Climate report shows 'highway to extinction': scientists

[shoggoth]

Northern temperatures have not been rising as the computer models predict.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20514

Firstly, models do indeed predict polar amplification (particularly in the Arctic and particularly in winter) of global warming trends (see our previous piece on this concept) in general. But do they predict it for the 20th Century trend? and specifically in Southern Greenland?

...

What do they show? Interestingly enough, the models do not predict large trends in the vicinity of Southern Greenland over the last 100 or so years (the figure shows the ensemble mean results just from the GISS model, but others are similar). Mainly this is because these areas are relatively close to both open water and the ice sheet and that keeps temperatures pretty stable.

....

But if the models don't show much change over the last 100 years, surely the predictions for the future indicate that this area will be hit hard? Again, no. Southern Greenland turns out to have one of the slowest rates of warming of any land area in any of the scenarios (the figure is the mean over all models for the SRES A1B scenario). To some extent, this is again due to the factors mentioned above, but additionally, the models predict that the North Atlantic as a whole will not warm as fast as the rest of globe (due to both the deep mixed layers in this region which have a large thermal inertia and a mild slowdown in the ocean heat transports). This is of course some positive news for the Greenland ice sheet, but the warming there is already substantial enough to cause significant net melting.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...n-on-greenland/

[searchingforaformerclearity]

We have ice core samples showing that in the last 650 000 yrs the globe's temp correlates with CO2 levels, and we also know CO2 traps heat in our atmosphere... how can anyone reasonably believe we aren't accelerating global warming??

[cybercoma]

Climate report shows 'highway to extinction': scientists

Last Updated: Sunday, April 1, 2007 | 12:05 AM ET

CBC News

First, the good news on climate change: A minimal heat rise means increased food production in northern regions of the world.

But after that it's all downhill, according to a chart in the second major report on the controversial topic, due to be released Friday in Belgium.

The number of species going extinct rises with the heat, as does the number of people who may starve, or face water shortages or floods, according to the projections in the draft report obtained by The Associated Press.

Some scientists are calling the chart's degree-by-degree projection a "highway to extinction."

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/03/31/climate-report.html

The opinions of 'some scientists' really don't mean a heck of a lot. Consensus in a field is what we should really be looking for and although there is consensus that the temperature is rising, there's not a whole heck of a lot of scientists who are willing to be "forecasters" or make "predictions" on what the weather will be like next week, let alone decades from now.

[cybercoma]

The final document will be the product of a United Nations network of 2,000 scientists as authors and reviewers, along with representatives of more than 120 governments as last-minute editors.

It will be the second volume of a four-volume authoritative assessment of Earth's climate being released this year. The last such effort was in 2001.

Another disturbing thing, seeing government representatives listed beside scientists as if their authority gives credibility to these claims. Scientists were authors, then these government representatives "edited" their findings? Yikes. This deserves much closer observation than what the headlines are offering.

[cybercoma]

What a waste of paper. The true believers don't need it. Those who don't believe will laugh and sneer at it because of how politics influenced the report. I'm in the middle. I believe in global warming. I am unconvinced it is because of emissions. I do not trust so-called scientific reports which are clearly being influenced by politics and alarmist activist groups.

Although some people will laugh at you for sitting on the fence, I think this is the most educated position a person can take on this entire situation. It is almost impossible to sift through the limitless amounts of information to come to an educated stance. Even though there is consensus that there certainly is a warming effect due to human activitie, the agreement ends there. Future effects and conditions are nearly impossible to determine with any certainty due to the chaos of weather.

[cybercoma]

So here's the thing. What if the sample is too small? I mean, we've only had thermometers being used around the world since, what... the mid 1800s or so. We're talking 150 years of true data, then a bunch of other data using tree rings (which show localized temperatures) and core samples (which show CO2 concentrations at that particular place), etc.

Perhaps looking at what has happened to the temperature for the last 100 years or so and saying we're headed for catastrophe is a bit silly. I mean, the planet has been here for billions of years and a wildly huge hypothesis like mass extinction (worse case scenario right?) should take wildly huge evidence to prove.

A 100 year sample (where there was a cooling period, mind you) is not big enough evidence in my opinion. Not to dispute the fact that we are affecting global temperature, but the effects of that temperature rise and future forecasts are largely unpredictable.

Perhaps the planet is "self-regulating", do we know for sure that it isn't?

I mean there is A LOT of grey area here. For every little bit we do know, there is an infinite ocean of things we don't know.

[searchingforaformerclearity]

Well it seems people in the know (ie scientists) would disagree with you, apparently their confidence level in their projected effects is "high" to "very high" as in 80 to 90 percent.

And yes, they could be wrong but that still doesn't negate the fact that C02 is causing the globe to be warmer (among other problems) and that in itself should be enough motivation for a person to minimize their ecological footprint.

