Global Warming

[ged]

Er.....

Im now totally confused.

I now know how a greenhouse works and what greenhouse gasses are.

I also now know that we have been making CO2 since the 2nd world war.

The warming has been happening for 100 years or so and doesnt look like it matches with our burning of fossil fuels.

Its now the average temp its been for the last 3,000 years.

It might get warmer if the sun gives off more heat, or cooler if it doesnt,

Without greenhouse gasses - which include clouds, this place would be 33 degrees colder.

What have I missed or misunderstood?

Very roughly speaking what you have said there is correct. We could work on the statements a little to make them a little more accurate and in at least one case less misleading but I'm not sure that you've missed or misunderstood very much. The statements are not inconsistent but it seems that you don't like that figure of 33 degrees. Is that your main problem? If so, then I think that the reason you're having trouble with it is that global warming has been happening for all of those 3,000 years, and then some.

Nobody is saying that the greenhouse effect has only just started to happen. It's been happening more or less for as long as the planet has had an atmosphere. Without it, the planet wouldn't be the temperate place it is -- it would be a ball of ice -- and we wouldn't easily be able to live here.

Unfortunately however that 33 degrees is starting to creep up, by something in the region of 0.2 degrees per decade. That's mostly because we're pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate. There is a lot more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now than there was at the beginning of the industrial revolution (not just since the second world war). Before the 18th century, for almost a million years the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was pretty stable at between 180 and 280 ppm. Then, because of the ever increasing population with its insatiable demands for comfort, travel, leisure, entertainment and trinkets the concentration started to rise. It's now almost 400ppm and it's still rising rapidly.

No matter what the head-in-the-sand crowd tells you, these measurements tell the truth. There is no escaping them. To deny that the greenhouse effect and global warming exist is like saying that standing on the beach and saying that the tide won't come in. If it weren't so tragic it would be laughable.

I do wish that this were not true. If it were not true, I wouldn't have to be careful with the heating. I would enjoy my motorcycles so much more. I would travel so much more. I would consume so much more. But I don't. Not because I can't afford it -- I'm very fortunate and I can easily afford it -- but because I know the planet can't afford it.

There are many people who deny the facts. At least one of them says you can't possibly know that these facts are true because you haven't made the measurements yourself. My reply is how can you know how far it is to the South pole when you don't have a tape measure long enough to reach it?

Most of the 'deniers' are just clutching at straws as they gradually sink into the depths. Their arguments are painfully transparent attempts to bolster their unwillingness to accept the reality which we all have to face.

 

[ged]

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

- Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

I think they call that 'marketing' or 'advertising', don't they? I find it refreshing that somebody has the bottle to come out and say it. Was it not you yourself who said that scientists are amongst the world's worst communicators? It seems that if scientists might start to use the same tactics that everyone else uses to sell stuff, you're concerned about it. Let's get it front and centre that I personally don't like the idea that anything might be massaged for public consumption. But is the playing field level? I've known some charlatans, you find them in all walks of life, but I think most serious scientists would distance themselves from this kind of thing. On the other hand I'm not convinced that even a majority of those with vested interests would do the same.

I can understand the things people might think about when faced with a population which will cheerfully drive at seventy miles per hour six feet from the rear of the car in front in the pouring rain, and which just won't listen when you tell them that the safe distance is more than fifty times that. They clearly don't have any idea what's good for them, and telling them that they're stupid doesn't make it more likely that you'll hold their attention, so maybe some sort of a jolt might be justifiable. I don't agree with misrepresentation -- whoever does it -- but I understand the things that drive people to try it on.

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?"

- Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

Now you're just trying it on. It's most unbecoming and when you're caught out it's embarrassing. Here is more of the story, which you have willfully misrepresented. It was just a conjecture about what might happen in some scenario that he conjured up, and he didn't say those things in the way that you portray.

Each year the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Hundreds of CEOs, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather each February to attend meetings and set the economic agendas for the year ahead.

What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment? Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth?

The group's conclusions is "no". The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilization collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?

