How Bad Is Global Warming?

[tazmic]

Hottest night ever in Melbourne yesterday, three record heatwaves in southern Oz last year. But I'm a little bit chilly right now, global warming is obviously a plot by the Illuminati.

Is that a natural variation down there, like the cold snap europe is experiencing, or is it global warming?

Am i dumb enough for US citizenship?

Keeping to your spirit of stereotyping, I'd say you are rude enough, but perhaps too sarcastic.

[Hammer of Los]

Hey I'm just scanning the Times piece now, and there's a shedload of comment I could make. I just hope I have the time later. It would be a lot of fun. I can learn a lot from this article;

I talked to some brilliant scientists and thinkers, some mainstream Greens, some truly tough-minded scientists. There was James Lovelock, the man whose Gaia hypothesis sees the world as a single, gigantic organism. There was Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University in New York.

Mm, I know a bit about Lovelock, enough to distrust him. And that other feller at Rockefeller looks darn ripe for some research. For instance he claims that renewable energy wrecks the environment (?!).

Yes, might be a very informative and interesting article indeed, for those with a bit of nous in such things, you know?

Cya later my little blue tits.

[compared2what?]

Hey I'm just scanning the Times piece now, and there's a shedload of comment I could make. I just hope I have the time later. It would be a lot of fun. I can learn a lot from this article;

I talked to some brilliant scientists and thinkers, some mainstream Greens, some truly tough-minded scientists. There was James Lovelock, the man whose Gaia hypothesis sees the world as a single, gigantic organism. There was Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University in New York.

Mm, I know a bit about Lovelock, enough to distrust him. And that other feller at Rockefeller looks darn ripe for some research. For instance he claims that renewable energy wrecks the environment (?!).

Yes, might be a very informative and interesting article indeed, for those with a bit of nous in such things, you know?

Cya later my little blue tits.

Thanks for your courtesy, consideration and candor. I very much look forward to hearing your more fully elaborated upon thoughts.
__________________

ON EDIT: You know, I'm always very slow to realize that just because stuff wouldn't occur to me, doesn't mean it mightn't occur to others. So just to be on the safe side, please allow me to clarify:

I very much look forward to hearing your more fully elaborated upon thoughts regarding the question: "How bad is global warming?" Because that is, after all, both the topic of this discussion and that article.

Should you wish to share them, I also welcome your more fully elaborated upon thoughts regarding the question: "How bad are the various ostensibly global-warming corrective proposals currently being advanced by the running dogs and lackeys of imperial power?" Of course. So please feel free to go to fucking town on that one, too.

But if you do, please also bear in mind that since neither the science nor the rationales on which the proposed solutions are based have any inherent relationship or correspondence at all to the science and rationales that argue there's a need for one, you can't simply kill both birds with one stone.

Thanks.

Quite apart from which, I kind of doubt we'd disagree about how bad the proposed solutions are. Although as a point of debate, it'd be kind of a moot point either way, really. I mean, given that neither I nor the article I posted endorsed any, it's just not what's at issue.

[wintler2]

..The implied characterisation of folk here who simply would like to know the true degree of warming caused by the greenhouse effect of man made carbon emissions is appalling. Not to mention the prejudice against people who live in caravans. Absolutely appalling I tell you.

A deep politics discussion board in not the place a sincere seeker would look for information on "the true degree of warming caused by manmade carbon emissions". For example, that no mention is made of landclearing, responsible for a fifth of anthropogenic warming effect, suggests to me that in fact zero effort has been made to self-educate. Its the fake sincerity that really triggers my agro.

Can anybody tell me then, what is the true degree of warming caused by the greenhouse effect of man made carbon emissions?

If you mean 'true'/exact then no, i can't tell you & noone can, cos the global climate system is not as simple as a price query at Walmart. If thats not good enough for you then tough titties, welcome to reality: to twist J.Williams, "climatology is not rocket science: it is much, much harder".

Applying preschool rigor however and googling your phrase "degree of warming caused by the greenhouse effect of man made carbon emissions" takes me to wikipedia and the answer "0.74 ± 0.18 °C between the start and the end of the 20th century". Second sentance, first paragraph on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_war ... ouse_gases

How hard was that, and why have none of the supposedly sincere enquirers on this thread got off their arses and done same themselves? Because, says me, they're not sincere they're just spamming this board with push-poll type bullshit.

This board has seen literally hundreds of threads filled with the same old sunspots/littleiceage/leftwingconspiracy/urbanheatisland blah blah, with no contribution made by any AGW sceptic beyond copynpasting the same old Heartland Institute/Megacorporate polluter propaganda.

