Heading for meltdown? 16 September 05

It is very sad to see that only the independent is leading with this story. As far as I can see, the Times, the Telegraph and the Guardian have all ignored it. I havent checked the Mail or the Express out of principle. I will leave that to some one braver then me. If anyone would like to take the challenge, good luck.

Cheers Ian.

It just gets better for them: we’re in the end times, getting really close to the End. Katrina & studies linking hurricane intensity with GW have helped increase the “Rapture Index”: http://www.raptureready.com/rap2.html

You don’t understand? Then see this article in Mother Jones, “Left Behind: Bush’s Holy War on Nature”

http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=46248

It has occurred to me that as “natural” & social problems increase (often cybernetically), people in their psychological tremedum-terror find comfort in simplistic, inflexible religions. That’s the nature of many revitalization (or social) movements – they offer something comprehensible & simple.

On the other hand, they should understand that we not only have the Bible, we also have God’s Creation, the Book of Nature, to guide & inform us. And the scientists are the theologians and scholars, who tell us what they can about this “good” (God’s word) creation (thus about God). So destroying nature is like tearing up the Bible, and in my book it’s a sin not to believe the scientists; they make it clear their knowledge is provisional & stochastic, and they include caveats – how honest can you get? We should let God reveal himself (partly through scientific investigation), and not try to fit Got into our self-designed mold.

It has occurred to me that the religious right may actually hate God, which would explain why some are in favor of destroying God’s creation, and why they would dismiss scientists telling us we are destroying it.

It may even be a sin not to accept evolution, and how it reveals God as really way beyond our comprehension (a much greater God than a David Cooperfield “intelligent designer”); at the least it may be an insult to God. I’m even more sure it’s a sin to reject global warming science, esp. when various religious authorities have told us to use prudence and do what we can to reduce our GHGs, even if we may be doubtful of the science.

I’d like to warn the religious right that their souls may be in jeopardy, and it would be better to follow a humble & contrite path of accepting what scientists tell us, and doing what we can to reverse our harm.

Well Ian, here in the good old USA we are ignoring the whole thing. Artic sea ice? Well, who cares about that? Our papers will cover little of the science of global warming. I see it as good that at least one U.K. paper will run a story like this. America is in the grips of a new dark age and would rather concentrate on church attendance than to the fate of our planet and thus our children. Any nation that places naked greed as it’s godhead is not going to be of much help in limiting the global warming problem. I have no hope of the USA ever coming to grips with limits to energy use. Now that we may have entered the era of the dreaded positive feed back loops, we could be on a run away train. Many a well paid talking head is running around our media claiming the latest Hurricane to be a rare event never to be worried about again. And that from a storm that hel 175 mile per hour winds for almost 24 hours before landfall!

Hi Mark,

I read the story in our newspaper today and see that you already mentioned it. I did have my theory about hurricanes based on your posted number of 0.85 W/m2 and simple physics. I cannot see how even my simplistic analysis can be refuted with respect to high SSTs. For me it would violate the laws of physics that GW is not responsible for the high heat gain of the shallow waters of the gulf region if that heat imbalance number is indeed valid. Those shallow waters are very responsible for high SSTs in the Gulf Stream which carries and distributes this heat.

Now, after I read the story and saw the hurricane graph today, I propose another analysis be done if it has not already been done. Take every hurricane season and incrementally sum the total kinetic energy from all the storms together into a single number for each season and plot these numbers next to CO2 increases and temperature increases. Take the natural variation and average it to obtain a single value per oscillation cycle and then plot it to check the increasing slope as it compares to the slope of the rising CO2 and/or positive slope of SST increases. Something may emerge in this simple analysis to provide fresh insight into this area than merely plotting hurricanes by frequency and category alone. This also must include all hurricanes and not just the ones that strike land.

My logic has to do with energy converted from heat to mechanical. The more heat available, then the more mechanical energy can be derived from it with all other factors being equal. Nothing knew here. In fact, maybe the increased temperature of the waters may have to be converted into a heat content number based on the specific heat of water and the temperature increase due to GW. By summing all the energy globally, I think we can compare more easily with the global phenomena of increased SSTs due to GW.