My emphasis on the phrase "What if".

 

[British Red]

Doesn't embarass me one iota Ged. Lets face it the climate change lobby has been caught out in so much supression, falsification and denial.

When those involved in climate change need to decide how honest they need to be vs how effective, it is equally applicable to argue that they are arguing how dishonest they are being right now.

Equally well speculation -scenario based or otherwise - an orchestration the collapse of industrial civilisation? Really? Is that what we are paying these people to discuss?

Red

The only truth in there is that rich nations have no desire to change, and won't.

 

[ged]

Lets face it the climate change lobby has been caught out in so much supression, falsification and denial.

It really won't do to tar everyone you don't agree with using the same broad and very worn brush. You're just trying to discredit the message along with some of the people who have tried to express it with perhaps a little more enthusiasm than was prudent. It's an age-old tactic when you've run out of ideas but it won't wash here. Let's have specifics. If you're talking about the leaked email business in particular I have copies of all those messages and I read them. Much of the hysterical finger-pointing in the media was done using the sort of dishonest quoting which you used yourself in your previous post, and when I read the actual messages themselves, many of the things alleged to be in them seemed to me to have been invented by a press desperate for a story. I did not read into much of what was written the same things that some reporters claimed to have done. Of course I wouldn't say that that particular group of people covered themselves in glory. However most of the time the arguments between them seem to have been borne out of personal enmity and jostling for position, competing for scare resources -- for the most part, funding. It's unfortunate that careers and livelihoods in many areas of science are gained and lost at the stroke of some accountant's pen. When you can see yourself having to sell your home and move your family because the funds might be going elsewhere, well, again I can understand how human frailty might be exposed.

However, none of that makes any difference to the measurements. The gases in the atmosphere are what they are. The climate is doing what it is doing. Carbon dioxide is the second most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and before long we will have increased the concentration to twice its million-year average. That will make a very noticeable difference and some of us, especially those in poorer countries, might not like the results.

When those involved in climate change need to decide how honest they need to be vs how effective, it is equally applicable to argue that they are arguing how dishonest they are being right now.

One of the most important features of the world-wide system of publication of research findings is that those findings are held up for scrutiny. If somebody says he has found something interesting in some measurements, he not only has to say what he has found but exactly how he went about finding it, so that everyone else can confirm or deny what has been reported. In addition the results of totally different ways of making measurements and deductions can be compared and contrasted. There will be agreements and disagreements, not only in the measurements, but also in the conclusions that we can draw from them. Where things don't add up more research is usually needed. We aren't by any means at the end of the trail, but that sort of thing has been done over and over again in the case of global temperature measurements, both contemporary and historic, to the point where there's no longer any legitimate doubt about what's going on. Decades ago there was quite a lot of doubt. As time has passed by the doubt has evaporated.

It is no longer relevant to talk about what happened all those years ago, it's much more important to talk about what's going to happen if we don't do something about it -- soon.

Equally well speculation -scenario based or otherwise - an orchestration the collapse of industrial civilisation? Really? Is that what we are paying these people to discuss?

What happens if we don't do something about it -- soon? It seems to me to be a very worth-while conjecture. There is in my opinion a risk that part of the solution to the problem will involve civil unrest and violence. If there's a manageable alternative to that, whatever it is I think it should be considered. I don't much like the idea of being part of a strong society which survived only by killing the weaker part, but there are no doubt those who think "It's better than the alternative".

The only truth in there is that rich nations have no desire to change, and won't.

Well maybe not the only truth, but you're right that there seems to be little will to change. That's why I'm banging on about it.

 

[British Red]

Bang away Ged if it makes you happy.

I'll begin to listen when I see a concrete, implementable, worldwide plan to tackle the problem. Frankly I think its a silly discussion.

Fossil fuels are declining in availability and, trust me on this, they will all be used. Given the lifespan of atmospheric CO2, it makes damn all difference whether its used quickly or slowly, the results will be the same in a hundred years.

I'd rather environmentalists tackled the bigger problems - fossil fuel exhaustion, over population and so many other things that matter much more than climate change

Red

 

[Wayland]

.