[stignasty]

I mean there is A LOT of grey area here. For every little bit we do know, there is an infinite ocean of things we don't know.

So what should we do then? Should we ignore the scientific studies because we aren't 100% sure?

[Argus]

Argus, it is more likely that the activist set don't want to go back to a prehistoric cave lifestyle and can read the writing on the wall. Unless we accept the need to minimize our impacts on the planet those who find caves may be the lucky ones.

In a situation like this I don't mind at all if the sociologists get involved in helping us design a more comprehensive and effective Kyoto accord. Or alternative energy businesses, or firemen, or farmers, or artists. At this point I think we need all the help we can get so Welcome to all of them.

Because, like, Sociologists know all about climatology and atmospheric sciences, right, not to mention economics.

What most of the real scientists say is hedged with shades and doubts, with nuance and uncertainty. But they're not the people we hear from. We hear from the hysterical set, from activists, and from the ignorant media looking to gush about a "big scary story". And from politicians, of course, who have their own agendas.

[Argus]

Well it seems people in the know (ie scientists) would disagree with you, apparently their confidence level in their projected effects is "high" to "very high" as in 80 to 90 percent.

And yes, they could be wrong but that still doesn't negate the fact that C02 is causing the globe to be warmer (among other problems) and that in itself should be enough motivation for a person to minimize their ecological footprint.

I'm no expert, but it seems to me that if the historical record shows that higher CO2 levels sometimes preceded higher temperatures - and sometimes didn't, then we really don't know for sure that CO2 levels increase the temperature.

[jbg]

I mean there is A LOT of grey area here. For every little bit we do know, there is an infinite ocean of things we don't know.

So what should we do then? Should we ignore the scientific studies because we aren't 100% sure?

The problem is not that climate change may be man made but that people live in huge concentrations that are difficult to move. Will there be another interglacial period that makes much of the current heavily populated temperate belts either less agriculturally productive or downright uninhabitable? Quite definitely. Will New York City (and perhaps points either north or south) eventually be re-buried under Ice Age ice sheets? No question about it.

How much can one do about that? Probably, quite little. Better to watch the free market deal with changes that, in most respects, will be somewhat gradual than to try to have a bunch of Keystone Kops central planners spend billions accomplishing nothing.

[speaker]

lol

[speaker]

How much can one do about that? Probably, quite little. Better to watch the free market deal with changes that, in most respects, will be somewhat gradual than to try to have a bunch of Keystone Kops central planners spend billions accomplishing nothing.

No kidding eh? them central planners, the beaurocrats, the multitude of little functionaries of the central planning divisions of the major corporate conglomerates trying to figure a way to make more money for their shareholding masters no matter what the human misery and environmental consequences of action or inaction. Free marketer middle men respond to threats of the global warming variety the same way ostriches do only with ostriches it's a myth. The merely ...riches though if you look carefully leave at least one hand up in the air hoping you will continue to put your money into it, just because it's what you really want to do.

[shoggoth]

We have ice core samples showing that in the last 650 000 yrs the globe's temp correlates with CO2 levels, and we also know CO2 traps heat in our atmosphere... how can anyone reasonably believe we aren't accelerating global warming??

It's not clear how much of the temperature levels in the ice cores are caused by the co2 rises and how much of the co2 level is caused by the temperature level, so the close correlation isn't really evidence for manmade global warming.

[shoggoth]

I'm no expert, but it seems to me that if the historical record shows that higher CO2 levels sometimes preceded higher temperatures - and sometimes didn't, then we really don't know for sure that CO2 levels increase the temperature.

We do know that co2 levels increase temperature, what we don't know precisely is by how much. The mainstream figure given is between 1.5-4.5C warming from a doubling of co2, which represents the consensus. But of course there are people who say it's lower than that.

[jbg]

No kidding eh? them central planners, the beaurocrats, the multitude of little functionaries of the central planning divisions of the major corporate conglomerates trying to figure a way to make more money for their shareholding masters no matter what the human misery and environmental consequences of action or inaction. Free marketer middle men respond to threats of the global warming variety the same way ostriches do only with ostriches it's a myth. The merely ...riches though if you look carefully leave at least one hand up in the air hoping you will continue to put your money into it, just because it's what you really want to do.

And how do you propose to measure if this mayhem you suggest has beneffited anybody?

[speaker]

And how do you propose to measure if this mayhem you suggest has beneffited anybody?

mayhem? I think you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. The object here is to avoid as much of the serious trouble as we still can.

How would I measure the benefit? the usual ways, quality of life, state of the economy, personal freedom etc. How would you measure it?

[jbg]

And how do you propose to measure if this mayhem you suggest has beneffited anybody?

mayhem? I think you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. The object here is to avoid as much of the serious trouble as we still can.

