Climate sceptics lose last argument 26 August 05

also point out that the earlier lack of agreement between satellite data and models did not in any way disprove GW. It only created a problem for their models in that particular aspect, but that evidence of GW was already too robust to discount based on that glitch. So the skeptics never really did have an argument. Which is what I alway thought (but didn’t know enough about the science to argue).

I just hope humanity has enough “will to survive” to start lifting its little finger on the GW problem. Or maybe Freud’s thanatos (death wish) is the overriding force here. Sincerely hope not.

I’ll jump straight to the last argument… “Finally, they will argue that it’s too late to take action, because climate change is unavoidable. And by that time, they may be right.”

From what I’ve read the thermal inertia is already in place and even if the world went to zero GHG production, the earth would continue warming for the next century.

:)

It seems that the GW debate is about to be given an airing by m’learned friends in court: All the president’s men V rest of the world.

I wonder whether costs will be awarded….....

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article308256.ece

whilst we await the outcome, we can continue debating the likely form of our doom on Mark’s excellent blog.

kind regards to all

Colin

What you wrote is true, there is already some warming in the pipeline. However, why would we want to increase that warming & the harm it entails? Perhaps, after increasing the warming to a certain tipping point (when positive feedbacks become prominent releasing massive GHGs from nature), pushing us into a runaway GW situation in which a large chunk of life dies. Such happened during the end-Permian extinction 251 million years ago when up to 95% of life on earth died. Of course, life forms are more resilient now, but I wouldn’t even want 50% 0r 25% of life on earth to die. I wouldn’t want billions of people to die over the next few centuries. And that is possible if we persist in refusing to reduce GHGs.

Once we have enough damage from hurricanes, heat waves, crop failures, sea level rise, etc, then and only then will people like yourself and your neoconservative friends realize that this might actually affect your ability to have a party.

Sorry Jimbo! I know you meant no real harm by your comments but I had to wipe that smile off your face.

Thermal inertia works both ways. It may be our last resort to mitigate the problem by buying time before more damage occurs. We may need to engage in geo-engineering projects which may be our only course of action and yet this still must include reducing and eliminating GHGs to the atmosphere no matter what anyone’s opinions are about how we can restore balance.

In any event, we still have to quit making the problem worse. Your comments do not mean we are off the hook on GHGs. Adding more to the problem makes it worse even though the buildup of carbon emissions is the main problem.

If we reduce enough, then the buildup of carbon can actually start decreasing because the earth absorbs carbon all the time. It will take time to reduce the current buildup.

Reducing and eliminating emissions, creating more carbon sinks, and making reflective pavement and reflective roof tops still must be a strong focus. We still have the real danger of not being able to mitigate the problem effectively because nature takes over adding her own greenhouse gases to ours in a runaway scenario.

Jim, the only party I have in my mind is after we succeed at some level to restore balance. I remain cautiously optimistic only because I see no other choice we have. When we decide to give up, then we already have cut off our ability to solve problems using our innate creativity and we stop engaging in activity which helps mitigate greenhouse gases.

As long as we continue to exasperate the problem, then we are not taking it seriously enough in my opinion. We are more intelligent than that if we try.

Jim, it is easy to be cavalier about our future while we still live in relative comfort. However, the worst state of mind will be the awareness in later decades when thoughtful people will look back in hindsight about what we could have done but failed to do.

We are living in a time where we still have the option of doing something that will aid the next generation’s efforts and this has to include eliminating the cause of the problem. We call it greenhouse gases but it is really called procrastination.

Now, I am not posting as much on this blog lately because I am spending my spare time thinking about solutions and researching options that focus on understanding my own energy usage and the best course of action to reduce it. I plan to build on this effort and expand it beyond myself. This is very similar to Lynn’s focus. All of us can do more. We should not stop our own personal activity to prepare ourselves and family for the future. It is better to take control at some level rather than wait for circumstances to dictate the course of future events for ourselves and for the greater world.