 

[Andy BB]

Beware anyone who uses the emotive phrase "denier" (the modern-day version of "heretic"...) in an attempt to stifle informed debate

 

[No Idea]

Just been looking at the wiki thing you reccomended...

It says water vapour is a greenhouse gas.

Im sort of struggling with that.

Why is it?

Also, is there more water vapour in our atmosphere than CO2?

Does it have more of an effect?

 

[Bush Matt]

The thing is now, we're changing the composition of the atmosphere so its greenhouse effect is changing too. It couldn't really be simpler.

No - the composition of the atmosphere is changing, this is measurable. Whether we are driving that change or other factors can not be determined to a serious scientific level.

 

[silvergirl]

For anyone actually interested in reading more information on Human and non human impact on the world I'd recommend the Global Casino by Nick Middleton. It takes a fairly straightforward view of all the impacts that human society has had on the world. It is availible in my local library.

Another book specifically about climate change and many of the conflicting theories, drivers, potential outcomes etc is The last generation by Fred Pearce. I know there are many many book out there banging on about their different theories and agendas, but this one cover all the main ones with some scientific creadability (and a couple that get shouted down).
If nothing it is an interesting lesson in the history of climate and landscape change across the globe.

 

[Andy BB]

Yes - it is a greenhouse gas if you wish to categorise it like that, and infinitely more important than CO2, both in its overall impact and in its volume.

 

[ged]

Just been looking at the wiki thing you reccomended...

It says water vapour is a greenhouse gas.

Im sort of struggling with that.

Why is it?

Technically, because it's a polar molecule. In agricultural terms it isn't symmetrical as far as electrons are concerned. The water molecule is like a little capacitor with positive charge at one end and negative at the other. As it happens that means it reacts to infra-red radiation very much more than molecules like oxygen and nitrogen, or atoms like argon. Those are the three main gases in the atmosphere and it's lucky for us that they're not greenhouse gases or the planet might not be able to support life at all -- it could be like Venus, where the temperature is over 400 degrees, primarily because of the CO2 in its atmosphere.

Also, is there more water vapour in our atmosphere than CO2?

Does it have more of an effect?

Yes and yes. On average over the whole atmosphere there is ten times as much water vapour as there is CO2. Seethis link. At ground level there is a lot more water vapour than there is in the high atmosphere (as you might expect because it rains). However the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is controlled by different processes from those that control the amount of CO2, and essentially (fortunately) you can't get a lot more water into the atmosphere. CO2 dissolves well in water and so the oceans are pretty much saturated with the stuff. When we burn carbon, about a third of the CO2 ends up in the ocean and two thirds in the atmosphere. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_the_Earth.27s_atmosphere. The more there is in the atmosphere, the more there is in the oceans. It's what you might call an equilibrium although you don't want to go into that sort of thing just yet, it gets a bit mathematical. Suffice it to say that more CO2 in the atmosphere means more CO2 in the oceans. When CO2 dissolves in water it makes it acid. That's another, somewhat separate issue that is causing much concern because things like coral dissolve in more acid solutions.

Yes - it is a greenhouse gas if you wish to categorise it like that, and infinitely more important than CO2, both in its overall impact and in its volume.

Not infinitely more important, but yes, several times more important as a greenhouse gas. Of course most plant life relies on CO2 for its existence. Plants use CO2 to make sugar, starch, cellulose etc. which are all fuels.

The UK was once covered with forest. We have burned almost all of them. As the climate warms up, the Amazon rain forests gradually dry out. That's being observed now. Estimates vary, some seem to think that in about 40 years they will be dry enough to catch fire. When that happens the carbon equivalent of about ten years of Man-made CO2 emissions will happen in the space of a couple of weeks. I fear that there is no way to stop it now.

 

[British Red]

I fear that there is no way to stop it now.

Indeed a view echoed by Lovelock. So rather than rearrange the deckchairs on the metaphorical Titanic by worrying about CO2, - something Lovelock describes as "fifty years too late", might it not be sensible to plan for the warmed globe rather than trying to prevent it?

