Climate, Kyoto, Greenhouse Gases

[Remus]

If there is no experimental verification then we are hardly talking about science. Such is the state of computer climate models. I am very suspicious of any model which claims to predict climates in the future when it has yet to explain climate change of the past.

[Guest eureka]

Climate model talk is no more than a segue used by the naysayers. The evidence is empirical and observable. There is no possible argument that increased emissions cause climate change. Even those who are part of the energy industry (virtually the only source of opposiiton - although Shell and BP have agreed to the reality and ARE trying to do their share to correct things) admit this,

CO2 levels have been examined back as far as 400 million years ago - I once had a site that explained this but don't know where it is now. CO2 has not been as high as it is now in all that time. The increase above long term trends has occured in the last 200 years and is, without any more doubt, man-made. Only fools deny that.

The reference to the press and senstionalism is made out of ignorance and the inability to read under the captions. There is very little opposition in the scientific community. The apparent opposition on the media comes from few sources. Those few sources get equal rime or space, partly because the subject needs to be discussed but more because the opposition to science is interest based. It is the industries, energy chiefly, who oppose the science, and their paid for tame "scientists." Most of these are not scientists, either. They are statisticians and economists.

The massive petition garnered in the US against Kyoto and purportedly signed by thousands of scientists, was a fraud. Few of the signatories were actually scientists. The Danish "scientist" who achieved considerable notoriety for his book opposing the idea of climate change (I forget his name - he is eminently forgettable) was a statistician with no qualifications to enquire into this issue. He was also refused membership in the Danish Scientific Society because he is not a scientist.

These are the measure of the opposition. Loudmouths and lackeys of certain industries and politicians.

The "Little Ice Age" and other intervals are completely irrelevant to the known trends.

Look to the alarming degradation of the Coral Reefs. Look to the massive ice loss in Antarctica already and to the deteriorating ice pack in the Arctic. Look to the increasing frequence and intensity of "El Nino's." Look to the increasing number and severity of hurricanes and typhoons.

At only the present climate regime without further increase, 20% of present day Florida will be under water within 50 years; to name only one disaster that will discomfit many empty headed Canadians.

[stamps]

"CO2 levels have been examined back as far as 400 million years ago - I once had a site that explained this but don't know where it is now. CO2 has not been as high as it is now in all that time. The increase above long term trends has occured in the last 200 years and is, without any more doubt, man-made. Only fools deny that." That's really great that you have all this information but could you please supply a link backing up these claims....."The "Little Ice Age" and other intervals are completely irrelevant to the known trends", well if our planet goes through a little ice age it is only common sense to believe this period would increase the amount of ice on our polar caps and reverse this current trend.. the Sahara desert was lush and tropical 5000 yrs ago, what happened there? Does our planets changing axis factor into anything, how about the position of our planet on our orbit around the sun, or the suns changing activity... this CO2 increase above long term trends(400 million years) would be interesting, could you please relay some numbers..... everybody seems to jumping on board with this "the arctic is melting trend" without really understanding what is really involved, it is certainly politically advantageous for certain people to be pushing this theory through, all I am trying to do is get all of the facts available and come up with an informed opinion...

[Pateris]

First of all, 400 million years of data does NOT show that CO2 levels now are higher than at any time in the past...

The pre-industrial level was approximately 285 ppm CO2.

The current level is about 360 ppm CO2.

During the late Cretaceous period (70-65 MYA) the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere rose from <200 ppm to between 1000-1400 ppm in two separate events with a low period between. This resulted in a clear greenhouse warming event.

In the first 10,000 years after the Cretaceous-Tertiary boudary event, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere rose to 2300 ppmw, which raised the average temperature of the earth by more than 7°C. This increase was caused by an extraterrastrial bolide impact (the Chixilub crater). This was a short lived peak, but over the few million years following the CO2 content of the atmosphere fluctuated between 200 and 800 ppm. The cause of these fluctuations is not completely understood, but it is theorized that the primary cause of increase was volcanic activity (like the Deccan traps), and the decreased caused by a lack of volcanic activity.

[Guest eureka]

I had that somewhat wrong. It should be that at no time in that period was there a concentration that would have supported a temperature range and an environment that would support the planet as it is now.