I say to everyone on this blog to avoid fear and despair and not to listen to those who advocate doom. We all can get discouraged when thinking about the magnitude of the problems we face and we absolutely need to fully understand the magnitude and seriousness of our problems. But with that awareness, we also have an awesome responsibility and may I say an awesome opportunity. We have to do whatever we can do and talk to other people as well. This is our solemn duty and responsibility my friends.

It is also a noble endeavor and honor to know that what we do can make a difference for all the generations of the next millennium. I invite you to see this problem is a different light that places yourself as being responsible for its solution. I wish everyone a good productive week and please think of a few ideas which can reduce energy in your home and ride that bicycle or walk. Despair like failure is not an option.

Take action this week. Do anything that you know which helps solve this problem no matter how small it is and keep building on that. That is what I hope everyone does this week who reads my post. Every week do something. Every week help someone else know more about these issues and offer your advice to what they can do which helps.

Never stop and never give in to despair as long as you breathe and have the ability to take action at any level no matter what anyone says to the contrary making it appear as if your small effort has no meaning. I say it does and that it is needed.

The more you know, then the more you become responsible. I guess with that statement then the skeptics are off the hook since they strive to remain ignorant.

Good luck to everyone this week and that goes double for me.

Dan

On January 17th, 2005, I made a rather long response back to Norbert before Dano took over this job for me as he is an expert in the field.

I made a comment about the satellite data back then and thought to post it again because it turns out that maybe I did notice something after all with just a casual glance at the data.

My original post is at the site below and the excerpt from it which follows is relevant to Mark’s current topic and seemed worthy of sharing again.

Norbetzangox, My Response Back!

http://www.marklynas.org/wind/message/462.html

Relevant excerpt below from my post above made last January:

…….SATELLITE TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS, BigPedia, July, 2004

http://www.bigpedia.com/encyclopedia/Satellite_temperature_record

The site above shows Christy’s and Spencer’s actual Satellite data mentioned by Norbetzangox According to this website above: “The Spencer and Christy version D record from 1979 to 2002 show a warming trend of 0.04 °C/decade, compared to 0.06 to April 2002 or 0.074 to July 2003; or 0.082 to Feb 2004 ….. This illustrates a severe problem with the satellite record, its shortness – adding a few years on to the record can change the trends considerably.”

The concept of transient conditions for me may mean that the carbon dioxide increases are concentrated at ground level (since that is where the man made sources mostly originate) and may take time to enter the upper levels of the troposphere and this is why there may be a delay in increasing temperature in the upper troposphere due to carbon dioxide. Also, the reduced albedo positive feedback of the earth absorbing more solar radiation may increase the warming of the surface faster. Also, the heat islands you comment on are evidently generating additional surface heat which may be significant enough to the overall surface warming process.

Also, I have noticed what appears to be a mathematical anomaly in the actual data reported by Christy and Spencer, the researchers who operate the satellite. First, the data set of temperatures from 1992 through 1997 show a general magnitude difference in the data set from 1998 until now. I cannot help but think that some adjustment had to occur in 1998 in the measuring equipment or analytical procedures.

I already mentioned transient conditions, but the first set showed cooling and the next set showed warming. Assuming that bugs are worked out over time, I wonder if the first set of data is not totally correct. For the curious reader, I provide the website so you can see what I am talking about concerning the satellite data sets. This anomaly is easily detected by almost anyone. In other words, there is an obvious pattern shift that makes the total data set suspect as to its consistency.

On this note, the data does shows great precision and even showed a peak for 1998 which mirrors the surface peak temperature for that year but this does not mean the accuracy is correct and it may be off by a constant or a multiplying factor or both. I cannot be sure but this would not surprise me after I looked at the data myself. In non technical terms, it does not seem to flow right and there is a jump in 1998 independent of that peak year that continued until the present time for the Upper Troposphere.

I am mathematically trained and qualified to make the previous statement; however, I am not an atmospheric scientist. Maybe you could pose this question to your Christy and Spencer Norbetzangox (if they are indeed people you correspond with) and tell us how they can account for this. I am sure you can so I would like to hear your comments about this specifically……

I would have rather been incorrect when I made that observation and that Christy and Spencer be correct instead.

I am glad we have other more qualified people like Dano to make sure people like Norbert are kept in check on this blog.

