appropriate. In the UK we have had an imaginative climate change policy for 4 years: an energy tax, which is rebatable if the company hits an energy reduction target. They can also use a carbon trading market to hit this target (the worlds first national carbon market).

This policy has had the effect of being “carrot & stick” driven. Hit your target and get your money back. Interestingly, from the psychological angle, this motivates people far more than just taxing them on energy, or just setting targets (within a carbon trading scenario).

Of course this is only the business arena, domestic/transport emissions may need to wait for hydrogen technology to save us; high oil prices certainly arent detering people from jumpin in their SUVs!

regards

Brendon

Your contrarian focus becomes absurd when a study has to be done to help you see what most people would see as simple common sense.

Why need a study Norbert? It seems obvious to me that it is not likely that the smoked exhaled is much different in toxic levels than the smoke inhaled. Therefore, it seems likely when this second hand smoke when inhaled would pose a health risk similar to those who inhale this smoke voluntarily.

Now, why am I wasting my time even responding to this post of yours which seems to be a waste of your time as well? Don’t answer!

Dan

Our bud norb, at the ol’ snake-oil sales pitch again:

Abstract: Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), or second-hand smoke, is a widespread contaminant of indoor air in environments where smoking is not prohibited. It is a significant source of exposure to a large number of substances known to be hazardous to human health. Numerous expert panels have concluded that there is sufficient evidence to classify involuntary smoking (or passive smoking) as carcinogenic to humans. According to the recent evaluation by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, involuntary smoking causes lung cancer in never-smokers with an excess risk in the order of 20% for women and 30% for men. The present paper reviews studies on genotoxicity and related endpoints carried out on ETS since the mid-1980s. The evidence from in vitro studies demonstrates induction of DNA strand breaks, formation of DNA adducts, mutagenicity in bacterial assays and cytogenetic effects. In vivo experiments in rodents have shown that exposure to tobacco smoke, whole-body exposure to mainstream smoke (MS), sidestream smoke (SS), or their mixture, causes DNA single strand breaks, aromatic adducts and oxidative damage to DNA, chromosome aberrations and micronuclei. Genotoxicity of transplacental exposure to ETS has also been reported. Review of human biomarker studies conducted among non-smokers with involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke indicates presence of DNA adducts, urinary metabolites of carcinogens, urinary mutagenicity, SCEs and hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyltransferase (HPRT) gene mutations (in newborns exposed through involuntary smoking of the mother). Studies on human lung cancer from smokers and never-smokers involuntarily exposed to tobacco smoke suggest occurrence of similar kinds of genetic alterations in both groups. In conclusion, these overwhelming data are compatible with the current knowledge on the mechanisms of carcinogenesis of tobacco-related cancers, occurring not only in smokers but with a high biological plausibility also in involuntary smokers.

Husgafvel-Pursiainen, K. 2004. Genotoxicity of environmental tobacco smoke: a review. Mutation Research-Reviews in Mutation Research 567:(2-3) pp. 427-445.

Abstract: Studies indicate that being exposed to second hand smoke increases the chance of developing lung cancer. Understanding the deposition of carcinogenic particles present in second hand smoke is necessary to understand the development of specific histologic type cancers. In this study, a deposition model is presented for subjects of various ages exposed to sidestream smoke. The model included particle dynamics of coagulation, hygroscopic growth, charge and cloud behavior. Concentrations were varied from the maximum measured indoor concentrations (10(6) particles/cm(3)) to what would be expected from wisps of smoke (10(8) particles/cm(3)). Model results agreed well with experimental data taken from <font>human subject deposition measurements (four studies)</font>. The model results were used to determine the dose intensity (dose per unit air-way surface area) of Benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) in the respiratory tract for subjects of various ages. Model predictions for BaP surface concentration on the airway walls paralleled incident rates of tumors by location in the upper tracheobronchial region. Mass deposition efficiency was found to be larger for younger subjects, consistent with diffusion being the predominant mechanism for this particle size range. However, the actual dose intensity of BaP was found to be smaller for children than adults. This occurred due to the predominant effect of the smaller initial inhaled mass for children resulting from smaller tidal volumes. The resulting model is a useful tool to predict carcinogen specific particle deposition.

Robinson, RJ. 2005. Carcinogen specific dosimetry model for passive smokers of various ages. Science of the Total Environment 338:3 pp. 201-212.