How would I measure the benefit? the usual ways, quality of life, state of the economy, personal freedom etc. How would you measure it?

For people having trouble making ends meet, a carbon tax would surely be mayhem. I might advocate some sort of such tax, if the proceeds were used to fund a tax credit, not dependent on energy use, for middle and lower-income people. I don't want the proceeds used to buy "credits" from the PRC.

[speaker]

For people having trouble making ends meet, a carbon tax would surely be mayhem. I might advocate some sort of such tax, if the proceeds were used to fund a tax credit, not dependent on energy use, for middle and lower-income people. I don't want the proceeds used to buy "credits" from the PRC.

I can appreciate that, I wouldn't mind seeing all the fuel taxes used at least in the short term to help people progress with these options.

As a person you can plant trees, travel by transit, refuse to fly, buy locally grown food, support and buy energy from clean, local, and renewable alternatives, insulate your home and workplace, well maybe not the latter unless it's your workplace, put in efficient lighting systems, work for the greening of our cities, use your talents to spread the alternative means of achieving similar goals in the neighbourhood, region, watershed, nation, and internationally.

I think it would be way more productive.

[Keepitsimple]

We'll know in the next 10-20 years whether the temperature trend is going to drastically go up or the sea levels are going to significantly rise - and we'll know from observation, not conjecture and "consensus". We'll also have a better idea of how much humans are contributing to Climate Change - how much is natural and how much is "us". Until that time, we should have a responsible approach to decreasing the various GHG that we pump into the atmosphere but not at the expense of encumbering our economy. We're pretty smug right now because the economy is doing quite well but what if all this was going on in 1989 when interest rates were going through the roof and Canada was literally on the verge of bankruptcy? It's fine to say "let's send billions overseas so we can meet our Kyoto targets" but what if we didn't have that kind of money? The economy ebbs and flows in cycles so we have to build our approach to GHG in rational, incremental and sustainable steps - getting better and better as each year passes. Chasing arbitrary targets like Kyoto is unwise, to say the least. It may have made some sense if we had started 10 years ago but we didn't. It makes no sense now - it's just a number. If we encumber the economy by forcing businesses to curtail their growth, prices will go up because demand will outstrip supply - and we won't collect as much tax revenue to fund our social programs and invest in the environment. If we don't do anything, then we are possibly creating greater peril for future generations. It's a balancing act - one that can greatly affect our lifestyle. So again, the approach has to be rational, incremental, sustainable action. This seems to be the Conservative approach - albeit, a relatively newly discovered one. The Liberal approach is "We have to meet our Kyoto targets". I know which approach works for me.

[B. Max]

We have ice core samples showing that in the last 650 000 yrs the globe's temp correlates with CO2 levels, and we also know CO2 traps heat in our atmosphere... how can anyone reasonably believe we aren't accelerating global warming??

That is not true. The ice core records show that co2 levels follow temperature by 800 years.

[dlkenny]

Once again we see wild claims and no evidence.

The final document will be the product of a United Nations network of 2,000 scientists as authors and reviewers, along with representatives of more than 120 governments as last-minute editors.

It will be the second volume of a four-volume authoritative assessment of Earth's climate being released this year. The last such effort was in 2001.

Yeah and the 2001 report was riddled with errors and intentional mis-claims. I found an article written last november by a British Columnist with regards to the IPCC and their intentional mis-information.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...lit/nwarm05.xml

The IPCC admitted that they intentionally left out the "medieval warm period" and the "little ice age" to highlight the warming trend in todays world. In addition they doubled the value for lambda (in reference to the Stefan-Bolzmann law of thermodynamics, for those of you who don't understand physics this is a law similar to einstein's mass-energy theorem...lambda is a constant and doesn't change) used in computer climate models to inflate the rates of global warming over the next 100 years.

Interestingly, if one considers the effects of the sun's forcing on climate and if the sun's radiation were to increase on the surface of the earth it would also increase the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere (due to increased evaporation from the world's oceans and an increased saturation point of water vapour in the air). Water vapour is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas (94% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour) and therefore if the atmospheric concentration of water vapour were increased, the total warming effect would be intensified. In addition, increased water vapour in the atmosphere and a warming trend would cause changes in weather systems. This is due to weather systems being driven by temperature imbalances in the atmosphere; nature hates imbalances and wind always flows from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure. Being that temperatures are greatest at the equator and lowest at the poles, and air pressure varies in the atmosphere this causes circulation and convection within the earth's atmosphere. If the insolation (radiation upon the earth from the sun) were to increase even slightly it would cause changes in the convective cycles and hence changes in weather systems.

