THE VINE JULY 28, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
To be honest, I've never been terribly interested in the long-running pseudo-debate over whether global warming "stopped" in 1998. If you don't know what I'm talking about, here's the dime version: 1998 was an exceptionally hot El Ni
16 comments
From your graph I calculate about 0.65 drg C in the last 50 years, straiht line - not accelerating upward. That's 1.3 deg C per century, not 5.3 degrees. I consider the 5.3 dec C prediction as over the top alarmism.
But the politics of "climate change" legislation are even more troubling to me. If we were really worried about such abrupt climate change, we should immediately curtail subsidies for phony solutions like corn ethanol and get as many nuclear power plants built as quickly as possible. And use whatever it takes to get the rest of the world to go down the same path.
- r.ennis
July 28, 2009 at 10:38pm
"I consider the 5.3 dec C prediction as over the top alarmism."
Yes, you've made that clear. But sorry, I still don't see how calling it "alarmism" is supposed to invalidate a large body of scientific work. (Though I wish it did--it'd be a hell of a lot cheaper than trying to reduce emissions.)
In any case, I can't say with 100% confidence what the average temp will be in 2100. No one can. (There are model projections, and the models are getting better all the time--5.3C is the current best guess for the business-as-usual case--but it's true, there's still uncertainty in both directions.) But your straight-line projection approach is misguided. It's not at all controversial to observe that adding more CO2 to the air can increase the rate of warming. Much like how the rate of warming in the latter half of the 20th century was faster than in the first half. Linear projections are not the way to do these sorts fo forecasts.
I know I'm a broken record on this, but I really do recommend the IPCC's last assessment report if you want to familiarize yourself with climate-science basics:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
- Brad Plumer
July 29, 2009 at 12:02am
it would be as apt to descibe the IPCC report as providing the basics in climate politics rather than science. (this is way too harsh, but still somewhat true).
- keithmswartz
July 29, 2009 at 10:10am
I really don't think that's a very apt description...
- Brad Plumer
July 29, 2009 at 10:14am
It would appear from the graphs that the temperature of the earth has been steadily increasing since the end of the Little Ice Age in the early 1800's. Also the top graph appears to show some kind of cycle. too bad it doesn't go back another hundred years or so. There was also a very rapid increase in temperature from 1910 to 1940 well before there were the huge increasesin CO2 that worry people. Can someone tell me the TOTAL amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the estimated amount added to it in the last 50 or 60 years ie how much have we added?
- hingston
July 29, 2009 at 10:24am
If straught line is so inaccurate, how come it works for the last 50 years during which CO2 emissions have increased geopmetrically?
Also, the 5.3 deg C scare on the part of Democrats is akin to the WMD scare on the part of Republicans. If it turns out over the next decade or so that it is not true, are they ready to take the heat? (No pun intended).
- r.ennis
July 29, 2009 at 11:42am
I read the MIT report also. The best prediction in 2003 was 1.3 deg C. The 2009 predictioon was 5.3 deg C. Don't tell me that the climate scientist community got that much smarter in just a few years, during which actual data as shown on the graph you present points in the opposite direction.
- r.ennis
July 29, 2009 at 11:48am
"If it turns out over the next decade or so that it is not true, are they ready to take the heat?"
Yes, if the projections in the Lean/Rind paper cited in the post are way off, they'll have to figure out why the model didn't line up with observations. This seems pretty banal...
- Brad Plumer
July 29, 2009 at 11:54am
Here's the real crux of the issue: it doesn't matter!
What I mean is it doesn't matter what the ultimate cause is or how fast the effect is or isn't occurring. Anything we can do to slow down or stop the GHG buildup is critical. Astrpphysicists know, for an absolute fact, that at some point, our atmosphere will reach the runaway greenhouse effect and we won't be able to do anything about it. That's what happened to the planet Venus. 900 degrees F.
- desertdog
July 29, 2009 at 12:00pm
desertdog has said a little bit of what I was actually thinking when I read this along with a mix of these other posts.