In any event, my thought is that the mechanical energy should at some level show a proportional correlation to the available heat energy on a global scale once cyclic aspects are averaged out. I think like an engineer so forgive me for not being more sophisticated about natural systems. Still, I wonder about what an analysis like this could tell us!

Dano, please make your comments about this. Something like this may have already been done before. What do you know about this?

Best Regards,

Dan

I contribute, though I often don’t even know the intricacies of the science they are discussing. That site, afterall, is for lay people who want to learn about climate change, and they really do love to answer questions (even my, shall we say, “scientifically uninformed” ones).

What you write makes really good sense to me, and I’d love to see their responses.

It’s even possible that you may give them some ideas, even if they have thought of almost every aspect. That is, different fields can come together and cross-fertilize each other, & come to new & better understandings.

Of course, one aspect is that no one likes to admit they are guilty; they would rather change their morality standard or change the facts or stick their head in the sand. And, well, Americans per capita, are about the highest GHG emitters. Of course, part of that is due to how spread out we are as a people; not compact like Europe, which means we just have a bigger challenge to meet.

There may be some subconscious ghosts haunting us. Our land was purchased at the price of genocide & ethnocide of the Native Americans & robbery of their lands. I sometimes contemplate that we walk on blood-stained land, holy land.

We really need a religion that preaches contrition & humility—obviously not the American religions of today.

Euripides wrote in Hippolytus (428 BC): “In every man’s life the time comes apace when fate holds a mirror unto his face.”

Better sooner, than too later, if it isn’t already too late.

You are correct that Real Climate would be a better place. I have a comfort zone with Mark’s blog and I think I will spend some time reading the posts on Real Climate and asking a few questions and I have enough of those.

I may ask questions in relation to geo-engineering concepts and get their thoughts about them. I think we may have to use some of those ideas since the carbon buildup is more of a factor than just reducing or eliminating our present emission levels.

I tend to take a few facts such as the earth’s heat imbalance and a few other facts and draw what appears to me to be reasonable conclusions or ideas based on a few parameters. However, I am not a person specialized in the science so I may not be aware of any false assumptions I may be making from oversimplifying more than I should. Also, we may lack the information we need to do an analysis so I may be suggesting ideas that are not easy to do for the lack of precise data.

I will do this soon enough and take extra precaution to articulate my questions correctly so it may be some time before you see anything from me appear there.

At least I will learn more than merely speculate based on my limited knowledge. Besides, Dano, Mark, or others do not always have the time for this level of detail on Mark’s blog.

Best Regards,

Dan

I think it is fair to say that all of us, skeptics included, have said at one time or another ‘we need more information on this’. More data to feed into models, more sophisticated models running differing pararmaters and variables, more power to run ‘what if’ simulations.

Running large, sophisticated computer models takes time and processing capacity. The less capacity you have, the less you can process and the longer it takes.

We do not have time, but we do have processing capacity. Have a look at

http://www.climateprediction.net/index.php.

It works on the same basis as the SETI programme, thousands of individual PC’s linked by internet, running a part of a modelling programme in the background. Over 90,000 volunteer users have generated 8000 years of computing time so far giving a modelling power far larger than the most powerful supercomputers available.

More users in more clusters will allow more modelling and, more importantly, will allow the possibility of intervention models to be run to see what effects ‘tinkering’ with things like Albedo and Oceanic thermal distribution might have.

If you like what you read, give it a go: at least it makes one feel as if one is actively contributing something useful, rather than just debating the issues (enjoyable though that is).

kind regards to all

Colin

and I found what you said about Operation Noah very interesting. I would like to see all religious and ethically minded people embrace those ideas.

I think our success begins with a desire to succeed and a belief that we will succeed. Humans built pyramids without the tools of modern society or even the use of fossil fuels. We placed men on the moon within a decade. Surely, we have enough ingenuity but do we have enough desire?

As ancient scripture says:

“What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us”

Despair not and continue to keep your hope and faith in America alive. I live here and despite the indifference I see, I believe firmly that we will change and I am working toward that happening at some level every day.

