Not only did they give a journalism award to Michael Crichton for State of Fear. Now, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) is asking its members to comment on a draft "card" stating the group's position on climate change that is designed to be given out to the general public. The card apparently says, "All of the principal causes of climate change are beyond the control of human beings." Given this statement, which is wildly out of whack with scientific consensus, I'm not surprised that the AAPG website discussion of the card also says this: "The reviewers made several recommendations to improve the cards. The authors revised the cards and resubmitted them for publication, and the cards were again sent out for peer review. The reviews on the revised cards are mixed." Yeah, I bet they are....
- Log in to post comments
Well the obvious answer is that petroleum geologists have a very real interest in the current public policy debate over global warming. It isn't an esoteric political debate to them.
I'm sure many people in here will brand them with names like "stooges" and "cronies" or worse.
Those cards probably aren't going to affect public opinion to a perceptible degree no matter what the chosen wording might be. How many people do you think could be influence by little cards handed out by petroleum geologists? Does any one in here even know a petroleum geologist?
It couldn't be any more blatant - Michael Chricton didn't write anything about oil, but he wrote something that was of interest to them.
I met a few petroleum geologists - very smart people, and they not only agreed about the peak oil issue, they also agreed on global warming.
My brother-in-law is a structural geologist who just started working for a petroleum company. He has never been a GW skeptic, and after seeing AIC he and some of his (younger) coworkers are rather scared. I'll have to see if he's had any contact with AAPG.
I *am* a qualified petroleum geologist...
There is a suberb example of weasel wording on the card:
'Geologists who study past climate variations understand that current climate warming projections fall well within documented natural variations in past climate.'
This is technically true. It is extremely unlikely that warming could exceed the late cretaceous super greenhouse. However, during said event sea levels were approxamately 100 meters higher than today. It's a completely meaningless statement.
There does seem to be a 'holdout' group of (mostly old) petroleum geologists who react to any mention of AGW with offhand dismissal; I've met a few online as well as in RW. They do tend to get extremely nasty when challenged.
I work in telecomms now, it's the lowest carbon oil substitute..
It seems that working with fossil fuels has fossilized the AAPG's collective brain.
Congratulations, Andrew, for choosing to apply your talents elsewhere. But why leave geology altogether? Curious minds want to know...
I left the nuclear industry in 1977 (well before TMI/Chernobyl) because my managers viewed themselves as nearly infallible. I was not anti-nuke then or now, but I think both systems designs and political policies need to be based on the best science and technology assessments, and that includes recognition that human error (and its impact) can be minimized but never eliminated.
I also never specialized in nuclear physics/engineering but I had skills that could be applied there and an ability to grasp the engineering/technological techniques. For young people with the same kind of training I had back then, the nuclear industry is a viable place to start. If we get enough good scientists and engineers in place there, perhaps they can be a counterweight to those who throw around political arguments for and against nuclear energy that do not take the scientific and technological realities into account.
Did you consider nuclear and other non-carbon or low-carbon energy fields when you jumped to telecomm?
In my limited experience looking into the inner sanctum of several professional organizations, they are controlled by a core clique of active older members. Such members are usually the more widely known and have a strong desire to be active in leadership, to have a collection of recognition plaques on the wall and to play the politics. Politics at the top are vicious and played for keeps. Loosers are out. The route to such leadership is intensely competitive and broad networking is required for success, both in the public and the behind the scenes selection processes. Getting into the inner circles is difficult because approval from the shadow cabinet of de facto power holders is required. The old guard tends to be conservative, resistant to change and dismissive of alternate points of view, their primary mission being to stay the organization's course. Being late in their careers, they often have both the personal financial resources and the free time to play the game, things younger members don't have yet. In the AAPG, the leaders likely spent their younger years running around the globe searching for and developing oil fields under tough conditions and are very proud of their accomplishments. The belief that crude oil consumption could cause climate change conflicts with their personal worldview.
On the other hand, the AAPG does promote some older visionaries with alternative worldviews:
Green, Arthur R., chief geoscientist for ExxonMobil Exploration Company (retired), "Global Energy - The Next Decade and Beyond" - 2004-05 AAPG Distinguished Lecture
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2005/green/index.htm
Looks to me as if some people in the AAPG, like the past president who started this thing, have just 100% bought into the anti-GW position, and they're trying to sell it to their organization.
As someone who drives a car, heats my home with oil and lives in a society that generally uses oil to satisfy many of its current needs, I have nothing against petroleum geologists. In fact, I thank them for the valuable service they perform. Their collective efforts have made much of modern life possible.
AAPG is certainly entitled to their opinion about what (if nothing) should be done about global warming, but in all seriousness, what would a petroleum geologist know about climate science?!
I thought petroleum geologists were trained to look for oil, NOT the signature of human influence on the climate. (Perhaps they do that as a hobby?)
If a petroleum geologist handed me a card on global warming, I would undoubtedly break out laughing. AAPG's statement on global warming is about as uninformed (and hilarious) as CEI's ad on CO2: "They call it pollution. We call it life."
Fred, surely you see parallels between the emotion driven political holy war against nuclear power in the seventies and the current near hysteria over global warming.
No matter your views on the evidence for catastrophic climate change what is needed is a rational discussion of the applicable scientific evidence and a responsible dialogue on appropriate public policy.
I'm noticing that different sites describe climateaudit's Stephen McIntyre as a "former mining executive" or a "semiretired minerals consultant". Do those positions have any overlap with petroleum geology?
None of the sites that I've seen give much detail about this.
What is needed is a rational discussion of the applicable scientific evidence and a responsible dialogue on appropriate public policy.
Well then, take your own advice. Post some "scientific evidence." Discuss some "appropriate public policy." So far the only thing you've done on this site is accuse people of being intemperate ideologues, while showing yourself to be intemperate and not citing any specific research in any of your comments that I've seen.
Fred, surely you see parallels between the emotion driven political holy war against nuclear power in the seventies and the current near hysteria over global warming.
No matter your views on the evidence for catastrophic climate change what is needed is a rational discussion of the applicable scientific evidence and a responsible dialogue on appropriate public policy.
Yes, Lance, but your posts always seem to be laden with "hot" language even when you call for cool, rational thinking.
My contribution tends to be book reviewing such as
http://www.scienceshelf.com/WeatherMakers_FieldNotes.htm
and
http://www.scienceshelf.com/EndofOil.htm
I also address the nuclear power controversy in my middle-grade book, Catastrophe! Great Engineering Failure -- and Success (W.H. Freeman, 1995, described at http://www.fredbortz.com/Catastrophe.htm ). I'm particularly proud of this prescient language from almost a dozen years ago:
Still, sometime in your lifetime, the question of nuclear power is likely to arise again. The designs will be safer, the plans for waste disposal will be better, and the concerns about other sources of electric power will grow.
Both sides will argue that we have learned the lessons of TMI and Chernobyl. One side will say that the lessons teach us that nuclear power plant technology will always be too risky to try. The other side will say that the we have learned the lessons of failure and that we can succeed in spite of the risks.
Coming to the right decision then will be no easier than it is now, nor will it be any less important. TMI and Chernobyl are two spectacular failures from which we will be learning for a long time.
Not to change the subject from irrelevant PR statements by organizations that have no expertise in climate science or anything, but it would certainly appear that "alarmism" is in the eye of the beholder.
One person's "alarmism" or "hysteria" may be another's attempt to seriously consider worst case (though distinctly possible) scenarios.