The first thing is that I would like to look at data from the past hundreds of thousands of year because really the Earth works on such large time scales compared to what we are used to, that these hundred year graphs really don't say that much. There are so many factors to take into account. Of course CO2 in the air has contributed some, but I don't think we can really say how much. I've looked at graphs from both left leaning and right leaning scientists (and unfortunately, politics does play a role in this scientific research, along with economics, since scientists need to have a reason to get money to continue this research), and I still think the results are not that conclusive. When I've seen graphs that go back thousands of years, it seems like the Earth has been this warm in the past. It goes through phases. I think we'll have to wait another at least 20 years before we have good evidence and even then, the cause could still not be primarily to CO2. Nonetheless, the research should continue. I think NASA data from space would be more accurate because it takes more data from around the world as compared to sites on the ground that are more biased if the data are from certain regions.
I'm more inclined to say we should put these caps on CO2 emissions to push for more renewable energy sources because whether or not CO2 is causing alarmists cataclysmic warming or not, we are rapidly burning away our fossil fuels and if we don't want societal catastrophe, we will have to get these resources into the mainstream.
- andyman344
July 29, 2009 at 2:58pm
"Yes, if the projections in the Lean/Rind paper cited in the post are way off, they'll have to figure out why the model didn't line up with observations. This seems pretty banal.."
Yeah. In the meantime the world economy will be given a tremendous blow relegayiong who knows how many people worldwide to continued poverty. That's not your concern, is it?
- r.ennis
July 29, 2009 at 4:28pm
Check out this graph showing how many energy projects of all types stalled by "environmental" groups - not only coal but also transmission, natural gas, renwable and nuclear. And what about the ban on oil exploration in many places? There is such hypocrisy it's not funny. We are not running out of energy and no responsibe organization opposes conservation, which often pays for tiself, and govern funded research into alternate energy. That is no excuse for blocking the energy we couldand should have now. The gobal warming alarmism feed directly into that mindset.
chamberpost.typepad.com/.../6a00e54fb1547b883401157030d33c970b-pi
- r.ennis
July 29, 2009 at 4:47pm
rennis.....you seem like an intelligent observer of this issue, but I'm not sure you're seeing the forest for the trees here. It is established fact that the runaway greenhouse gas effect occurs and it destroys planet atmospheres. What is not a fact (yet) is where the tipping point occurs, the point of no return, if you will. We must do everything in our power to try to slow down the buildup until we can establish where that "event horizon" occurs. To rule out measures to do this using economic or social harm arguments doesn't really seem to make much difference. To continue digging when you're in a hole already is a fools' game. We don't know, yet, how deep we've already dug ourselves in. All the economic development in the world can't possibly overcome extinction.
Isn't it better to be prudent and reduce any GHGs we can control until we figure out where the point of no return is?
- desertdog
July 29, 2009 at 6:18pm
desertdog, you asked a civil question and I will give you a civil reply.
Brad has been kind enough to provide data on this subject to make me see things his way, but none so far is convincing.
From U.S. Climate Change Science Program April 2006
Models used for this evaluation substantially overpredicted temperature rise over the period 1979-1999, compared with actual satellite data at all levels, surface, troposphere and stratosphere and the results were even worse for the tropics.
Actual data - temperature rise 0.15 deg C +/- 0.01 deg C
Results from 39 models - temperature rise 0.2 deg C +/- 0.15 deg C
Note that some models predicted 0.35 deg C rise. The uncertainty in the models was even worse in the tropics - 0.25 deg C for the period under discussion.
Furthermore, the recent MIT report "Joint Policy on the Science abd Policy of Global Change" January 2009, predicts 5.3 deg C by 2100, whereas a study just 6 years earlier predicts only 1.3 degrees. As a technical man, I do not buy the results. They appear to feed into a political agenda as opposed to representing real science.
The EPA recently had its arm twisted to issue an "Endangerment Statement" concerning CO2. This is being challenged in court by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and I have spoken to many staff lawyers on the Hill who privately think that the EPA statement is a shoddy piece of work.
Furthermore, corn ethanol and soy biodiesel have finally been found to have similar, if not worse, lifecycle carbon emission than the fuels they are replacing. If the politicians are really worried about GHG's, and not their political careers, why are they forcing these fuels into the market place? The cost to the Treasury for subsidizing these fuels is about $10 billion in 2009 and expected to go to $30 billion in 2020.
