Now Antarctica is melting too 03 March 06

I don’t envy you trying to write a book on the subject at the moment. It must be difficult trying to keep up with the constant flow of new and revised information, almost all of it apparently giving a more pessimistic outlook than was previously thought.

I wonder if there is a way to write a dynamic book which can be updated online. You could write the basic structure, but people could pay extra to get updates on particular areas by accessing the online book?

Is not Wikipedia structured like this? See William M Connolley’s blog at http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/ for insight.

Douglas Coker

In an article on 17th February in the Independent entitled “Climate Change: On the Edge” James Hansen of NASA, referring to the recently announced study concerning the Greenland ice sheet states “The last time the world was three degrees warmer than today-which is what we expect later this century-sea levels were 25m higher…none of the current climate and ice models predict this. But I prefer the evidence of the Earth’s history and my own eyes. I think sea-level rise is going to be the big issue soon, more even than the warming itself”

Given that we are told that sea level rose some 10-20 cms during the 20th century, I had always thought that the lower end of the estimates for this century were somewhat optimistic!

The article is at http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article345926.ece

although a subsciption is now required to read it in full (the whole thing could be viewed on the day of publication)

As the temperature of the ecosphere gradually rises, hopefully we are a species capable of recognizing when danger is clear and present. Then we can choose to respond ably to looming global challenges associated directly with human behaviors that give rise to an overheating Earth, and threaten human and environmental health. On the other hand, our species could choose to go proceed along its business as usual course, not change behavior as necessary and, perhaps, inadvertently become one of an unnaturally large and growing number of species to croak, even in these early years of Century XXI.

I found a pirate post of that article at www.universalrights.net/people/stories.php?category=envir

In keeping with another Independent guestpiece of late, JH doesn’t specify to which ‘happened before’ event he refers. Was there a polar gyre continent at the time as there is now?

But presumably he’d be upfront about any difference like that?

Hansen bases this article on comparisons with the Eemian, the previous interglacial around 120,000 years ago. That was pretty much yesterday in geological terms, so continent positions would have been much the same.

Almuth

............ or why Homo sapiens could end up croaking soon: Not one or two, but 10 potential governing factors.

If the scientific community erred on the side of caution then this would be much better because this would help compensate for the slow and inadequate human response plus the delayed effect of the consequences to the current damage being done today.

Even NOAA underestimated the number of hurricanes last year by over 200 percent. We simply have to better than this.

On that note, I have offered one thought in the past which I bring up again regarding a mathematical flaw in the hurricane methodology. I cannot see how it is mathematically possible to claim that increased hurricane frequency is not associated with GW/CC as though intensity and frequency are unrelated. Let me elaborate.

Since all storms are categorized by intensity in terms of sustained wind speed, then all storms increase in category because of GW/CC. If a category 1 hurricane can become a category 2 hurricane from GW/CC, then a tropical storm can become a Category 1 and an ordinary storm be can become a tropical storm due to GW/CC. This results in more “named storms” from the increase in intensity of all storms. Therefore the frequency of storms must be partially a mathematical function of storm intensity and if GW/CC increases this intensity from higher SSTs then it follows that storm frequency is also partially a function of GW/CC. There is no way to escape this conclusion in my mind.

Now, again, how can any reputable scientist make an assertion that disassociates hurricane frequency from intensity with respect to the influence of high SSTs caused by GW/CC. This is simply a false statement based on simple deductive reasoning alone from the definition of how storms are named and that GW/CC influenced SSTs increase intensity. No additional climate science analysis is required so this association that frequency must go up with intensity is logic-tight. No other conclusion can be drawn or did I miss something here?

Now, NOAA underestimated the number of hurricanes last year by 200 percent. Last year, the evidence suggests that the logic I present here is totally correct because both intensity and frequency did increase.

So, why are we underestimating effects of GW/CC? Is it because the scientists are inadequate to make correct assessments? Is it because the science is too difficult? Is it because the scientists get their salaries from Governments and they feel pressure not to make claims which are too pessimistic?

This is an important question to ask. I used my hurricane example only to illustrate my concerns about it and that we need to do a better job at the scientific level. What would happen if an engineer said, Oh I am sorry I underestimated the load on that bridge and that is way it collapsed.

I wish you luck on your book Mark because I think you are doing your very best to help people comprehend what is at stake here.

If we can ever do anything to address these problems, we first have to know more precisely what we are truely up against.

Best Wishes, Dan

Continuously increasing absolute global human population numbers, rising per human consumption, and the expressed intention of the dominant culture to endlessly expand the productive capacity of the predominant, interlocking national economies worldwide, when taken together, are patently unsustainable on the small, finite, noticeably fragile planet God has blessed us to inhabit…...and not to inadvertently overwhelm.

http://journals.aol.com/sesalmony/HumanandEnvironmentalHealth/

I wonder how much of the problem lies with sloppy media reporting and, in the case of NOAA, the fact that they still have people like William Gray in influential positions, even if his position is perhaps now a minority one amongs his colleagues (so I hope).

Kerry Emanuel has been extremly clear about this. He speaks of tropical cyclones, which might not increase in number, and of hurricanes causing ever more terrible damage. Yet the media often translates tropical cyclones as hurricanes, which really distorts the picture.

I have just heard of Kerry Emanuel’s book Divine Wind – has anybody read it yet?

Almuth

It’s also snowing more in Africa…

Algeria has seen multiple meter depth snows the last few winters… and is causing chaos again this year.

”...it is likely that some of the next IPCC report, due for release in 2007, will also have to go back to the drawing board.”