Sea level rise is one of these. The effects of even a meter rise in sea level could be quite devastating (alarming too) for people living in low-lying countries like Bangladesh, Tuvalu and many coastal cities throughout the world (eg, New Orleans).
And yes, some of the people who live in such areas are "alarmed" (at least more so than those who live in inland areas of the US)
http://www.tuvaluislands.com/warming.htm
The consequences for other countries may not be as dire as for tuvalu (which may cease to exist entirely), but they may be significant nonetheless.
A one meter rise in sea level would "inundate more than 15 percent of Bangladesh, displacing more than 13 million people and cut into the crucial rice crop."
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/rising-seas.html
According to James Hansen (He's not a politician or even a graduate student, but a top climate scientist at NASA, for those who may not have heard).
"A 20-meter sea level rise is not required to wreak havoc with civilization today. Three-quarters of a meter each from Greenland and Antarctica would do the job quite well."
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/05/parsing-greenhouse-gas-driven-sea.ht…
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/06/worry.html#links
Finally, some think that even a complete melt of the the Greenland icepack would happen over such a long period of time (>1000 years) that ther would be plenty of opportunity to "adapt" (move people inland), and that there is little if anything to be worried about.
Perhaps, and then again, perhaps not...
"Climate experts have started to worry that the [Greenland] ice cap is disappearing in ways that computer models had not predicted."
"By all accounts, the glaciers of Greenland are melting twice as fast as they were five years ago, even as the ice sheets of Antarctica -- the world's largest reservoir of fresh water -- also are shrinking, researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of Kansas reported in February."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/02/MNGS0JM7611…
It would certainly appear that Gore may not be the only one ringing the alarm bell.
Here's James Hansen's article in the current N Y Review of Books: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19131
I have made several posts with references to scientific sudies. My language while perhaps occasionaly "heated" pales in comparison to the words of the patron saint of climate catastrophe, Al Gore. Not to mention the angry and disdainful comments of many of the other contributers to this site.
Saying that we face the "end of civilization" and the "loss of our children's future"(Both quotes from Al Gore in an interview with the BBC) tends to bring the discussion to heated levels.
Odd that people are so quick to demand that I stick to "peer reviewed" science but allow themsleves, and old Al, all the leeway in the the world to spew outrageous and insulting rhetoric.
Hey I'm not complaining. To quote one of my childhood heroes, Superchicken, "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it." A quick glance at the previous posts in here showed me that I was wandering into a partisan camp.
Now you can chase me out of here and return to the monochrome chruch service that is typical of blogs, on both sides of this isue I must admit, or stop trying to insult me and instead engage me in discussion.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
My language while perhaps occasionaly "heated" pales in comparison to the words of the patron saint of climate catastrophe, Al Gore.
Lance, as long as your language drips with sarcasm, I will not engage you in discussion beyond this remark.
I find that the conversation here is not the usual "monochrome chruch (sic) service that is typical of blogs." I would not stick around if it was that way.
There is a difference between having a shared point of view and uncritical spewing. Most of the participants here use reasoned language and welcome opposing viewpoints when offered respectfully.
For instance, many of us have posted a few times that the "War on Science" is not uniquely Republican but is old-fashioned political abuse. But most of us concur that the current circumstances justify Chris' somewhat inflammatory book title The Republican War on Science. Read my review, published in the Dallas Morning News and the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel when the book came out last year to see why I think the content of the book is less inflammatory than the title. I have it archived on-line at http://www.scienceshelf.com/RepublicanWaronScience.htm
By the way, book titles are considered promotional and, as such, are often spiced up to make them "grabbers."
Fred Bortz ( http://www.fredbortz.com ), author of Catastrophe!, Collision Course!, and Martian Fossils on Earth?, plus several other books with less jazzy titles
THANK YOU CHRIS FOR THE BOOK. I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT THERE ISNT MUCH YOU CAN DO WITH TERMINALLY STUPID PEOPLE SUCH AS GEORGE W. BUSH. ITS THE GREEDY EVIL CONSCIOUSNESS THAT ABOUNDS TODAY IN HIS WORLD. BUSH THINKS HE IS A LITTLE CEASAR AND AN ALEXADER THE GREAT. THE GREAT BIG DIFFERENCE IS, CEASAR AND ALEXANDER HAD A BRAIN.
I AM JUST GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE TO FIND WAYS TO SEPARATE MYSELF FROM THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY AND THIER WAYS.
I AM GOING TO HAVE MY CAR HYDROGENATED AND MY HOUSE SUN ELECTRIC. AND TO HELL WITH THE POWER COMPANIES AND THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY AND START GROWING MY OWN FOOD BECAUSE HYPER AGRICULTURE SUPPORTED BY ANOTHER EVIL ENTITIES, MONSANTO FOR ONE, IS OUT TO DESTROY US.
ETHANOL IS NOT GOING TO BE THE ANSWER. IT HAS A VERY TERRIBLE DOWNSIDE ALSO. THE WORST IS TURNING OUR BREAD BASKET (MID AMERICA) INTO A CORN AND SOYBEAN DOMINATED ENTITY. IT WILL WIPE OUT WILDLIFE AND MANY ECOSYSTEMS.
ANYWAY, THANKS FOR THE COLLEGE TRY. ANNE
Fred,
I find it interesting that you criticize my sarcastic use of the words "patron saint" while defending Chirs' use of the more highly emotional "War on Science" in his book title. Despite your attempt to rationalize the different literary vehicles, blog vs. book title, I find your diferentiation unconvincing.
In the next post after yours Anne Summers calls Bush "greedy", "evil" and "stupid", refers to him in the most derogatory and inflammatory way as being a "little caeser" and "Alexander the Great". (Please note that unlike you I was kind enough to correct Annes's misspellings instead of using the embarrasing (sic) and did not use the all capital letters that add an even more bizarre and angry tone to her remarks.)
The level of vitriole in her post is nothing paricularly unique in this blog. I'm certain her windy and insulting prose will draw no angry criticism for the obvious reason that she is attacking the correct political target.
At least you have acknowledged that the misuse of science is not exclusively a republican offense. This may move the discussion to fertile ground if others will lower their political sheilds and engage in honest discussion.
Lance,
As far as I know, that is Anne's first posting here. The regulars use a much more straightforward tone.
Postings like Dark Tent's are the reason I read these discussions. He or she brings some interesting perspectives to the table.
You may scorn Gore's film as alarmist, but he is discussing plausible scenarios throughout with reasonable urgency. He stays away from the extreme scenarios, such as the Gulf Stream shutting down, and focuses on more likely events and the political consequences, such as the spread of tropical diseases, destruction of coastal regions and low-lying islands, and creation of refugees by the millions--consequences that may be avoidable if people wake up to the warnings and develop policies to mitigate the effects of global warming before it is too late.
Judging by the actions of the current administration, more people need to hear and act on Gore's warning. And unlike you, Gore is smart enough to avoid inflammatory language. I suggest that you pay attention to the tone of the regular posters here and cool your rhetoric if you want the rational discussion you claim to seek.
Until then, I plan to ignore your postings.
P.S.: I can just imagine how you would respond to Tim Flannery's presentation of extreme scenarios in The Weather Makers, which I review at http://www.scienceshelf.com/WeatherMakers_FieldNotes.htm You'll note that I like the book a lot, but fear it will be viewed as less credible because of some of Flannery's more extreme points.
Hey Lance
In a comment on an earlier thread you said...
"I just want to have my say in an even handed rational debate based on the evidence. Is there no one in here that can concede that I may not be a crank or an evil industrialist stooge?"