I am glad that errors are being corrected by those engaged in the science by helping us understand the climate problem better because we cannot afford to get this wrong.

We have to know the total truth so we know best how to deal with these problems.

Best regards to Mark Lynas for this update.

Dan

assuming it’s a civil & not criminal case (it really should be a criminal case). And that means they just need some scientists to say, it’s more llikely than not [51% certainty] that GW is causing or will cause the problms. And I think even the skeptic scientists would do that!

which was caused by GHGs from volcanic activity warming the earth, causing further release of GHGs & further warming in a positive feedback (runaway) fashion, leading to 90-95% extinction of oceanic life & 70% of land-based life.

See: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2005/2005-08-29-01.asp

The difference today is that it’s people who are increasing the GHGs that may trigger such runaway GW.

If you read the paper you will see that all they have shown is tiny increase in temperature in the satellite record.

The paper doesn’t even come close to getting the Satellite record to match the ground based temperature record trend.

What would be amazing would be an analysis of any temperature record of a significant number of years that showed no change at all. Any record from any period will show a either warming or cooling trend.

Whatever trend is detected the ‘sky is falling’ people will take as evidence for their case.

In the old days people walked the streets with sandwich boards reading ‘the end is nigh’. These people have morphed into global warmers.

say within the next hundreds of years or so (& only for a chunk of humanity & life, not everyone)IFF you & others absolutely positively refuse to reduce GHGs. Not quite Armageddon.

So exactly what is the problem with reducing GHGs cost effectively?? Does it just come down to you just not liking to be pushed around. That’s the American character; some of us would rather die & kill than submit to someone telling us to reduce GHGs & save money without lowering our living standards. Europeans and the rest of the world can now really understand what the intransigent problem is over here. No amount of evidence will ever change those of us who simply don’t want to be pushed around, no matter what the consequences.

My husband is a criminologist, and he finds that type of character that make Americans so great & strong, also produces a very high crime rate, and now great harm to the world, it seems.

You’ll note, Andrei, when the dust clears that there was a sign error.

So, what Mark is saying is that one of the few legitimate arguments the denialists had is gone now. You’ll also note, Andrei, that the balloon record was amended upward as well to closely match the other records, so the denialists don’t have that either. In fact, the denialists don’t have sh*t.

You can parrot the talking points if you wish, but it just ends up being for informed people’s amusement.

D

Jeeez you can’t take a little joking around? I thought you’d be happy that the dark side has been defeated. If the warming is as you say then the final argument is the correct one… it’s too late.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0317_050317_warming.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/sarsum1.htm#five

;-)

best to get a few things prepared though, the Solar barbecue: http://solarcooking.org/manufacture.htm ;

the organic salad, http://www.ecomall.com/biz/food.htm

and some growth-hormone and antibiotic-free meat: http://www.newstarget.com/000672.html

I’ll bring the beer: That is, if you can stomach one of the 100’s of different traditional ales’ from our neck of the woods.

Perhaps it was the mental image your post conjured up? (fiddles, Rome and burning spring to mind) but anyway, I will give the Monsanto-burgers with added Lemming-DNA a miss if you don’t mind.

Yes, you are right, the thermal inertia effect will continue for quite some time, but that is no reason to keep adding fuel to the fire. I’m afraid I’m with Dan here, it’s about time we started thinking about pro-active remedial measures to get atmospheric GHG’s down, and not just capping them. It could well become a profitable activity in itself, enough to tempt investors if the project works well. In the meantime, I agree, we have to learn to live with what is coming at us, but I don’t suggest you voice that sentiment too loudly on the Gulf Coast just at the moment.

OK, OK, I know we can’t prove a link between GW and Hurricane activity, but that’s no comfort to the poor souls who have lost everything, and the many more who will join them before the year is out. Getting the international consciousness aware of the causes and scale of the threat will be a start, and the only comfort I can draw, is from the way this issue has climbed onto the world agenda in the last six months. That and Oil at $71/ barrel.

Perhaps not too late yet, but I’d prefer to be getting busy rather than partying.

anyway, take care of yourself

best

Colin