It is shown that in the past the numbers of sunspots correlates directly with general variances in global mean temperature. The number of sunspots have been counted and documented since the first telescopes were invented in the 1400's, after Galileo's time. It's difficult to disregard the correlation between the numbers of sunspots during the medieval warm period compared to temperature. In contrast, there were very few sunspots during the little ice age of 1650-1800 (also known as the Dalton minima). Since 1800 the mean temperature of the earth's atmosphere has risen (with some anomalies, namely the "global cooling" of 1940-1979) and continues to rise today. Incidentally, the number of sunspots has also increased since 1980. These facts cannot be overlooked but seem to appear only as appendices in the IPCC reports, one must wonder why.

If you have the time, read through the references cited for the website I've provided. The link is on the top of the page and you'll find some very interesting although in depth reading. If you don't understand the physics that's okay, just try to understand the concepts being presented.

[shoggoth]

The IPCC admitted that they intentionally left out the "medieval warm period" and the "little ice age" to highlight the warming trend in todays world.

Where did they "admit" that?

In addition they doubled the value for lambda (in reference to the Stefan-Bolzmann law of thermodynamics, for those of you who don't understand physics this is a law similar to einstein's mass-energy theorem...lambda is a constant and doesn't change) used in computer climate models to inflate the rates of global warming over the next 100 years.

....

Interestingly, if one considers the effects of the sun's forcing on climate and if the sun's radiation were to increase on the surface of the earth it would also increase the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere (due to increased evaporation from the world's oceans and an increased saturation point of water vapour in the air). Water vapour is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas (94% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour) and therefore if the atmospheric concentration of water vapour were increased, the total warming effect would be intensified. In addition, increased water vapour in the atmosphere and a warming trend would cause changes in weather systems. This is due to weather systems being driven by temperature imbalances in the atmosphere; nature hates imbalances and wind always flows from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure. Being that temperatures are greatest at the equator and lowest at the poles, and air pressure varies in the atmosphere this causes circulation and convection within the earth's atmosphere. If the insolation (radiation upon the earth from the sun) were to increase even slightly it would cause changes in the convective cycles and hence changes in weather systems.

Which contradicts what Monkton claims (the British Columnist), because by factoring in this amplification of warming by water vapor you increase the warming effect of doubling co2. That's why the forcing for co2 is higher than monkton says it should be. It's not because they have "doubled the value for lambda", it's because they have included feedbacks such as the water vapor feedback you mention above. Monkton's calculation is based on such a water vapor feedback not existing.

It is shown that in the past the numbers of sunspots correlates directly with general variances in global mean temperature. The number of sunspots have been counted and documented since the first telescopes were invented in the 1400's, after Galileo's time. It's difficult to disregard the correlation between the numbers of sunspots during the medieval warm period compared to temperature. In contrast, there were very few sunspots during the little ice age of 1650-1800 (also known as the Dalton minima). Since 1800 the mean temperature of the earth's atmosphere has risen (with some anomalies, namely the "global cooling" of 1940-1979) and continues to rise today. Incidentally, the number of sunspots has also increased since 1980.

I disagree with that last fact.

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/sun...e.html&edu=high

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/SSN/image/annual.gif

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/resea...ded-temp-pg.gif

The correlation between sunspots and temperature in the past is pretty good (notice the large increasing sunspot trend between 1900-1960 matches the early 20th century warming), but that makes it all the more unlikely that the sun is causing the recent warming (1980 onwards) given that there is no such increase in sunspot numbers during the current warming.

[stignasty]

Scientists: Lake Superior warming rapidly

POSTED: 7:55 a.m. EDT, April 6, 2007

DULUTH, Minnesota (AP) -- Lake Superior has been warming even faster than the climate around it since the late 1970s because of reduced ice cover, according to a study by professors at the University of Minnesota Duluth.

Summer surface temperatures on the famously cold lake have increased about 4.5 degrees since 1979, compared with about a 2.7-degree increase in the region's annual average air temperature, the researchers found. The lake's "summer season" is now beginning about two weeks earlier than it did 27 years ago.

"It's a remarkably rapid rate of change," Jay Austin, an assistant professor with the university's Large Lakes Observatory and Department of Physics, told the Star Tribune newspaper. Austin co-authored the study with geology professor Steve Colman.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/06...g.ap/index.html

[stignasty]

Study: Climate change could bring new U.S. Dust Bowl

POSTED: 4:01 a.m. EDT, April 6, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Changing climate will mean increasing drought in the southwestern United States, where water already is in short supply, according to a new study.

"The bottom line message for the average person and also for the states and federal government is that they'd better start planning for a Southwest region in which the water resources are increasingly stretched," said Richard Seager of Columbia University's Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory.

Seager is lead author of the study published online Thursday by the journal Science.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/06...l.ap/index.html