I concede that, pending further evidence.
In the current comment thread you say...
"No matter your views on the evidence for catastrophic climate change what is needed is a rational discussion of the applicable scientific evidence and a responsible dialogue on appropriate public policy."
Let's do that, shall we?
Now, my opinion is that climate change forced by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions is real and almost certain to continue, that it will present a problem for people in the future (though probably not a planetary emergency and maybe not a catastrophe) and that the AAPG's draft card ("All of the principal causes of climate change are beyond the control of human beings.") is laughable.
Do you agree?
By the way, you don't have to think catastrophic climate change is likely in order to believe that climate change is a problem that should be addressed.
Fred, Sorry to see you decided to insult me and then end the dialogue.
Hi Mark,
Thank you for your cool headed remarks.
"Now, my opinion is that climate change forced by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions is real and almost certain to continue, that it will present a problem for people in the future (though probably not a planetary emergency and maybe not a catastrophe) and that the AAPG's draft card ("All of the principal causes of climate change are beyond the control of human beings.") is laughable."
I agree. So far so good.
Although "laughable" is the kind of language that got Fred and others angry with me so perhaps you should be careful.
"By the way, you don't have to think catastrophic climate change is likely in order to believe that climate change is a problem that should be addressed."
I agree again. Amazing what happens when people actually talk rationally to each other instead of attempting to humiliate and discredit each other.
Now, Mark I agree that there is reason to be concerned about the possibility of human activity causing changes to the climate system. I also believe that our country's dependence on foreign sources of oil, many of them in politically unstable places or even countries antagonistic to the US, is another major incentive to find alternate sources of energy.
I think there are plenty of good reasons to find more efficient technologies and innovative solutions to the energy needs of the future. I just don't believe there are good reasons to try to scare people into massive and drastic governmental action.
Do you agree?
Despite Lance's hot rhetoric, I think the question of whether Al Gore and others who speak of a planetary emergency are alarmists is worthy of discussion.
I don't think they are, and I've decided to raise the subject in my own blog entry, "Al-armist Gore?"
( http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/al-armist-gore-10946.html )
Am I the only one who thinks ANN SUMMERS is a sock puppet for Lance Harting? Odd that she would use this posting at that particular time to thank Chris Mooney for writing The Republican War on Science. In all caps. Looks like agitprop to me.
Lance doesn't need ANN.
He's just bugged by the fact that most of us regulars don't agree with him on the political approach.
So he makes a lot of standard accuations, such as demeaning consensus as if it were a bandwagon. In fact, consensus can result from bandwagon thinking; but Lance probably hasn't followed the science closely enough to support that claim in this case. What he calls alarmist, most of us consider sounding a necessary and urgent warning.
On the positive side, he makes us consider whether the consensus might be a bandwagon effect and whether the situation merits Gore's urgency. That's important for keeping us honest when we get passionate.
If only he would drop the obnoxious persona and ad hominem attacks, I'd be willing to engage him on those issues here. Instead, he comes off as rational about half the time and as an attention-seeking agitator the other half.
As noted above, I do discuss those points in my latest post at my own blog. I call it "Al-armist Gore?" ( http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/al-armist-gore-10946.html ) It's a much quieter site than this, but occasionally draws a small crowd.
Perhaps the rational Lance will show up there if he's serious about his points and not just seeking attention. He hasn't poisoned his reputation at my site like he has here. If he can produce evidence of a bandwagon rather than a systemic consensus, I'd be interested.
Likewise, if he can say why the problem is not urgent and why inaction will not move us to the bring of a planetary emergency, I'll hear him out.
But frankly, it will take a lot to persuade me that Elizabeth Kolbert's Field Notes From a Catastrophe and Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers (reviewed at http://www.scienceshelf.com/WeatherMakers_FieldNotes.htm ) were written for any reason other than to sound an urgent warning, which Al Gore has brought into the political realm so effectively.
Aaron, Anne's incendiary remarks were just handy. One needn't look too far in this blog to find plenty of nasty remarks about the "other side" and "denialists", not to mention ad hominem attacks a plenty on "W" and the republicans.
That's why these claims that my decorum somehow disqualifies me from participation are disingenuous. As I have said, I came into this blog "preheated" by remarks Chris Mooney had made in an article that linked to this site.
In that article he called people names, "Senator Crank", and used derogatory terms like "rear guard" and "denialist" to try to smear people on the "other side".
My remarks have not been "ad hominem" towards any other poster. Early on I said that some people, I mentioned Al Gore in particular, were "whoring science". This colorful phrase while emotional is hardly the hottest remark made in this debate.
I find it amusing that you see poor Anne as a "sock puppet". I don't need Anne to make my point. Also I'm not claiming that we should all behave like this is a peer-reviewed colloquium. I'm pretty thick skinned if people actually would include a few points with the zingers I would be fine.
Fred sounds like he is calming down. I'm glad to see that he has at least acknowledged that Al's remarks could be perceived as "alarmist" and is opening a discussion on whether his tactics are justified.
I'm afraid the "persona" Fred hopes I will "drop" is my actual personality. I could provide my ex-wife's email address if Fred would like to have someone to commiserate with over my personality flaws.
Hi folks
I'm back from the weekend. Who woulda thought Zizou would head-butt someone in the World Cup final?!
Re Lance's comments...
I stand by "laughable", though in hindsight "cryable" would be better. There's a real debate to be had here and the AAPG are not participating in any useful way, at least not judging from Chris's quote, nor from their endorsement of Michael Crichton.
RE:
"I just don't believe there are good reasons to try to scare people into massive and drastic governmental action."
Well, if you held a poll tomorrow on the question, "Do you think people should be scared into massive and drastic governmental action", there probably wouldn't be very many on the "yes" side!
Honestly, I don't know what I want governments to do about the problem of anthropogenically forced climate change. I just get really impatient when they try to pretend it doesn't exist.
Hey Mark,
Yeah, I saw that head-butt. Maybe the Italian player accused Zindane of "whoring science". That remark has brought a few angry blows my way.
I think the AAPG is reacting to what it sees as a distortion of the actual evidence to cause fear and to gin up political support. I'm not saying I endorse those cards, but I sympathize with their position. They are scapegoated frequently for being "tools" of the oil industry.
As far as scaring people is concerned, I think Fred has already voted yes by saying, "I've decided his political approach, including his choice of language, is on target and correct" in response to my questioning Gore's over the top public statements such as global warming will bring about "The end of civilization" and "the loss of our children's future".
To me this shows that some people are playing political games with the science using a "the ends justify the means" approach.
The government, even Bush, has acknowledged the "existence" of Global Warming.
The questions are how much of it is human caused, what is the actual evidence that we face large negative consequences if we don't act, and what should those actions be.
To me this shows that some people are playing political games with the science using a "the ends justify the means" approach.
Ah, of course. Like the way that tobacco companies lied and obfuscated, repeatedly, for decades, about the health effects of smoking, justified by the end of maintaining their profits.
The way that fossil fuel companies and ideological think tanks lied, denied and obfuscated, repeatedly, for decades, that the greenhouse effect could lead to problems, justified by the end of maintaining their profits and (in the case of free market fanboys) an ideological comfort-zone.
The longer we take to face up to the problem of global warming, the greater the likelihood that drastic, involuntary, non-market solutions will be necessary.