All the best,

Dan

in the major supplement with today’s Independent: ‘Your Planet and how to save it’.

I’m really pleased that the Indy is sticking with this assault on the consciousness of the chattering classes. I bought extra copies and gave one to my children to take to school. I left two on reception at work and e-mailed my colleagues. Both copies were on loan when I left tonight.

Keep at it. We have to find ways of surviving what is coming.

all the best

Colin

I think there are lots of Americans who simply don’t know about GW, because the media is not covering it adequately, and I do have hope that once most people know, there will be a critical mass to really start the campaign to reduce GHGs. (BTW, NBC News did have a good piece 9/18/05 on how GW is intensifying hurricanes – I couldn’t believe it; they didn’t put even one contrarian or skeptic on.)

I become discouraged, though, when I encounter religious people who have been told about GW, but refuse to believe it. One very strong Catholic, who has made a vow (or promise) of obedience, when I told her about the U.S. Bishops’ statement on GW (calling for prudence & action to reduce GHGs, even if people think the science is not certain), refused to accept it, and said the Bishops were probably wrong.

As for the green evangelicals (“What Would Jesus Drive” campaign & “Web of Creation” webpage), I sort of think they are in a tiny minority, and other leaders in those religions are fighting against them – saying we should not be out trying to save rabbits (that’s how they socially construct environmentalism), when babies are being aborted. My own experiences in the Catholic church have been not good – the anti-abortionist get especially livid when I bring up GW or environmental harm….as if we can’t solve more than one problem in the world.

Nevertheless, I keep on marching. As Dan so aptly put it earlier (from Apollo 13 film), “Failure is not an option.”

I just printed it out from http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=46341

I plan to give copies, along with the “GW Tipping Point” article to various people.

The only thing that was lacking was the positive feedback loops and runaway GW – the methane burps, arctic albedo, etc. (though the property value issue really hits home a lot harder).

I sure hope RealClimate does a piece on positive feedbacks & runaway GW. Is anyone bringing all of the positive feedbacks together? I have the sense that models don’t quite cover all of them. I know non-linear change (abrupt or spiralling) is very difficult for science to predict or prove, but at least people should be thinking about it.

Every now and then, this stuff keeps me awake at night. At 2.30am last night my mind was racing around about what to do about GW.

... Anyway, I’ve just read Mark’s article and I think that he starts with something that brings it home to people – the value of their homes. Mark’s point is that the price can be vulnerable to GW climate change. Good point!

I wonder if there is an opportunity to make a type of counter-point. In terms of marketing your own home (to sell or rent), people should think more and more about it’s green credentials. People should encourage to transform their houses as “environmentally-friendly” using solar, ground-source heats pumps, under-floor heating etc. etc. It could be central to the branding of peoples’ properties (very often their most substantial asset).

Mark I have followed your website for some time now. I find it informative and thought provoking. However, your piece in the Independent’s “Your Planet” magazine seems a bit desperate, appealing as it does to the peculiarly English obsession with house prices. Is there room for the entire population of the world to live on hills, as I do? What would be the consequences?

might not be wise, as it might either make people hopeless or claim, as contrarians do, there’s nothing we can do about it, it’s (now) all nature’s fault.

might not be wise, as it might either make people hopeless or claim, as contrarians do, there’s nothing we can do about it, it’s (now) all nature’s fault.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/article313737.ece

regards to all

Colin

Hello Peter,

The Buildings Research Establishment offer an Environmental and Energy Audit for all kinds of buildings including new and renovated houses. If your house achieves a ‘pass’ under the BREEAM energy rating system, it may be eligible for council tax credit in England. If you’ve spent a lot on upgrading the energy performance of your home, and want this to be reflected in the sale price, then you can get an audit done by a qualified assessor for a fee.