So spare me your outrage and have mercy on Jeffs bandwidth bills, at least until have attempted a bare minimum of preschool-level rigor.

[smiths]

Many of the precautionary actions that we need to take would be sensible in any event.
It is sensible to improve energy efficiency and use energy prudently;
it's sensible to improve energy efficiency and to develop alternative and sustainable sources of supply;
it's sensible to replant the forests which we consume;
it's sensible to re-examine industrial processes;
it's sensible to tackle the problem of waste. I understand that the latest vogue is to call them ‘no regrets’ policies. Certainly we should have none in putting them into effect.

And our uncertainties about climate change are not all in one direction.
The IPCC report is very honest about the margins of error. Climate change may be less than predicted.
But equally it may occur more quickly than the present computer models suggest. Should this happen it would be doubly disastrous were we to shirk the challenge now.
I see the adoption of these policies as a sort of premium on insurance against fire, flood or other disaster.
It may be cheaper or more cost-effective to take action now than to wait and find we have to pay much more later.

Margaret Thatcher (ha,ha), 1990
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeche ... cid=108237

Since 1990, the IPCC has published four comprehensive assessment reports on human-induced climate change. Field was a coordinating lead author of the fourth assessment, Climate Change 2007, which concluded that the Earth's temperature is likely to increase 2 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius) by 2100, depending on how many tons of greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere in coming decades.

But recent climate studies suggest that the fourth assessment report underestimated the potential severity of global warming over the next 100 years. "We now have data showing that from 2000 to 2007, greenhouse gas emissions increased far more rapidly than we expected, primarily because developing countries, like China and India, saw a huge upsurge in electric power generation, almost all of it based on coal," Field said.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 162648.htm

* Global carbon dioxide emissions are up 40 per cent from 1990.
* The global warming trend has continued, despite a temporary decline in solar energy.
* Both Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an accelerating rates, as are glaciers the world over.
* Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average prediction from the IPCC's last report.
* Global average sea-level has risen at a rate 80% above past IPCC predictions over the past 15 years.

http://www.desmogblog.com/state-climate ... -predicted

and for the record, i agree wholeheartedly with wintler, all of the information is out there for anyone genuine about this defining issue of our times
my posts have been more to demonstrate that the supposed debate on the issue is a fabrication created by vested interest groups and morons

how bad is it? worse than anyone would dared have predicted 20 years ago,

the real question is, how bad does it have to be before humans really do something about it?

[Wombaticus Rex]

For instance he claims that renewable energy wrecks the environment (?!).

Actually true to a big extent, most of the "clean green" tech is the result of a very toxic manufacturing process. Recent developments in solar, mostly German/Chinese, are looking way more promising.

Lovelock, strange associations aside, is most certainly a dour old man these days. He's been bleaker than bleak in every press appearance for the past 5. Some of his Gaia writing is quite beautiful, and there is of course the larger fact he's right, and the Earth really does function a single organism. Bucky Fuller called it Spaceship Earth, and apparently some people who Americans before America existed (weird, right?) understood that same truth, too...

[Hammer of Los]

Smiths, thanks for the Monbiot article. I am fully in agreement with him. Could the once gorgeous George be on his way to a rehabilitation after his tirade against "911 conspiracy theorists"? It makes me want to ask why Lovelock et al are so keen to connect climate change with overpopulation.

Wombaticus Rex, thank you very much for your comments. I really appreciate them. You have demonstrated that you are a scholar and a gentleman. I think your research and writing are superlative.

A deep politics discussion board is not the place a sincere seeker would look for information on "the true degree of warming caused by manmade carbon emissions".

That seems a fair comment at first glance. But if not here then where? I trust Wintler2 is not meaning to imply that The Times of London is the best place to get the full unadorned truth. You see, part of the issue is disentangling the blatant psyop part from what really credible information is out there amongst the scientific community. And a deep politics discussion board is exactly the right place for that, isnt it? Besides which we can link to a variety of sources of information here, the internet is all connected up you know. So I am reading the links provided by all you good people. In fact, I would suggest this board is the perfect place for a sincere query, since I know there are many highly intelligent, highly literate, highly educated folk here, many of whom share with myself grave environmental concerns for this planet we share, and many of whom have greater expertise in such areas than myself.

Now, whose turn is it for a reading comprehension lesson?

For example, that no mention is made of landclearing, responsible for a fifth of anthropogenic warming effect, suggests to me that in fact zero effort has been made to self-educate. Its the fake sincerity that really triggers my agro.