I don't care what the AAPG are reacting to. To say (as they reportedly did, in what I concede was a draft), "All of the principal causes of climate change are beyond the control of human beings" is ridiculous. CO2 is known to have a significant effect on climate and humanity has demonstrated over the past couple of centuries that it can increase the global CO2 concentration by 100 ppm or so.
I have much the same attitude to ZZ (though I have more sympathy for him). It looks like someone said *something* that offended him deeply, but it doesn't really matter. He did something stupid.
How much of global warming is human caused? A short (if slightly misleading) answer is "more than 100%", in the sense that the natural climatic forcing over the past few decades has been slightly negative (according to the best estimates available) and has slightly offset the positive anthropogenic forcing.
To step back a bit, though, I think that's not the best question to ask. We know CO2 is climatically significant and we know that its concentration will increase over at least the next few decades. This is cause for concern and *was* cause for concern 20 years ago, when the effects on global temperature to date were unclear.
What is the actual evidence that we face large negative consequences if we don't act? Well obviously it hasn't happened yet, so actual evidence is hard to come by. Sea level is projected to rise at an accelerating rate, which will create problems. Changes in the hydrological cycle are likely and would imnpact agriculture--I'm betting on warmer weather for my olive grove in Marlborough, New Zealand :-) Loss of high-altitude, low-latitude glaciers may have serious consequences for people in areas that currently rely on high river flow in spring. Substantial melting of the Greenland & Antarctic ice sheets would, once started, would cause major changes in sea level and (I presume) atmospheric and ocean circulation.
I have a question for you. Given that we look set to raise the global surface temperature by a couple of degC, and given that this is not all that much smaller than the variations of 5 degC or so associated with the glacial/interglacial transition, what reason do you have to believe that this will not have major (possibly negative) consequences?
What should those actions be? Buggered if I know.
BTW, if you do want to discuss these questions in a serious way, I think the globalchange forum is a good place to do it...
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
So, Stefan, let me se if I follow your argument.
Cigarette companies lied. (What exactly this has to do with global warming is beyond me.)
Oil company sponsored "think tanks" lied. (OK, let's say they did.)
So it's OK for Al to lie for our side. (Huh? This argument didn't convince your Mom when you said Billy stole cookies before you, so why do you suppose it is going to fly now?)
Then you threw in the bit at the end to point out time maybe running out. That is the "ends" part to justify the means.
How is this a legitimate argument to support scare tactics that are not supported by the evidence?
I think this argument demonstrates that you see "corporate America" as the enemy in a long running conflict with "the people". This is why Grist, and like publications, are populated by people on the left.
That's just fine, but can't we agree that politics is coloring the debate on both sides and that people should be held responsible when they make claims that don't fit the evidence?
BTW Stefan, I liked the colorful phrase "free market fanboys". It conjured up Monte Python-like images of Adam Smith and Frederic Bastiat fan dancing for bloated cigar puffing industrialists.
Stop stop! Much too silly!
Hi Mark,
Some people have tried to excuse Zindane's behavior. There are no insults that justify a physical attack. Which by the way the Italian player denies were racial or related to terrorism. The fact that he lost it is his fault and his alone. Here in the USA he would be subject to charges of battery. Of course so would half the participants in NHL hockey games. Most of those jack-o-lantern grins come from punches not pucks.
On the subject of the AAPG, the wording of those cards was "proposed" and was being reviewed by the membership of the AAPG. Perhaps they will moderate it to better fit the evidence.
Your remark suggesting that there would have been a cooling trend over the last century if not for anthropogenic warming is speculative. Admittedly you did use the words "best estimates available". The actual mean global temperature (which is a tricky statistic deserving of its own discussion) had been trending up before any significant human CO2 contribution. The years preceding the 1900's were the end of the "little ice age".
Sea level rise is also a highly complicated affair. Recently a lot has been made of the melting rate of low altitude ice sheets around Greenland. This ignores the fact that the higher elevation ice sheets inland have been accumulating ice at a rate faster than the loss of the coastal ice sheets resulting in a net increase in ice mass over the last few decades.
Similar trends are occurring in Antarctica. It should also be noted that sea level has been rising at the rate of approximately 18cm per century since the last glacial maximum 18,000 years ago. Seal level has risen approximately 120 meters over that time period and probably will continue to rise at a similar rate independent of anything humans do. (I would be glad to provide citations. I thought this post was a tad too long already.)
Now you mention glacial water systems that humans depend on. This is a legitimate consequence of a warming climate. But there are also benefits to a warming climate that are rather obvious; longer growing seasons, more land available for agriculture that had previously been in areas with insufficient growing seasons etc. You may have noticed that people tend to prefer living in the warmer places on the earth, including the desert southwest which is too goddamn hot for me!
To declare the end of civilization as a probable consequence of anthropogenic warming based on the current state of climate science is just dishonest. While I suspect that you and I are not going to agree completely on the analysis of the current evidence, I find your opinions to be more reasonable than many of the politically motivated scaremongers I have dealt with in the past. I will check out the site you mentioned on discussions of climate change.
Anyway I appreciate the fact that you are discussing things in a rational way and not trying to discredit or ridicule me as others have done.
Lance,
I'm willing to have a discussion when you present data as you do in your most recent posting, but most of the facts you cite have been refuted in many places, most notably the two very current books I've been mentioning so often in my recent posts (See my review at http://www.scienceshelf.com/WeatherMakers_FieldNotes.htm ).
If you still make the same claims after reading Field Notes from a Catastrophe and The Weather Makers, I'll conclude that you are ideologically locked into your present position. Right now, I think you just need to do some more reading. Then you'll understand the sense of urgency that so many of us feel about this issue. Partisan politics and whether we like or dislike Al Gore has absolutely nothing to do with that.
The specific statements you make that those books take issue with are the following:
"This ignores the fact that the higher elevation ice sheets inland have been accumulating ice at a rate faster than the loss of the coastal ice sheets resulting in a net increase in ice mass over the last few decades." I believe both books include that fact in their reporting (Kolbert - Field Notes) and analysis (Flannery - Weather Makers).
"There are also benefits to a warming climate that are rather obvious; longer growing seasons, more land available for agriculture that had previously been in areas with insufficient growing seasons etc." This kind of projection neglects changing rainfall patterns that appear to be leading to major droughts in currently productive agricultural areas. It also neglects the spread of tropical diseases.
Your statements dismissing the potential of sea level rises are also at odds with the science that both books present. The projection of millions, even tens of millions, of climate refugees by midcentury is within the plausible range. Imagine the geopolitical uproar, including wars, that would result from that. For that reason, we need to worry about nonlinear increases in melting rates and be wary of rosy projections.
If you want to discuss this, I suggest you do so from a position of knowledge of the science, rather than a feeling that people are making too much of the concern. Please read the books I'm recommending.
I presume you have read my blog posting about why I think Republicans are missing a bet by not picking up this issue. What was your reaction to that?
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/the_politics_of_climate_change_10446.html
Responding to various points in Lance's last comment...
"On the subject of the AAPG, the wording of those cards was "proposed" and was being reviewed by the membership of the AAPG. Perhaps they will moderate it to better fit the evidence."
Agreed.
"Your remark suggesting that there would have been a cooling trend over the last century if not for anthropogenic warming is speculative."