Also, if this is such a crisis, why have so many zero and low carbon projects stopped by environmental extremists? See link above. And why aren't we promoting the use of renewable cellulose as a substitute for coal in coal burning power plants? In all cases the answer is "politics as usual". And big oil is an easy target. Never mind the devastating impact on small producers and refiners. Or the hidden price consumers pay for the enormous subsidies handed out to "renewable energy" rent seeking bandits.
To answer your question concerning tipping point. I am certainly in favor of reducing waste and energy conservation as are the vast majority of my colleagues. My generation of engineers created the political landscape in the '60's that led to the establishment of the EPA under Richard Nixon. But I am also in favor of rescinding couner productive New Source requirements that keep many coal burning plants from introducing energy saving modifications for their plants. And certainly CAFE standards are long overdue. By making these changes, we could reduce carbon emissions substantially. Not by the crazy numbers bandied about by alarmists maybe, but still substantial.
As of now, there is no evidence on an upswing of temperature increase exceeding 1.3 deg C per century. If the more scary predictions are even somewhat correct, this will be noticeable in ten to fifteen years, and we can begin more drastic reduction then. There is no tipping point so your argument about prudence is misplaced in my opinion. One can use the prudence argument to, justify bombing Iran on the possibility that they will produce nukes and start World War 3.
Concerning radical climate change policy, on a world wide basis, diverting so much wealth to fighting a potential phantom will do more harm than good and leave the vast majority of people in the world worse off, not better.
I have grandchildren too so I am just as concerned as the future well being of the earth as anyone who has the nerve to call me a planetary traitor.
- r.ennis
July 30, 2009 at 9:51am
>>>>Furthermore, the recent MIT report "Joint Policy on the Science and Policy of Global Change" January 2009, predicts 5.3 deg C by 2100, whereas a study just 6 years earlier predicts only 1.3 degrees. As a technical man, I do not buy the results. They appear to feed into a political agenda as opposed to representing real science.<<<<
No offense, r-ennis, but for someone so upset about being called a "planetary traitor" (which no one on this site has ever called you), you sure are fond of name-calling and casual slander. A political agenda? Come on. The authors of the MIT report explained very clearly the reasons for revising their estimates of 2100 warming upward (the 2003 report forecast a median 2.4C rise; the 2009 report forecast a median 5.3C or 4.1C rise, depending on how you interpret ocean data, which is still a big debate). Here's the explanation in the actual paper:
If you care to explain why any of these revisions were invalid or unwarranted, sure, I'll listen. If you're just going to plug your ears and say "I don't believe it, it must be politically motivated," well, I'm sure you'll forgive me for not taking those complaints seriously.
By the way, one of the major changes in the 2009 MIT report was that the authors realized emissions were rising much faster than they had previously expected. And, indeed, actual CO2 emissions have already been outpacing what the IPCC's worst-case scenario predicted, and that report was only published in 2007. So it's not a stretch to revise upward. Of course, the good news is that if we manage to reduce emissions far below what the MIT report expects, the odds of seeing a 5.3 degree rise go down very dramatically. Which… is what everyone's been saying for ages.
- Brad Plumer
July 30, 2009 at 11:11am
No offense either Brad. But you button up your ears also. Of course you dis not call me a planetary traitor. You are a technical person who has fed me much important information. I appreciate that and I just interpret what I read differently. Perhaps I see highly imperfect data all the time and have learned that models that cannot accurately predict the actual available data can never be trusted to produce useful predictions of future behavior- garbage in garbage out.
The planetery traitor slur comes from Krugman and I am sick of non technical people being so cock sure of arguments that they have no expertise to make.
There is definitely hysteria over the issue when readers talk about extinction of the species. This is clearly spread by an uncritical media. I do not beliieve that what passes for policy in Washington is rational or in our best interests. That does not mean that I advocate doing nothing as you very well know. You treat the politicians much more benignly than you do the sceptics, even when you agree that the politicians are doing precisely the wrong thing.
- r.ennis
July 30, 2009 at 2:17pm