Abstract: Background: It is known that “second-hand” cigarette smoke leads to abnormal tissue repair and remodelling but the cellular mechanisms involved in these adverse effects are not well understood. Fibroblasts play a major role in repair and remodelling. They orchestrate these processes by proliferating, migrating, and secreting proteins such as, cytokines, growth factors and extracellular matrix molecules. Therefore, we focus our studies on the effects of “second-hand” cigarette smoke on the structure and function of these cells.

Results: We used sidestream whole (SSW) smoke, a major component of “second-hand” smoke, primary embryonic fibroblasts, cells that behave very much like wound fibroblasts, and a variety of cellular and molecular approaches. We show that doses of smoke similar to those found in tissues cause cytoskeletal changes in the fibroblasts that may lead to a decrease in cell migration. In addition, we also show that these levels of cigarette smoke stimulate an increase in cell survival that is reflected in an increase and/or activation of stress/survival proteins such as cIL-8, grp78, PKB/Akt, p53, and p21. We further show that SSW affects the endomembrane system and that this effect is also accomplished by nicotine alone.

Conclusions: Taken together, our results suggest that: (i) SSW may delay wound repair because of the inability of the fibroblasts to migrate into the wounded area, leading to an accumulation of these cells at the edge of the wound, thus preventing the formation of the healing tissue; (ii) the increase in cell survival coupled to the decrease in cell migration can lead to a build-up of connective tissue, thereby causing fibrosis and excess scarring.

Wong LS, Green HM, Feugate JE, Yadav M, Nothnagel EA, Martins-Green M. 2004. Effects of “second-hand” smoke on structure and function of fibroblasts, cells that are critical for tissue repair and remodeling. BMC CELL BIOLOGY 5: Art. No. 13 APR 5 2004.

I’m untying one hand from behind my back now.

Best,

D

I would never dream that in 2005 someone would take such a position.

All I want to say is: please do not smoke around other people, certainly not in the same house. Unless you want to cripple their health and contribute to their early death.

Dan Kellog wrote: “His videos which suggest that carbon levels can be many times higher than a mere doubling over pre-industrial levels is simply great for growing plants…”

There was some recent work announced this week which overturns the assumptions that more CO2 is ‘good for the crops’ (as PG Wodehouse used to say).

This is according to a Royal Society meeting entitled “Food Crops in a Changing Climate” in London on 26-27 April 2005. They report on large-scale field experiments (as opposed to extrapolation from lab experiments) on crops such as maize, rice, soyabean and wheat, showing how increasing temperatures, drought and ground-level ozone concentrations will result in substantial reduction in crop yields, outweighing the beneficial fertilisation effects currently predicted from rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Growing crops much closer to real conditions has shown that increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have roughly half the beneficial effects that were previously hoped for in the event of climate change. In addition, ground-level ozone, which is also predicted to rise but has not been extensively studied before, has been shown to result in a loss of photosynthesis and 20% yield loss.

Additionally, studies in the UK and Denmark show that just a few days of hot temperatures can severely reduce the yield of major food crops such as wheat, soyabean, rice and groundnuts, if they coincide with the flowering of these crops. These results suggest that there are particular thresholds above which crops become very vulnerable to climate change.

Other research, separate from the above, and on the radio here last weekend, reported on similar field trials but they blew CO2 onto the crops. This showed much lower growth benefits from increases in atmospheric CO2 than had been found in earlier lab work. I have not found a reference to this on the www; if you have come across it, please let us know

my response got deleted (likely erroneously) by Mark, but the assumption in the study you mention, Keith, is temperature-dependent. You can just pick up crops and move them north.

The links I provided (and hopefully Mark can restore if not too much trouble) show that increased CO2 reduces nutrition in graminaceous crops – that is, it seems plants don’t seem to feel the need to reproduce more in elevated CO2 environments [why? there’s plenty of nutrition around, so fewer stressors], so they send less food to the seed (what we eat), resulting in a seed with less nutritive value.

Also, in forests (which are N-limited), CO2 has little benefit, esp. in presence of O3 (which presumably would be in greater abundance in elevated temps).

Best,

D

Norbert, it seems that carbon dioxide is not as great for plants as your group has suggested.

Dan

I read your response briefly and I was going to go back and reread it. The effort you made was important and if you get a chance to at least hit the main points of my question again, I think it would be helpful to me and this blog.

You may rewrite it with even better thoughts since you appeared in a rush anyway. So, take your time Dano. It is the quality of your response which is most important. Norbert will be sure to have a response to it.

Again, CO2 seems to be an even more a critical aspect as Peak Oil and adds another level on how the new infrastructure is created over time.