Not completely speculative, as I shall explain. But unproven certainly. And I said "the past few decades". The point is that models run for the last 150-200 years, using the best estimates of the various forcings that the modellers could find, have done an amazingly good job of matching the observed global average surface tempeerature. (It's amazing to me anyway--I had thought there would be too much intrinsic variability in the climate system to allow this. But by running an ensemble of models one can estimate the intrinsic variability and it seems to be modest.) And for the past few decades the natural forcings have been slightly negative, but the temperature trend has been strongly positive. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
Perhaps you think the forcing data have been fudged to get the results the modellers wanted? Someone did suggest this to me once, on a comments thread in a far corner of the blogosphere. I tried to get him to suggest *how* this might have been done without anyone noticing but he just muttered "garbage in-garbage out" and slunk away.
"The actual mean global temperature (which is a tricky statistic deserving of its own discussion) had been trending up before any significant human CO2 contribution. The years preceding the 1900's were the end of the "little ice age".
Some sceptics have argued that the temperature was trending up before anthropogenic forcing was significant, therefore any trend now can't be anthropogenically forced. (They say the same about glacier loss on Kilimanjaro.) You wouldn't offer such a non sequitur, would you?
The extent of any trend between, say, 1600 and 1800 is rather uncertain, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Yes, there are issues with global surface temperature, as there are with any other geophysical measurement. But the warming trend in the GST over the instrumental period is confirmed by a number of other sources...
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/temperature-record-reliabilit…
"Sea level rise is also a highly complicated affair. Recently a lot has been made of the melting rate of low altitude ice sheets around Greenland. This ignores the fact that the higher elevation ice sheets inland have been accumulating ice at a rate faster than the loss of the coastal ice sheets resulting in a net increase in ice mass over the last few decades."
I'm not sure that I would accept there's been a net *increase* over the last few decades, but I certainly accept that there hasn't been a large net *decrease*. As I understand it, there has been an increase in accumulation in the interior, offset by an increase in melting at the edges. So the net change has to be estimated as the difference between 2 large quantities, which is always problematic.
A lot of the interest in ice sheet processes at the moment arises from the idea that, if the world continues to warm the ice sheets will eventually shrink (the losses will exceed the gains) and we want to know how fast this will happen. It used to be thought it would take millenia, but people are concerned it might take only centuries. And there's a *lot* of water locked up in those sheets. But I accept I am now writing about stuff I know very little about, so I will leave it there.
"To declare the end of civilization as a probable consequence of anthropogenic warming based on the current state of climate science is just dishonest."
Hmmm. Some people whose opinion I respect are using words like "catastrophe", eg Pierrehumbert RT 2005: Climate change: A catastrophe in slow-motion. Chicago Journal of International Law, (in press):
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/LawReviewCatastrophe.pdf
To quote from Pierre:
"Seen by a geologist
a million years from now, the era of global warming will probably not seem as
consequential as the asteroid impact that killed the dinosaurs. It will, however,
appear in the geological record as an event comparable to such major events as
the onset or termination of an ice age or the transition to the hot, relatively icefree
climates that prevailed seventy million years ago when dinosaurs roamed the
Earth. It will be all the more cataclysmic for having taken place in the span of
one or a few centuries, rather than millennia or millions of years."
(He doesn't mention the end of civilisation, though.)
As you note, this discussion is getting away from the original topic. Again, I suggest that an appropriate place to continue it might be the Google Globalchange group:
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
"To quote from Pierre"
I meant Raymond, of course.
Hi Fred,
I'll happily check out those two books you mentioned. The information I quoted about the Greenland ice sheets was from a NASA sponsored study of the decade 1992-2002.
In fact-checking that information I found that there has been a partial update, to 2005, that indicates that during that three year period the rate of melting of the coastal regions may have taken a small lead over the rate of additional ice accumulation in the interior.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/ice_sheets.html
"In Greenland, the survey saw large ice losses along the southeastern coast and a large increase in ice thickness at higher elevations in the interior due to relatively high rates of snowfall. This study suggests there was a slight gain in the total mass of frozen water in the ice sheet over the decade studied, contrary to previous assessments.
This situation may have changed in just the past few years, according to lead author Jay Zwally of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Last month NASA scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., reported a speed up of ice flow into the sea from several Greenland glaciers. That study included observations through 2005; Zwally's survey concluded with 2002 data.
When the scientists added up the overall gains and losses of ice from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, there was a net loss of ice to the sea. The amount of water added to the oceans (20 billion tons) is equivalent to the total amount of freshwater used in homes, businesses and farming in New York, New Jersey and Virginia each year."
Ooooh my, 20 billion tons! All the fresh water used in three states in a year!
Now when put into perspective it is like the old expression "spitting into the ocean". Check out the last phrase down below where they admit that this had a negligible impact on world sea levels. Why do you suppose these editorial remarks sensationalizing the amount of water added to the ocean found their way to the public information release where I found this summary?
"The study indicates that the contribution of the ice sheets to recent sea-level rise during the decade studied was much smaller than expected, just two percent of the recent increase of nearly three millimeters a year," says Zwally. "Continuing research using NASA satellites and other data will narrow the uncertainties in this important issue."
Also this casual mention of a 3mm/yr increase in sea level is far from an established fact and is a hot topic of research and debate among experts in sea level measurement. It sure wasn't part of the study being reviewed in this press release. Why do you suppose it was included? Also note the very underplayed "...the contribution of the ice sheets to recent sea-level rise during the decade studied was much smaller than expected".
Even with the update the NASA studies certainly do not indicate a looming catastrophic ice sheet melt that would dramatically raise sea levels.
Anway thanks for the tip on those books. I'll check them out. Despite what some people in here have said I am not an idealogue that is intent on making the evidience fit my preconceived notions.
Lance,
I think you've finally begun to contribute to the discussion the way most of us would like you to. We're not asking for agreement here, and your troubles began when you assumed otherwise. I hope that is all behind you.
Anyway, I think you probably would find The Weather Makers more to your liking than Field Notes. It's got more scientific meat, and you will probably feel more like arguing with the author's approach. In other words, it's for an active reader.
The issues regarding sea level are complex because everyone is trying to extrapolate, a notoriously risky enterprise. What alarms me is that the measurements are showing a deviation from linearity toward the more dangerous side. There are also indications that the melting in Greenland is increasing at at an unprecedented rate, making simple extrapolation even less reasonable.
You'll probably find Flannery's discussion of small tipping points intriguing. He calls them "magic gates," a term that I as a scientist don't particularly like but find descriptive of the phenomenon for nonscientists. The evidence for them is not firm, but it is suggestive. Those are nonlinear points of no return in certain phenomena.
If we reach a similar "gate" with respect to the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps, all bets are off regarding the slow but steady rise in sea level.
The political calculus is even more difficult because of short-term costs vs. long-term benefits. How do you factor in a 0.1% or 1% or 5% chance of a six-meter rise in sea level by 2100? What is the chance, consequences, and costs of a one or two meter rise? At what new sea level do we reach catastrophic refugee problems?
Many reasonable people look at those questions and see a plausible global emergency. I get the sense you haven't looked at those questions in much detail yet. I'm not telling you what your conclusions ought to be, but I'd be willing to bet that you will better understand the people who are sounding the warnings urgently. You may still disagree with them, but I doubt you'll call them alarmists any more, and I doubt you'll question their motivations.
Please focus on the message--the inconvenient truth--not the messenger.
"Ooooh my, 20 billion tons! All the fresh water used in three states in a year!?"
If one is concerned with future sea level rise, one must not only look at the current rate or melting, but also at how the rate may be changing.
Some things start out slow and acclerate and the results to a recent (02/06) NASA study indicate that the melting of ice in Greenland may be one of these:
"The loss of ice from Greenland doubled between 1996 and 2005, as its glaciers flowed faster into the ocean in response to a generally warmer climate, according to a NASA/University of Kansas study."