 

[Andy BB]

Interesting comments.

Also re CO2 being critical for plant growth. And all studies and research shows that, as CO2 ambient levels rise, so does plant production and growth, and their ability to live in climates/conditions that were once out of bounds; so not necessarily quite the one-sided disadvantage that some tend to make out rising CO2 levels to be. One agronomist once described atmospheric CO2 to me as "God's fertiliser" (actually he was an atheist, but you get the picture..) Funny how you never hear both sides of the equation being given by some! Or how simple facts like increased vegetation growth never gets factored in to the doomsday scenarios.

As for the drying out of the Amazon rain forest, certainly one hypothesis. Another is that - if temperatures rise - so does evaporation from the sea/rivers/lakes, and consequently more cloud cover and ensuing rain, thereby mitigating any fire risk from remaining forests, which themselves are experiencing massive growth spurts from increased atmospheric CO2. And increased cloud-cover reduces temperatures, in exactly the same way that volcanic eruptions do.

 

[ged]

Interesting comments...Funny how you never hear both sides of the equation being given by some!

Yes, I think I've alluded to that in an earlier post. Personally I don't think it's helpful to try to avoid mentioning things because they might picked on by someone with an axe to grind purely to confuse the audience. I think the only way forward is to educate.

"Freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of
men's minds, which follows from the advance of science."

 

[ged]

Indeed a view echoed by Lovelock. So rather than rearrange the deckchairs on the metaphorical Titanic by worrying about CO2, - something Lovelock describes as "fifty years too late", might it not be sensible to plan for the warmed globe rather than trying to prevent it?

I don't see CO2 as the deckchairs. I see it as the iceberg.

 

[No Idea]

Trees.

You have finally said something I know a little about.

I like trees because I can make boats out of them and tie hammocks to them. Also, without them, it stops raining.

I know little about soil, but I do know that trees keep the black useful soil from drying out. If it dries out too much, it blows away as dust.

Also when trees get heated and cooled, they give off water vapour, which causes more rain. Without the trees in a region, it seems to stop raining.

Easter Island, the one with all the big stone heads was once covered in forest. Seems they cut the trees to make houses and fires and to roll their heads around.

Once the trees were gone, so went the animals and then man. We cant live there without the trees.

Makes me wonder if thats where all the desserts come from.

The local forestry commision is cutting down all the trees to enable natural heather.

This really frightens me. We need trees more than heather.

IMHO of course.

 

[British Red]

I don't see CO2 as the deckchairs. I see them as the iceberg.

If you like, but we've already hit it according to Lovelock, thats the point

 

[silvergirl]

And all studies and research shows that, as CO2 ambient levels rise, so does plant production and growth, and their ability to live in climates/conditions that were once out of bounds; so not necessarily quite the one-sided disadvantage that some tend to make out rising CO2 levels to be.

Carefull with your sweeping generalisations there , it is certainly not ALL studies that show that.
In some urban areas where there are high concentrations of CO2 plants have started reducing their stomatal pore density by up to 40% meaning that they actually are limiting the amount of CO2 that they absorb, they can only use CO2 in relation to amount of sunlight/water/nutrients that they have availible CO2 on its own makes only a little difference to expected growth.

The other side effect of increased CO2 is changes are begining to be observed in the waxyness and toughness of the surface cells on some crop species, this could have major implications for agriculture in the future.

I'm with you No Idea. I like trees. They create their own micro climate, regulating temprature, moisture, rainfall, soil production and erosion. So many of our 'conservation' policies are based around what is rare rather than what is important. But then who decides what is important?

 

[sandbender]

"...Easter Island, the one with all the big stone heads was once covered in forest. Seems they cut the trees to make houses and fires and to roll their heads around..."

Do you have some references for that? I'm sure I remember reading that this theory had been kiboshed?

"...Makes me wonder if thats where all the desserts come from..."

No they come from my kitchen, sweet potato and pears tonight!