Regarding the ice caps, seems they have gotten it wrong and all the projections of things melting/ heating/ warming is happening on a much more compressed time scale that causes are suspected more than AGW.

If AGW is going to be blamed then I guess most models will have to go back to the drawing board.

Maybe it’s the sun combined with cleaner air… oh wait… the cleaner air is definitely caused by man so… I stand corrected it must be caused by man!

Regarding the ice caps, seems they have gotten it wrong and all the projections of things melting/ heating/ warming is happening on a much more compressed time scale that causes are suspected more than AGW.

I notice you don’t mention any causes. What might these causes be, and what is the empirical evidence for this statement?

Thank you,

D

Let’s done forget about all the other problems (environmental & social) - which I feel pale in comparison to GW, esp. runaway GW - but when added together (or multiplied in some cases) really amount to a pretty bad scenario.

We need another “Club of Rome” report on the total picture, maybe “OVERSHOT & DONE-IN.”

Has anyone else noticed a lack of joined-up thinking in economic forecasts that governments, management consultancies are making?

Just yesterday I was reading the “The Government’s Response to Kate Barker’s Review of Housing Supply” (December 2005) http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/F59/0D/prb05_barker_553.pdf .. and although there is some good discussion about environmental sustainability (the whole of section 5), when it comes to the forecast on CO2 emissions, the model takes no account of anticipated changes to building regs etc. and predicts that household emissions will increase by 4.2% over the next 10 years (see page which is marked 82; actually on page 88 out of 100).

Also yesterday I was reading Larry Elliott in the Guardian about a PWC report about the tremendous growth prospects in China etc. over the next few years.

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1724329,00.html

Are PWC blind to what is going on??? As Eliott writes:

“Somewhat surprisingly, there is no mention at all in the PwC analysis of whether the world has the carrying capacity to cope with growth of this magnitude. Given our own consumption patterns, it would be two-faced to deny the E7 what we take for granted ourselves. But far from being reassured that the west has nothing to fear from the rise and rise of the E7, the opposite is true. We should be terrified, if not for ourselves, then for our children.”

I think it is now inexcusable for reports of this nature to ignore Global Warming and other environmental issues in their analysis.

Best,

Peter

And why would increased snowfall in Algeria contradict IPCC predictions? Given that snowfall in Algeria whilst daffodils bloom early in Scotland tend to go along with a positive North Atlantic Oscillation (yes, it was positive for a considerable part of this winter, too), and that the Third Assessment Report stated that most climate models predict the North Atlantic Oscillation to gradually become more and more positive with global warming – where exactly is your problem?

Almuth

Has anyone else noticed a lack of joined-up thinking in economic forecasts that governments, management consultancies are making?

Yes, everyone has.

A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore. The physicist says, “Let’s smash the can open with a rock.” The chemist says, “Let’s build a fire and heat the can first.” The economist says, “Let’s assume that we have a can-opener…”

Best,

D

I love it.

Maybe we ought to keep a tally of non-joined-up thinking in public reports.

Best,

Peter

PS. How do you do that clever thing which hyperlinks against words that you choose?

How do you do that clever thing which hyperlinks against words that you choose?

http://www.webmonkey.com/webmonkey/reference/html_cheatsheet/>HTML tags.

Best,

D

And there’s the danger of not having a ‘preview’ button – you have to close the tag properly:

HTML tags.

D

The problem with economics is that it’s about the production, distribution, and consumption of goods & services. It has nothing to do with whether there are resources with which to make things, or whether those economic processes make the world uninhabitable. I read in a book, BLUEPRINT FOR A GREEN ECONOMY, that a whole forest could be used up, and only when it gets to the last tree, does the price shoot up on the supply/demand curve (I forget the reasoning of why this could happen). I guess it’s the same with water—only when we get to the last drop of potable water will the price shoot up, but then I guess it would go way down when everyone dies.

The way classical economics is set up, it can only measure things in monetary terms. So, since air is free, economics can’t see pollution—and might even value it positively in it effects of increasing the medical sector.

I could go on.

hurricane being used in the Atlantic & cyclone being used in the Pacific. And what about typhoon—is that different from or the same as hurricane?

coming out of GW & increased hurricane intensity is that the hurricane “ingredients” sort of glob together into really gigantic hurricanes.

But even if this were so, it’s not necessarily good news. One category 5 (or it may come to 6 in the near future) may actually be much worse than, say, 2 weaker hurricanes.

However, I really do think frequency is (or will be) increased by GW….and I think that’s what climate scientists predict. They just haven’t been able to prove it yet at 95% confidence (since hurricanes don’t come in high enough numbers—it’s probably a problem of “n” being too small).

There is a good summary on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone

Hurricanes are in the North Atlantic and the North Pacific Ocean. Typhoons are in the Northwest Pacific. Elsewhere, there are just tropical cyclones. However, I think that all tropical cyclones above the ‘speed limit’ are called hurricanes at least in part ofthe media, just to confuse it all. The ‘speed limit’ at which hurricanes start is above 74 mph.

Tropical cyclones is a general term. I understand that there is no evidence that tropical cyclones overall are becoming more frequent. Given that more of the tropical cyclones are becoming strong enough to qualify as hurricanes (depending on the geographical area) there are therefore more hurricanes. And the fact that the number of tropical cyclones might stay the same is hardly consoling – since those below the hurricane threshold cause relatively little, if any, damage.

But given that hurricanes are by definition of destructive wind strengths, the media are completely missing the point if they say that there will be no more of them even if the destructive potential might go up.

Almuth Ernsting