The Greenland ice sheet's contribution to sea level is an issue of considerable societal and scientific importance," Rignot said. "These findings call into question predictions of the future of Greenland in a warmer climate from computer models that do not include variations in glacier flow as a component of change. Actual changes will likely be much larger than predicted by these models."
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news-print.cfm?release=2006-023
Re ice sheets and sea level rise, Realclimate has a recent article on this, written by Michael Oppenheimer:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/ice-sheets-and-se…
Here's the final paragraph:
"Filling the gap in knowledge between the risk (a significant probability of many meters of sea level rise) and the current reality (rapid local ice responses to local warming but small aggregate effect on sea level rise so far) will require a sharpened focus on all three fronts: observations, modeling, and paleoclimate assessment. Currently, the resources to do any one of these at the appropriate level are lacking. And because greenhouse gas concentrations and ice sheet loss are effectively irreversible, policy decisions need to be made based on the information in hand, which argues that deglaciation could be triggered by a modest warming."
I appreciate everyone's well-reasoned and respectful responses. They seem to have a common theme, that although there may not currently be evidence of dramatic or even significant polar ice sheet melting, the precautionary principle should lead us to err on the side of action rather than inaction.
Well I suppose that depends on what action may be proposed.
I note that all the worst case scenarios are completely speculative and not based on empirical evidence, perhaps best expressed by the last sentence from Mark's post from Realclimate, "And because greenhouse gas concentrations and ice sheet loss are effectively irreversible, policy decisions need to be made based on the information in hand, which argues that deglaciation could be triggered by a modest warming."
Now who says greenhouse gas concentrations and ice sheet loss are irreversible? (Or even conclusively shown to have a causal relationship?) The ice Sheets have waxed and waned even during the time that humans have been recording them, as shown in the short period of time of the NASA study. Or that deglaciation could be triggered by a modest warming?
I find the appeal that "policy decisions need to be made with the information in hand" to be unconvincing when so far no melting that has been demonstrated to be anything but nominal has been recorded.
I sense that at least Fred is willing to allow politicians and environmental advocates, like Al Gore, the license to make alarmist and exaggerated claims to spur public support for drastic actions. Although I should let Fred speak for himself on this matter.
In my opinion it would be better to present the actual scientifically verified evidence, that there is no observed significant melting of polar ice sheets, and then make an honest appeal that some scientist worry, based on climate models, that the situation could change. And to grant them the funding, as they have said was necessary, to continue the research.
In my opinion this would be a more rational, not to mention more honest, course of action. Now there are plenty of sensible energy policy decisions that could be implemented for other legitimate reasons. If these also serve to mitigate possible climate change all the better.
Just as a personal aside I drive a 2200lbs, 4cyl Toyota MR2 that gets 35mpg and my wife drives a 4cyl Camry that gets around 30mpg. I heat my house with a catalyzed wood burning stove (zero net carbon footprint because the wood is from fallen trees) and supplement it with a 90%+ high efficiency gas furnace. I recycle, compost, and grow organic vegetables.
I value scientific integrity above almost all other human virtues. That is what has motivated my close scrutiny of the public policy rhetoric that I find to be deceptively presented by people on both sides of this debate. I have been called a "tree hugger" and "enviro-nazi" by some people in other forums. I was a member of Greenpeace and the Sierra Club until I became disturbed by the direction those organizations took in the last ten or so years.
I sense that at least Fred is willing to allow politicians and environmental advocates, like Al Gore, the license to make alarmist and exaggerated claims to spur public support for drastic actions. Although I should let Fred speak for himself on this matter.
Yes, Lance. Please let all of us speak for ourselves, and in particular, be careful when trying to attribute motivations to us.
If I believed Al Gore was making alarmist and exaggerated claims, I would not be defending him. More importantly, I would not be asking people to focus on the message instead of the messenger.
In particular I support his statements that it is time to act becuse continued delays carry serious risk of major environmental shifts that could cause unprecedented political calamities. I'm not parsing his every word, but I certainly think "planetary emergency" is appropriate in the political context.
For some interesting insights into the interaction of climate and politics, read The Little Ice Age: How Climate Changed History, 1300-1850 by Brian Fagan (review at http://www.scienceshelf.com/LittleIceAge.htm ).
In my opinion it would be better to present the actual scientifically verified evidence, that there is no observed significant melting of polar ice sheets, and then make an honest appeal that some scientist worry, based on climate models, that the situation could change.
I think that is precisely what we have been doing here and in other threads when we discuss the latest results about the rate of change of polar melting in the context of climate models and climate history. It surprises me that you, as a physicist, do not seem to be picking up of such things as rates of change and such as systems that undergo rapid shifts from one metastable state to another.
Geologic evidence tells us that Earth's climate is such a system. Reasonable interpretations of current conditions suggest that such a shift is plausible in the current century. Is it alarmist to try to prevent such a potentially catastrophic event?
Anyway, you promised to read some more before forming your opinion on whether the message is alarmist. Please do so, and then return to this discussion.
Recent research by NASA indicates that the models used (by IPCC and others) to come up with sea level rise estimates have likely greatly underestimated the rates of glacial melting (This presumably applies to Antartica as well as Greenland)
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news-print.cfm?release=2006-023
The research should continue, but scientists actually know quite a bit right now and they will never have full and complete information at any rate.
So, scientists should recalculate the expected sea level rises as a function of time, taking into account the new information about accelerated glacial flow (due to meltwater at the glaciers' bases).
Then, probabilities and costs should be attached to the various outcomes (assuming different emissions scenarios) and in order to make decisions about action (or possibly inaction), a risk assement should be performed based on "expected cost".
This is basically the same risk assessment that insurance industries perform in order to establish their rates: they multiply [estimated cost of each particular outcome] X [the probablitiy of that outcome in a given time period] and sum all these up. That is the overall "expected cost".
They then charge appropriately so that the money they take in over a given time period offsets (and then some) the "expected" amount that they will pay out over the same time period.
When the insurance industry includes unlikely possibilities in their analysis in order to set their rates, they are not being dishonest or stupid. On the contrary, even highly unlikely outcomes that have a very high cost associated with them (eg, hurricane Katrina) must be considered or the insurance industry may (eventually will) be left holding an empty money bag.
By the same token, when mankind attempts to hedge against the costs that might result from future warming, the process must be based on a similar type of risk assessment. In the latter case, the costs associated with action (eg, emissions reductions) must be balanced against the "expected cost" associated with doing nothing.
In this case, erring on the side of caution is based on "expectation" -- ie, on sound analysis. It is not simply a matter of "doing something now because bad things that we can not foresee might happen in the future." We may not know precisely what will happen, but we can make informed estimates based on what is possible and what the damages of inaction might be.
Some of the greenhouse gases are relatively short-lived (methane, ozone and, of course, water vapour) but CO2 is very long-lived in the atmosphere-ocean system. David Archer talks about this here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-long-will-glo…
However some people have seriously suggested trapping and sequestration of CO2 from the open air...
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/
archives/environment/000658get_ready_for_air_ca.html
So maybe it's not irreversible. I'm not sure I'd want to bet the farm on that one, though.
Re the "irreversibility" of ice sheet loss, I'm no expert on this but I think that for the Greenland ice sheet Iin particular) "it's there because it's there". Because the interior of the ice sheet is at a high altitude (sorry I don't know the number) all the precipitation that falls on it is frozen. If it weren't there, the precipitation would fall as rain and it wouldn't rebuild, at least not until the climate cooled a great deal. (This sort of behaviour is called "hysteresis" by the way. It's common in non-linear systems. It's a better word to use than "irreversibility" which has a technical meaning that doesn't exactly match its meaning in everyday language.)