This something that may allow some intelligent commentary on the forecast disaster. It may relate in a way that skeptics can grasp what is in store in just one aspect of the coming problem. As for links, you can find all you want on this topic - a hundred on every point.

At current rate- 2x preindustrial CO2 by ~2050

Last time it was that high 40 My (Eocene)

-no ice sheets on Antarctica or Greenland

-sea level 60m higher (ice sheets are est. now- wouldn't be that high)

-high lats- 10º warmer

[playfullfellow]

sea level 60m higher (ice sheets are est. now- wouldn't be that high)

I was just wondering where the physics and math figure into this idea? Put an ice cube into a glass of water, mark the edge of the glass where the water ends. Let the ice cube melt and see what happens. I would guess you would see little to no change as ice displaces more volume than water. Sit down and figure out the math to those numbers. Figure out the area of the worlds oceans in meters. Multiply that by 60 and you should have the total volume of water that would take. In all reality, these are very simple figures but they put to light how silly some of these predictions are.

[Pateris]

Eureka,

So what do you propose we do about it? Kyoto alone will alter the expected date we reach 450 ppm by about 6 years.

Considering the recent studies that wind and solar power are not "climate neutral", what do you propose we do?

[Guest eureka]

I do not propose anything except to get behind those who do want to do something, whatever something is.

Make some efforts to stop the deniers from continuing to endanger humanity's future.

Do you have ideas that have not been proposed by the scientific community?

[Pateris]

The problem I see is the simple scale of it.

If we STOPPED burning all fossil fuels, the CO2 we've already put in the atmosphere would continue warming the planet for a good long while.

But we can't stop burning all fossil fuels. There is no economic alternative. Not even something close.

Wind, Solar and Bio aren't sufficiently developed (and a long ways from it) to be technically feasible on a large scale. And recent studies show that Wind and Solar aren't climate neutral - they will change the climate too.

Nuclear is the best option, but it is politically difficult and expensive.

The problem is, NO one is willing to accept the consequences of higher costs of living in return for much lower CO2 emissions.

The other issue is - do we really understand the climate system well enough to think we can actually engineer it?

I mean, perhaps our CO2 emissions are causing the planet to heat up. But what other factors are there? do we understand them all? Likely not.

Second, the climate models we have cannot predict the last hundred years accurately - why should we trust them for the future?

[August1991]

But we can't stop burning all fossil fuels. There is no economic alternative. Not even something close.

That is the apparent case now because a large series of signals skew the incentives to do anything else.

At present, our planet is a commons where in effect anyone can dump anything they want. This means it will get over-used.

Kyoto is on the right track but the proposal was so deeply flawed by the UN and Third World politics that it won't work in its present form. I strongly suspect that a new, more sensible Kyoto will be negotiated.

Does this matter?

One cottage dumping its raw sewage into a common lake is upsetting the eco-system but not in a way that disturbs the natural equilibrium. How many cottages does it take before the lake can't cope?

I suspect that plus or minus 50 years is not going to make a big difference. I mean, if such a short period of time makes a difference, then we have a much bigger problem in that our planet is not very stable.

The problem is, NO one is willing to accept the consequences of higher costs of living in return for much lower CO2 emissions.

The solution is obviously to determine ownership of the environment and then let the market decide its use. This should be done gradually.

We are moving towards this now. Kyoto is evidence. The EPA organizes markets for emissions in the US. Most Green Parties understand this too.

I would say we are about 50 to 100 years away from a full array of environmental markets.

Incidentally, for Canadian nationalists, a 1968 classic was written by a Canadian.

[Remus]

sea level 60m higher (ice sheets are est. now- wouldn't be that high)

I was just wondering where the physics and math figure into this idea? Put an ice cube into a glass of water, mark the edge of the glass where the water ends. Let the ice cube melt and see what happens. I would guess you would see little to no change as ice displaces more volume than water. Sit down and figure out the math to those numbers. Figure out the area of the worlds oceans in meters. Multiply that by 60 and you should have the total volume of water that would take. In all reality, these are very simple figures but they put to light how silly some of these predictions are.

You could melt all the ice in water at 0 C and the level of the water will not change raise the temperature to 4 C and the level will fall. raise the temperature beyond this and the level will rise. The predicted rise in sea level would be cause by increased ocean temperatures and inland ice like on Greenland.

[Big Blue Machine]

Hopefully I will die before this beautiful planet is completely screwed over.