And from upstream;

ps I think cutting down all the forests is a really bad idea. We ought to move quickly to sustainable logging which manages the resource wisely without clear-felling, in addition to replantation schemes. Put the price of burgers up.

So there. Wintler2 goes on to inform us;

Applying preschool rigor however and googling your phrase "degree of warming caused by the greenhouse effect of man made carbon emissions" takes me to wikipedia and the answer "0.74 ± 0.18 °C between the start and the end of the 20th century".

Now we know where the "sincere seeker" (I'm chuckling at your use of the phrase, by the way) goes: Wikipedia. Of course its nice to know that during the most polluting century in history the planet warmed by less than 1 degree centigrade, but this does not answer the question. It must be that reading comprehension thing again. Or perhaps you simply need more than just "preschool" rigour. Here is the quote from Wiki in full;

Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century.[1][A] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[1]

So we start with .75 degree warming. The conclusion above refers to the middle of the century onwards, so maybe there was an observed increase of maybe .65, assuming accelerated warming in the second half of the century. Now what about warming factors other than the greenhouse effect of man's activities. Latif, the IPCC scientist, suggests that up to 50% of that warming may be down to the oceanic cycles he has observed. So we might be down to .50 when you take that out. Ignoring any other possible warming factors completely, we can now take out the 20% figure Wintler gave for landclearing, so we are down to .40. Ah but this still includes the greenhouse effect due to release of emissions other than carbon, so lets give them a tiny role (again, I'm leaning on the side of making as much of this increase attributable to manmade carbon emissions as I can), to leave a ballpark result based on the figures given me by Wiki via Wintler2 of .35 degree centigrade. Does anyone think that might be right? The net result of manmade carbon emissions on warming the globe from the second half of the century onwards is possibly somewhere around .35 degree centigrade? Of course I realise there are many objections to the workings above, but if you must point them out, please try and make sure they are not trivial ones.

Now, is my fake sincerity worse than your rudeness, and your determined efforts to reduce this thread to a flame war? I'm resisting so far. Bozo.

Gosh, but C2W has called me to the front of the class. Yes Miss, I'll do my best Miss. But if I may, I would ask you to refrain from using the f word. It makes your phrasing seem hostile and aggressive;

Should you wish to share them, I also welcome your more fully elaborated upon thoughts regarding the question: "How bad are the various ostensibly global-warming corrective proposals currently being advanced by the running dogs and lackeys of imperial power?" Of course. So please feel free to go to fucking town on that one, too.

I'm sure they are bad. But I suspect one of the more significant paybacks to the psyop (and there are always multiple benefits to an op of this scale) is that the usual suspects are trying to put the brakes on China and India's industrial development before they eclipse the West economically. And C2W I have read and understood your caveats, but if I'm going to dissect the Times article, then the object of my study will primarily be the Times article itself. Like Hugh, I am very interested in hermaneutics.

I hope I have the time to do it.

I might be more tempted if Wombaticus Rex will add his thoughts.

[smiths]

its interesting that you bring in China and India's development in relation to climate change,

lets face it, if you were the Chinese government you'd have to be thinking, 'oh no you dont you sneeky anglo bastards'

now, either the chinese leadership has scientists advising it that all available evidence suggests that climate change is absolutely real and needs to be addressed ...
or ... their scientists are saying that there is no real evidence for it and that it is probably a plot by the worn out anglo nations to get the chinese to slow down,

i believe the former as would be obvious by my postings,
i dont think catastrophic climate change is a hoax although i do believe it is absolutely being used for other agendas

what is fascinating to me is the parallels between copenhagen and another famous conference at the Hague in 1899,

the russians had realised that they were behind in the european arms race and could not catch up,
so under the guise of international peace and goodwill to all mankind they proposed a limitation to all arms development and a tightening of the rules of war
essentially it was a ruse to limit the development of a very belligerent germany who also happened to be growing economically and industrially at an incredible pace,
another nation which was growing at an incredible pace and had just shed its earlier pretensions to peacemaking and non-intervention was the US which had no intention of being limited in how much it could grow and how cleverly it could kill people,
in the end the conference was mostly a failure due to the US and germany

just over a hundred years later at copenhagen we have an economically and industrially exhausted US and Britain and an indebted and much weaked Europe asking a fast growing China and India to stop their development because of climate phenomenom which if true was caused by those very same exhausted nations

what would you say if you were China, much as it grieves me from the point of view of life on earth, if i were China i'd say go fuck yourself

[smiths]

how bad? its getting badder, getting so much badder all the time

Arctic permafrost leaking methane at record levels, figures show

Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame
Scientists have recorded a massive spike in the amount of a powerful greenhouse gas seeping from Arctic permafrost, in a discovery that highlights the risks of a dangerous climate tipping point.

Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame.

The discovery follows a string of reports from the region in recent years that previously frozen boggy soils are melting and releasing methane in greater quantities. Such Arctic soils currently lock away billions of tonnes of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, leading some scientists to describe melting permafrost as a ticking time bomb that could overwhelm efforts to tackle climate change.

They fear the warming caused by increased methane emissions will itself release yet more methane and lock the region into a destructive cycle that forces temperatures to rise faster than predicted.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... st-methane

[compared2what?]

I will dissect c2w's article when I have the time.

It's not my article. Nor does it make the same argument that I personally would.

I posted it solely out of consideration for you and with very little framing by me because -- and only because -- it was written by someone who had harbored doubts similar to yours, and was addressed by him to those who still did. It therefore idly suggested itself to me that it might speak to you. So I idly posted it out of collegiality.

If you experienced it as a hostile gesture, or aggressive, or even as a a firm push in the direction of some putative corner into which you felt I was trying to pressure you, I sincerely regret it, of course. But it would have been entirely unintentional on my part. So. If it didn't move you, it didn't. That's fine with me. And if dissecting it would be educational, informative, or entertaining for you, knock yourself out, by all means. Don't go out of your way just for me, though. Beyond regretting its not having connected with you, I don't actually care about and have no personal investment in that story. It's just a newspaper article. They wrap fish.

Cya, thyself

[Hammer of Los]

It's not my article. Nor does it make the same argument that I personally would.

The article was only yours in that you linked to it and suggested I read it. I didn't mean to imply that you wrote it. Besides, I only read page one. After all it was the Times, although I suppose even they must publish something with a little truth in it occasionally. I shall read it, but alas I am time poor (and I have other hobby horses on a tight rein. They also want to stretch their legs.)

I do appreciate the link and the kind thought. Thank you. I only mean to be friendly.

[compared2what?]

It's not my article. Nor does it make the same argument that I personally would.

The article was only yours in that you linked to it and suggested I read it. I didn't mean to imply that you wrote it. Besides, I only read page one. After all it was the Times, although I suppose even they must publish something with a little truth in it occasionally. I shall read it, but alas I am time poor (and I have other hobby horses on a tight rein. They also want to stretch their legs.)

I do appreciate the link and the kind thought. Thank you. I only mean to be friendly.

Much appreciated.
________________




"Birds in their little nest agree; and 'Tis a shameful sight, when children of one family fall out, and chide, and fight."

[Simulist]

I'm on Jim Hansen's mailing list (so I guess that pretty much says where I come down on all of this), and I received the below linked file earlier tonight (in pdf format). It's called "If It's That Warm, How Come It's So Damned Cold?"

It's a question I've heard being asked a lot, and some here may find it interesting; others, undoubtedly, will not.

Just the same, this is a draft essay that Dr. Hansen wanted to get out because he and his colleagues will be releasing the December and annual surface temperature analysis on the GISS web site directly, he says. Then, next week, they will prepare a write-up on 2009 temperatures, which I'm sure will be extremely interesting for everyone here who follows this.

From the article:

The bottom line is this: there is no global cooling trend. For the time being, until humanity brings its greenhouse gas emissions under control, we can expect each decade to be warmer than the preceding one. Weather fluctuations certainly exceed local temperature changes over the past half century. But the perceptive person should be able to see that climate is warming on decadal time scales.

This information needs to be combined with the conclusion that global warming of 1‐2°C has enormous implications for humanity.

Indeed, it does.


http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailing ... re2009.pdf

[Hammer of Los]

I can't, nor do I have any wish to, dispute globe warming, and that it has enormous implications for humanity. Of course, how rapidly that warming is taking place, and how it might accelerate will determine just how enormous those implications are.

Thanks for the link Simulist, I read it. There was nothing at all in it objectionable so far as I could see. The writer seemed concerned that a lot of people think the globe is actually cooling rather than warming. I guess Deltadawn did speak of that possibility, but I doubt anyone here seriously disputes that the planet is warming.

[Simulist]

Thanks for the link Simulist, I read it. There was nothing at all in it objectionable so far as I could see. The writer seemed concerned that a lot of people think the globe is actually cooling rather than warming. I guess Deltadawn did speak of that possibility, but I doubt anyone here seriously disputes that the planet is warming.

Thanks, HoL. That's good to hear.