So, I can't quote chapter and verse on all of this, but I think that the experts are agreed: If the climate warms enough to melt the ice sheets, they wouldn't reform for a long, long time.
How conclusive do you want? You appear to expect "conclusive" proof of everything. You describe estimates based on the best available information as "speculative".
So?
That's a quote by me from an article on Realclimate by Michael Oppenheimer. (The article is entitled "Ice Sheets and Sea Level Rise: Model Failure is the Key Issue" by the way. I think you'll agree he doesn't try to overstate the current state of scientific knowledge in this area.) You're asking who said it? If you'd bothered to follow the link and read the first couple of lines, you'd know who said it. And if you'd read the article and some of the material it links to, you might even have some idea why he said it.
To Dark Tent,
These numbers that are being tossed around need to be put into perspective.
University of Virginia climatologist Patrick Michaels points out that if the Greenland interior ice gains reported by the Johannessen study are subtracted from the coastal ice loss reported by Rignot and Kanagaratnam the net result is a thoroughly non-alarming increase in the rate of sea-level rise:
"Consider what would have happened had the latest study included the ice and snow gains observed by Johannessen (and ignored the losses "modeled" by Hanna et. al.). Johannnessen's increase of 5.4cm/year averaged over Greenland converts to about 75km3/year. Rignot and Kanagaratnam could have subtracted Johannessen's gains. If they had done so, the total volume of ice loss from Greenland would only have become positive during the last 5 years, totaling 17km3 in 2000 and 92km3 in 2005. This translates to a sea level rise contribution of 0.04mm in 2000 and 0.23mm in 2005 -- values much less dramatic than those they published.
Converting millimeters into inches, in 2005, the net contribution of Greenland ice mass changes to sea level rise is about 0.009 inches. This rate of ice mass loss translates into about 1 inch of sea level rise per century."
Even if there were a significant increase in glacial ice melting it would not result in the kinds of catastrophic sea level rise that Al Gore frequently sites as "inundating Manhattan".
Look before we get into a pointless back and forth posting of studies let me say that I am not advocating doing nothing. I am however asking that the discussion be honest and open. There simply is no significant evidence to support claims of an impending catastrophic sea level rise.
Typically these very modest, when put into perspective, melting reports are then used to back up dire predictions based on climate models that have not been shown to be accurate. In fact many of these climate models do not predict significant sea level rise.
To Mark Hadfield,
I have read much of Oppenheimers work. Now I am not saying he is not a respected scientist but he does work for the Environmental Defense Fund. He has made statements that I consider to be inaccurate in what appear to be pleas for advocacy rather than attempts to portray the actual state of climate science. For instance his statements that ice sheets are melting faster than predicted by climate models is demonstrably counter to the actual evidence.
Are you two really convinced that a catastrophic ice sheet melt is a significant probability? If so what probability would you assign to this event and on what evidence are you basing this prediction?
This is the crux of my problem with the way the issue of climate change is currently being presented in the media. I have come to the conclusion that so far there is not evidence to declare a "planetary emergency" or claim that we face the "end of civilization" if we don't take drastic measures.
I think that many people are eager to portray the situation as a "crisis" to move forward public policy issues that they would support even if there were no scientific discussion of climate change. As a scientist I find this disturbing not to mention detrimental to the credibility of science to the public.
Lance Harting says "This rate of ice mass loss translates into about 1 inch of sea level rise per century."
That assumes that melting of ice sheets is a linear process and that there are no postive feedbacks involved.
Here's what top NASA climate scientist James Hansen -- who undoubtedly knows more than most about the mechanisms involved -- has to say about the subject in a piece he titled
"Can we defuse the Global Warming Time Bomb?"
"The main issue is: how fast will ice sheets respond to
global warming? IPCC calculates only a slight change in the ice sheets in 100 years. However, the IPCC calculations include only the gradual effects of changes in snowfall, sublimation and melting. In the real world, ice sheet disintegration is driven by highly nonlinear processes and feedbacks."
"The peak rate of deglaciation following the last ice age was a sustained rate of melting of more than 14,000 km 3 /year, about one meter of sea level rise every 20 years, which was maintained for several centuries. This period of most rapid melt, meltwater pulse 1A, coincided, as well as can be measured, with the time of most rapid warming (Reference 2d)."
"Given the present unusual global warming rate on an already warm planet, we can anticipate that areas with summer melt and rain will expand over larger areas of Greenland (Figure 7) and fringes of Antarctica. This will darken the ice surface in the season when the sun is high, promote freeze-thaw ice breakup, and, via ice crevasses, provide lubrication for ice sheet movement. Rising sea level itself tends to lift marine ice shelves that buttress land ice, unhinging them from anchor points. As ice shelves break up, this accelerates movement of land ice to the ocean."
"This qualitative picture of nonlinear processes and feedbacks is supported by the asymmetric nature of glacial cycles (Figure 3) and the high rate of sea level rise associated with rapid warming. Although building of glaciers is slow, once an ice sheet begins to collapse its demise can be spectacularly rapid. The building of an ice sheet is a dry process, limited by the annual snowfall rate, and thus requires millennia. Ice sheet disintegration, on the other hand, is a wet process, nourished by positive feedbacks, and thus, once underway, it can proceed much
more rapidly."
[end of James Hansen quote]
I certainly do not claim to be any kind of glacier expert, but having done a lot of mountaineering in glaciated regions over the years, I am at least familiar with many of the positive feedbacks related to ice melting that Hansen refers to above.
I also understand that, when it comes to the real world problems (as opposed to the vast majority of problems in chemistry and physics books), linear processes are the exception rather than the rule and it does not stretch my imagination in the least to assume, as Hansen does that ice pack melting is most likely not a simple linear process.
Hi Lance
Speaking only for myself...
As far as I recall, I've never said in this discussion that climate change will have consequences that are catastrophic, or cataclysmic, or a planetary emergency, though I have referred to other people who use those words. I think that there is a significant probability that continued greenhouse gas forcing will cause the major ice sheets to lose a substantial proportion of their mass over time scales as short as a few centuries, leading to sea level rise of several metres. Would this be a "catastrophe"? I don't know. Probably not. (Somebody, I can't recall who, made the observation recently that the sea level has risen by perhaps 0.15 m over the 20th century. But who would identify sea level rise as a major environmental issue for this period? Also James Annan recently observed on another forum that there is an area in the SE corner of Britain that is sinking, leading to relative sea level rise several times the global average and rapid coastal erosion. This is a problem, but hardly an unmanageable one.)
What do I base my opinion on? Not evidence, I'm afraid, but my reading of other people's interpretation of the evidence. I really don't know much about this topic (but thanks for making me learn a little more) and, frankly, I don't think my opinion is worth a lot. But it's mine, so I'm rather fond of it and I'll continue to hold it for the time being.
Where has he said that? I don't see it in the Realclimate article of 26 June. He talks about model failures and limitations of various sorts (the sort of thing any sceptic would love). He seems to be very aware that current rates of mass loss are not all that large:
He's not exactly running down the street shouting "the ice sheets are melting!"
I'd like to respond to this paragraph of yours
I agree with your conclusion, but I wish you'd stop trying to escalate the emotional intensity of the discussion. Terms like "planetary emergency" or "end of civilisation" on their own are meaningless. And "drastic measures" rather begs the question too.