BTW, Keith and I had a very constructive dialogue on assessing nuclear energy which I think helped add much needed clarity for me and for others.

In fact, I think Keith provided a useful framework in that discussion on how better assessments on carbon management and for that manner total source energy can be made. It needs more quantitative development but with that, we can compare diverse energy options easier so policy makers can make prudent decisions on where to direct limited financial resources.

Thanks for your help in this matter. The IPCC makes assessments on carbon totals and temperatures. Anything which suggests they may be in error up or down affects the energy portfolio at a critical time of oil depletion issues.

Climate science does have uncertainty but the role of carbon dioxide is so important to know and anything which may invalidate a major assumption concerning carbon dioxide in the models used to forecast temperatures is important.

Best,

Dan

The claim that plants grown in atmospheres enriched in carbon dioxide have poorer nutritive value is specious at best and is only possible after vigorously spinning the facts. Thousands of FACE (Free Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment) experiments have shown that food crops produce more food in carbon dioxide-enriched air. Even the Royal Society report that Keith cited, which gleaned as much negative prose as possible from a review of the subject had to admit that, “Growing crops much closer to real conditions has shown that increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have roughly half the beneficial effects that were previously hoped for in the event of climate change.” Therefore, if the RS is correct, in the worst case the gains will be just half what the climate change optimists claim. That’s better than a sharp stick in the eye. I think that their predictions of reduced yields accruing from higher temperatures ignore the natural response, which would be to move heat sensitive crops northward.

The claim, first made by NRDC I believe, that increasing temperatures will cause higher ozone concentrations is totally without merit. NRDC has correlated high ozone concentrations with higher temperatures and jumped to the incorrect conclusion that higher temperatures cause higher ozone concentrations. That is untrue. The ozone concentrations are higher in summer because long wavelength ultraviolet light triggers the reactions that create ozone. Higher ozone occurs in the summer because the sun is higher in the sky and the amount of incoming solar radiation is higher.

Dano’s claim that higher carbon dioxide concentrations produce foods with lower nutritive value is equally specious. I saw his post before Mark deleted it (and my response to it). He cited two studies. The first was a press release about a study by Jablonski at Ohio State U. (see Jablonski, L.M., Wang, X. and Curtis, P.S. 2002. Plant reproduction under elevated CO2 conditions: a meta-analysis of reports on 79 crop and wild species. New Phytologist 156: 9-26). The press release said what Dano claimed that it said.

The study actually included 5 food crops. All of those food crops (rice, soybean, barley, wheat and maize) produced more seeds when exposed to elevated concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide: only two of them (barley and wheat) exhibited decreases in seed nitrogen content. Rice, the basic food for half of the world’s population, produced 42% more food.

Jablonski points out that there was no decrease in the nitrogen content of the seeds of legumes. Soy beans (a legume) provides 20% of the protein intake of the world population and about two-thirds of the protein in livestock feed. In the USA, corn (maize) provides a significant portion of the other one-third. Korner covered much of this in his response to the Jablonski paper. (see Korner, C. 2003. Nutrients and sink activity drive plant CO2 responses – caution with literature-based analysis. New Phytologist 159: 531-538).

Furthermore, several papers have demonstrated that increased fertilizer application eliminates the nitrogen deficiency in the grain seeds (see Kimball, et al 2001. Wheat grain quality as affected by elevated CO2, drought, and soil nitrogen. New Phytologist, in press.

Pleijel, H., Mortensen, L., Fuhrer, J., Ojanpera, K. and Danielsson, H. 1999. Grain protein accumulation in relation to grain yield of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grown in open-top chambers with different concentrations of ozone, carbon dioxide and water availability. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 72: 265-270.

Rogers, G.S., Milham, P.J., Gillings, M. and Conroy, J.P. 1996. Sink strength may be the key to growth and nitrogen responses in N-deficient wheat at elevated CO2. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 23: 253-264)

And, so what if there was a slight decrease in the nitrogen content of grain seeds? The small reduction in nitrogen that Jablonski found in wheat seeds would cause a reduction of about 1% in the protein intake of an average American; a precipitous fall from 372% of the recommended daily amount to 367% of the RDA. Even that assumes that the average American would not avail himself of a portion of the increased seed yield that Jablonski reported.

Dano’ second reference was to an article by Bailey at U. of Calif. Davis, which showed that some plants utilize nitrate nitrogen less efficiently in carbon dioxide enriched air. Bailey also pointed out that ability of the same plants to use ammonia nitrogen was unimpaired. Lest anyone think that ammonia nitrogen is hard to find, most of the fertilizer produced in Florida is either DAP (di ammonium phosphate) or Triple Super Phosphate (tri ammonium phosphate). Florida producers have tons of it.