Details are at : http://www.breeam.org/ecohomes.html

I think this is an extremely important factor. People on not just lower, but middle incomes will be looking closely at energy running costs soon, as these will impact on their ability to repay the mortgage. It is certainly something we are discussing with Land for People ltd. who are looking to develop a number of affordable housing projects for local communities in Wales. It is also something that both the energy advice agencies and Citizens Advice are looking at closely in relation to helping clients avoid future fuel poverty traps.

with kind regards

Colin

A friend of mine mentioned to me yesterday that she was listening to a discussion about global warming and hurricanes and that the “experts” mentioned that it makes the intensity go up but not the occurrence of them.

This morning, I thought about the current science and I wondered about this idea and I came to the conclusion that this concept is founded on faulty logic. If global warming is now accepted to have a direct influence on the intensity of a hurricane, then by deductive reasoning, it also has to increase the number of them.

Let me explain. If 4 is now a 5, a 3 is now a 4, a 2 is now a 3, and a 1 is now a 2, then a 0 must now be a 1.

So, those tropical storms which would normally have remained a tropical storm are now bumped up to a Category 1 hurricane and therefore the total number of hurricanes must also increase as well and this must be due to global warming if we make the reasonable assumption that global warming increases the intensity of all storms at some level.

Furthermore, if a storm is not a tropical storm in the past, then global warming may increase its energy to make it qualify for the tropical-storm status. In other words, we should have more tropical storms as well as more hurricanes.

As evidence for this faulty logic that global warming only increases intensity and not frequency let me share that we are running close to the end of the pre-selected names used to name tropical storms and hurricanes with only 4 remaining now to name major storms. Using deductive reasoning, it appears to me at least, that the knowledge of the people who composed that pre-selected list of names, before the start of this hurricane season, are not current with the true meteorological reality of today’s world. Otherwise, and according to logic, these folks would have made a larger list of names!

Maybe instead, these leading scientists and meteorologists need to rethink their position as to the link between global warming and the frequency of storm formation. I am not a scientist. I am simply an engineer and I look at simple facts like the fact that we have “more” storms than we “should have” for even a season that was previously predicted to have a high number of storms.

In conclusion, I just cannot understand how factors which make larger storms would not also tend to make more of them. It seems to violate the simple laws of physics I know and even more importantly it violates basic mathematical reasoning based on the definitions of how these storms are named for their intensity.

All the best,

Dan

I couldn’t agree more about it being an excellent article and must applaud The Independant in being the only UK magazine that seems to be taking the issues of Global Warming and the Environment seriously. While the other papers seems to be more intent on following the exploits of Jordan and Britney Spears, mankind continues to destroy the only home we have!!

Thanks, a very useful lead!

That’s what I’ve read. But they haven’t proven either yet. I agree with your assessment. The only thing that could reduce the frequency, it seems, would be calmer winds (perhaps also due to GW), or something cancelling out other hurricane conditions (beyond SST). Something like wind shear or something (I don’t really know what I’m talking about here).

Another thing I thought of, is that maybe hurricanes will just glop together into single hurricanes of extreme intensity.

Otherwise, I can’t see why they wouldn’t be more frequent due to GW, just on the basis of that category shift. In addition, I had the impression that winds might be increasing & more fierce, and of course water vapor will increase.

and I guess that prompted my original post.

Despite all the other variables Lynn, the high SSTs partly due to GW which increase storm intensity must also make some weaker storms become “named storms” when they normally would not. This by default should increases the total number of hurricanes no matter what the other variables are. Even if wind sheer is a factor, the intensity factor from higher SSTs can still make the difference between what would remain a tropical storm or the formation of a category 1 hurricane.

For me, this one is proved by deductive reasoning alone. If the assumption is that GW increases storm intensity, then hurricanes being named for their intensity will be more prominent. The reverse logic also applies. If low SSTs make for less intense storms, then their will be less intense storms and less hurricanes forming so some tropical storms will simply remain tropical storms.

All this does not negate the other variables from influencing hurricane frequency like wind shear. I just say it is faulty logic to disassociate frequency from intensity when there is an obvious mathematical relationship between the 2 variables.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Take Care,

Dan

Did anyone see if there was any further announcement about the final figure for the minimum extent of the Artic ice-the article indicated one would be made but I’ve heard nothing.

...see…http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4290340.stm