Hey Mark,
At the June 15th, 2004 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Oppenheimer made these remarks.
"The sea-level rise over the past century appears greater than what the model says it should be," he claimed. "The [Greenland and Antarctic] ice sheets may be contributing more than the models predict." The fact that these remarks are in opposition to his remarks in the article you referenced in Realclimate could indicate that he has changed his opinion to better agree with the evidence.
He was also on stage, with Al Gore, at the opening of the disaster flick "The Day After Tomorrow" and made several public appearances, again with Al, sponsored by MoveOn.org, to promote Al's latest movie. As I said he works for the Environmental Defense Fund.
He of course has the right to do all of those things, but I have heard a lot of biting criticism of scientists that work for political or industry groups that are skeptical of the disastrous climate change scenarios. I think it should be noted that politics plays a role in the discussion of the analysis of the evidence and the attendant public policy discussion by people on all sides of the debate.
As for the sensationalized verbiage, I would be happy to remove terms like "planetary emergency" and "end of civilization" from the discussion as soon as I stop hearing them used by advocates of catastrophic climate change. I have only used them to highlight the sense of urgency and dire consequences inferred by those that want to frame the debate as a moral one.
If you think I am over reacting just google "catastrophe +climate", "disaster +climate" or "end of civilization +climate" and see the millions of hits.
Dark Tent,
I don't believe I said, or even inferred, that the mechanisms that determine polar ice sheet melting were linear. The non-linearity of the processes involved does not change the fact that no significant melting has been observed. The estimate of 1 inch per century was not meant to infer what should be expected, it was just an accurate assessment of what the rise in sea level would be if the current rate continued.
The future rate of melting is in fact unknown. Oppenheimer and others admit as much and call for greater funding. The question is whether or not there is reason to believe that it will greatly accelerate.
As I said Oppenheimer and others say that they can't point to any verifiable data showing that this possible, but as yet unobserved, acceleration is clearly linked to CO2 in the atmosphere or even likely at all.
If you are calling for otherwise sensible measures that would have benefits independent of possible climate effects I'm right there with you fellas. But if you are trying to justify drastic measures that will have huge economic costs then you don't have convincing rational reasons to do so based on the science (IMHO).
I must say that both of you guys are at least making reasonable scientific arguments and not resorting to ad hominem attacks or moralizing polemics. For that I am exceedingly grateful.
OK Lance, you've convinced me that there is talk about of "planetary emergency" and "end of civilisation".I haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth" by the way. As far as I know it hasn't been shown in New Zealand yet. (But "Curious George" is on, so I might go & see that instead.)
On the apparent opposition betwwen Michael Oppenheimer's remarks in various places, I'll reserve comment until I know more.
The framing of the debate as a "moral" one doesn't help advance it, but climate change potentially *does* raise issues of intergenerational and international equity because of the long time scales. It's not just an engineering problem.
I don't think I have a great deal more to say.
Lance Harting: "I don't believe I said, or even inferred, that the mechanisms that determine polar ice sheet melting were linear."
In the absence of any qualifying statement, the previous statement that you made (and that I quoted) above does infer linearity:
"This rate of ice mass loss translates into about 1 inch of sea level rise per century."
Namely, that is a "linear extrapolation of ice melt over time" based on what you gave as the current rate.
As I indicated previously, there is evidence that the rate in Greenland has greatly increased (doubled) between 1996 and 2005. As Hansen points out, there is also historic evidence (from the Eemian Period) pointing to the distinct possibility that the current temperature of the earth may be near a point at which significant melting of ice sheets may occur.
The piece by James Hansen that I quoted above makes for sobering reading:
Can we defuse the Global Warming Time Bomb?"
Hansen himself makes clear the many uncertainties involved, but he also makes a pretty good prima facie case that relatively significant increases in sea level (a meter or more) may be on the not-too-distant time horizon and that what we do right now might possibly reduce the impact.
Hansen bases his case partly on historical evidence of global mean temp and sea level from the Eemian period and partly on what he terms the "current planetary energy imbalance" (energy absorbed by earth that is not being re-radiated to space):
"with the 0.5°C global warming of the past few decades, the Earth's average temperature is just now passing through the peak Holocene temperature level.
Furthermore, the current planetary energy imbalance of about ¾ W/m 2 implies that global warming already "in the pipeline", about another 0.5°C, will take us about halfway to the global temperature that existed at the peak of the Eemian period.
Sea level during the Eemian is estimated to have been 5-6 meters (16-20 feet) higher than it is today. Although the geographical distribution of climate change influences the effect of global warming on ice sheets, paleoclimate history suggests that global temperature is a good predictor of eventual sea level change. The main issue is: how fast will ice sheets respond to global warming? "
[end Hansen quote]
In general, when a politican like Al Gore talks about science, I tend to take it with a grain (or is it block) of salt (though several climate scientists who have seen Gore's movie say much of the science was accurate.)
On the other hand, when a respected scientist like James Hansen sounds the alarm, I tend to sit up. Whatever else may be true, when it comes to climate science, Hansen knows what he is talking about and his warnings should be taken seriously.
I certainly agree that research on ice sheet melting (and global warming in general) should continue, but considerable evidence has already accumulated and the point at which we say "Now we know enough to do something" is basically a judgement call, at any rate.
There are a lot of "no regrets" measures (efficiency improvements) that could be undertaken right now, but even these may not come without some incentive. Unfortunately, people often do not behave rationally, even when it comes to saving their own money, despite the basic assumption of standard economic theory that they do.
Finally, as I pointed out above, it is not simply "alarmism" (dishonest or otherwise) to call for consideration of and possible preparation for devastating (though distincty possible) potentialities. The insurance industry does it all the time for very sensible (monetary) reasons. And yes, one must balance the cost of preventive measures against the potential cost of doing nothing.
As I also indicated in a previous post, just a 1 meter rise in sea level could have devastating repercussions for people in places like Tuvalu and Bangladesh.
Would that be a "planetary emergency" as you indicate Al Gore has said? I'd say "No", but it is nonetheless certainly something to seriously consider now while we might still have a chance of preventing it.
I would make a distinction between baseless "alarmism" and what Hansen has been doing. Sure, there will always be those who yell fire in crowded theaters when there is no fire -- and they should be ignored. But there are also those like Hansen who pull the alarm when they smell smoke and/or see flames.
There is actually a flip side to the "alarmism" coin: over recent years, the US has done basically nothing to address the problem of global warming, which is real and will not simply go away if we ignore it. This is the equivalent of simply watching -- and doing nothing -- while the theater smolders.
Just to clarify what Gore has been saying about sea rise. This is Gore in a recent interview:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/duncanblack/gore.html
This lines up with some studies that the UK Independent reported on late last year:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1120-03.htm
Now, the article above also says that this rise is presently expected to happen over hundreds of years, not a number of decades. But it sounds like there's not a great deal of certainty on how long this will take. And Hansen echoes this uncertainty in Dark Tent's quote above.
In his recent WSJ editorial, Lindzen ridicules Gore for defending his statements about rising seas with comments like "[Scientists] don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence... They just don't know." This glosses over the point that uncertainty might form a basis for action. Just like if you're driving in fog and you suspect there are obstacles, you slow down.
One thing that I've noticed is that for someone like Pat Michaels, an uncertainty never forms a basis for action. He seems to always toe the line of the people who fund his research. Uncertainty always means that the public and policymakers shouldn't be concerned...