Dano also presumes (erroneously) that higher temperatures will lead to higher ozone. He also presumes that forest productivity will be nitrogen limited, even though forest productivity was not the subject of this discourse. I wonder though, do the AGW-types not claim that a warmer climate will produce more violent weather? Are thunderstorms not a part of that more violent weather? Does lightning not produce oxides of nitrogen, i.e. nitrite fertilizer? Did the Bailey article not say that the limiting step in plant utilization of nitrate fertilizer was conversion of nitrate to nitrite, the form that the plants actually use? Hmmm.

I agree that the smoke exhaled by smokers contains the same toxins as the smoke that they inhaled, albeit in lower concentrations. Further, few persons inhale the vitiated air that others exhale, so further dilution occurs before second hand smoke impinges on a non-smoker. The result is that although the second hand smoke contains the same compounds, their concentrations are so low that they fall below the threshold toxic concentration.

Our immune systems have capacity to repel many types of attack, toxic and carcinogenic attacks included. Our immune systems repair or destroy the results of millions of aberrant cell divisions every hour. The few added by the low-dose exposure to second hand smoke do not overwhelm our defenses. Repeated, high concentrations of smoke inhaled by smokers increase their risk of lung cancer from one in ten thousand to about one in five hundred. That is for persons who smoke a pack or two per day. Studies have shown that the most exposed employees; bartenders for example inhale the toxic equivalent of about a half pack per week, which is so low that the increased disease rate is undetectable if it exists at all.

None of the 15 or so major epidemiological studies has shown a positive significant increase in disease among persons exposed to second hand smoke.

The USEPA allegedly performed a Meta study of all of the data available in 1993. In fact, they left out the largest of all of the studies, one that found no association between second hand smoke and any disease. Even at that, when they finished their statistical analysis they could find no correlation between second hand smoke and disease that cleared the 95% significance bar. Therefore, they took the only logical step available to an organization that had made a political decision to demonize second hand smoke; they lowered the bar to 90% and then were able to claim a 19% increase in cancer rates for those exposed to second hand smoke. That level 19% is far short of the 100% increase that most responsible epidemiologists (including the National Cancer Institute) would accept as an indication for the need for further study.

The judge who hired a special master to review the results said, in his opinion, that EPA had not adhered to their own standards of mathematical analysis and that there was considerable evidence that EPA had selected data from within the studies that were most likely to support their preconceived conclusion. He then threw out the ordnance that banned smoking in restaurants because it had been predicated on the EPA study.

Dano’s references to in vitro studies of simulated tissues to high concentrations of some of the carcinogens in second hand smoke are not relevant. It is not hard to cause isolated cells in a Petri dish to undergo aberrant divisions. Their isolation from their native immune systems disallows assessment of the meaning of those results.

All of that said, I agree that second hand smoke is an irritant and that smokers should not inflict it on others. But, let’s address the real issue, rude behavior, not an imaginary issue.

The see-oh-too piece where norb gets his argumentation from uses the old technique of the cherry-pick.

I’ll address only the significant mistakes or distortions, so as to limit the dissembling/distraction opportunities:

1. The [Jablonski] study actually included 5 food crops. All of those food crops (rice, soybean, barley, wheat and maize) produced more seeds when exposed to elevated concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide: only two of them (barley and wheat) exhibited decreases in seed nitrogen content. Rice, the basic food for half of the world’s population, produced 42% more food.

[emphases added]

See, I can read the actual paper, as opposed to some who have to parrot what see-oh-too cherry-picks.

a.Actually, the Jablonski et al. was a meta-analysis that looked at many crops. What they found was:

[“]

Seed [N] was reduced in elevated compared with ambient CO2-grown plants across all studies (-14%, Fig. 1), but there also was significant variation in the magnitude of this response among taxa (Table 1). Among legumes, seed [N] was unaffected by growth at high CO2, while in nonlegume C3 plants it was reduced 15% (Fig. 2b). There was significant variation among taxa in the latter group, however. Rice, like the legume soybean, showed no CO2 effect, wheat seed [N] was reduced more than 20%; cotton and barley were intermediate in their responses (Fig. 3b). Wild species as a group did not differ from crop species in seed [N] responses to elevated CO2 (Table 1) and showed similar levels of variation among individual taxa (Fig. 3b). Sample sizes for this group were very small, however, limiting the strength of among-taxa comparisons.