Global Warming Sucks

Chris,
you can say
"I'm going to install a solar PV system on my house so I'm no longer a slave to fossil fuel burning electricity."

You can say
"I'll carpool or use transit from now on and free myself from my car and its emissions."

You can say
"I'm going to write my Congressperson and tell them tehy will NOT get my vote for reelection unless they pass energy and air legislation that actually decreases our emmissions. Then I'm going to write a letter to thee Editor and share my views."

You can say
"I'm not going to patronize businesses that don't use alternative energy and tell tehm why I'm doing what I'm doing."

Hopefully you get my point. just casting a longing look downwards and moping isn't a solution. if we all do that, for even a day, the deniers have won, and we should just all sit back and watch the seas rise. I want better for my daughters. Will you help me?

Those of us saying we should be working on mitigation not prevention because we CANNOT do prevention in this world are just shaking our heads. There is no way, except by a worse catastrophe than Global warming, to get our carbon footprint to be down at all globally. It just isn't going to happen. Now - what are the plans for that?

The quote in the post article from Schmittner:

"This is tremendous," Schmittner said. "I was struck by the fact that the warming continues much longer even after emissions have declined. . . . Our actions right now will have consequences for many, many generations. Not just for a hundred years, but thousands of years."

was presaged by this RealClimate article from 2005.

llewelly,

That computer models based on parameters and presumptions would be similar to earlier predictions based on those same parameters and presumptions is hardly remarkable.

Here's a prediction, the worldwide emissions of CO2 will not go down for decades. Here's another, there will be no catastrophe.

Phillip H,

Are you telling your daughter that the future is going to be a hellish nightmare world of rising seas and catastrophic climate change, or do you just use her as an emotional rhetorical device?

Honestly are you so vested in this doomsday b.s. that you lose sleep over some theoretical climate disaster diminishing your daughters future? What exactly would that be? Did you invest her college fund in Miami Beach real estate? Do you live in some African country theorized to go into civil war over a future commodities market collapse in the price of grain? Does your family operate a polar bear viewing tour bus or a rain forest canoe trip excursion service?

Seriously, please justify this outrageous plea to save your daughter's future.

Our old friend, denier Lance is here right on schedule. Mr. Lance will believe that global warming is happening then the seas are lapping at his front doorstep.

What Phil said: "I want better for my daughters."

What Lance heard: "the future is going to be a hellish nightmare world of rising seas and catastrophic climate change"

Explains much about Lance's ability to understand data points.

Markk -

Th technology to reduce CO2 emissions to near zero has been around since the 1950s; it's called the Nuclear fission reactor. Despite the fact the the entire history of nuclear power and weapons use has killed less people than a year's coal burning, it has been subjected to a denialism campaign along the same lines as the one directed at AGW by the likes of Lance above.

(If you don't believe this.. then examine the stuff but out by Helen caldicott, Greenpeace, the storm/smith stuff on uranium reserves, and the many people who will write spurious internet posts or letters to newspapers repeating long-disproven points as soon as the topic comes up)

The very first step to stopping global warming is the replacement of all coal fired power plants by nuclear reactors (Net cost: slightly negative)

The Second step is to continue building such reactors to the point where even peak electric demand can be met, thus building up a large surplus of power generation capacity.

The third step is to use this surplus power to synthesise liquid fuels (Methanol, DME, etc) directly from waste wood, paper, plastic and atmospheric CO2.

Finally, during this process you move households over to being all-electric, reducing heating and cooking emissions to zero.

The above steps could cut emissions by in excess of 90% within a couple of decades, without requiring large scale lifestyle changes, whilst also dealing with the political problems associated with oil and gas. With the current price trajectory of fossil fuels in general, it would be cheaper than business as usual.

"want child modeling jobs"

Hmm there must be some kind of misunderstanding. This is about climate modelling, not child modelling...

Lance,
I'm not telling them anything of the sort. I am teaching them what their carbon foot print is, how and why to recycle, and, thanks to their school, engaging in a healthy lesson at the moment in alternative energy and how it might be applied as part of the solution to climate change caused by humans. I am also fulfilling my moral, Christian religious imperative to 1) protect the creation God gave us, and 2) protecte the children who are God's most precious gift to us all.

No, I don't run a polar bear tourist outfit, but that doesn't mean I think we humans have a right to alter the climate resulting in polar bear extinction. I do believe, based on the science, that climate change is real, and that humans are a driving force behind its magnitude and trajectory. I'm an oceanographer by trade, and so I read the peer reviewed literature, assess the statistics, and I have reached the conclusion that we can each do something voluntarily, which will collectively slow if not reverse the trend.

All I'm asking for, instead of throwing our hands in the air in despair, is a little perspective. There are things we can do that have both short and long term positive consequences for our climate and the resources we humans depend on for life. And we can do them in ways that increase economic productivity both in the US and abroad. I want to pass on clean air, fresh, full of life oceans, and yes, less human impact to the environment, as my legacy to my daughters. I think they are worth it.

SLC,

I'll worry about rising sea levels when they start to actually, you know, rise. The IPCC, which normally most of you treat like a collection of sacred oracles, has stated that we can expect sea level to rise between 8 and 30 inches over the next century. Not the stuff of disaster movies. Oh, and sea levels have been rising at about the same rate for thousands of years. I don't notice any "environmentally conscious" celebrities selling their Malibu beach property.

Andrew Dodd,

Way to alienate the only person in here that actually agrees that we need to invest in nuclear energy. It serves you right that the same illogical criticisms you level at me for being an AGW "denialist" are being turned on you by your "progressive" pals. If you think people that idolize Green Peace are going to embrace nuclear energy your are deeply in "denial".

Phillip H.,

Though I am no Christian, I am all for preserving the world we live in and the organisms that share the planet with us. I am "by trade" a physicist and make my living by measuring physical systems, analyzing data and interpreting the results. I also read the peer reviewed literature and have come to the conclusion, at least for now, that we face no dire consequences from "climate change".

I'm sure you're daughter is a wonderful little girl and I also want to pass along to her and all the world's children a world with healthy ecosystems and wide biodiversity.

The biggest issue involved in all of this to me is rationality. I see the majority of the issues involving climate change as overly emotional and politically motivated. The science does not justify the fear mongering and political hype that is rampant here at Scienceblogs and elsewhere in the public discourse on the subject.

In your first post you said,

...if we all do that, for even a day, the deniers have won, and we should just all sit back and watch the seas rise. I want better for my daughters. Will you help me?

Seriously when you make statements like that how do you expect people like me, that earnestly think that the idea of dangerous climate change is inconsistent with the scientific facts are going to react? You have painted us as evil child hating enemies of nature.

When you deride us as "deniers" and then play the old demagogue card of "the children" you have left us no position but adversary. I am more than willing to embrace alternative energy sources, such as Andrew Dodd's nuclear suggestion, when they make sense for rational empirically verifiable and yes economically sound reasons. But if you want to resort to the kind of tactics that portray yourself as a concerned parent and environmentally enlightened advocate for the earth and me as an evil corporate shill that is hell bent on lying about the science to make a buck while little children drown in the rising seas I say "bring it on". The science is on my side and I don't need to drag the emotional image of little children into the debate to prove it.

If you want a rational dialogue about the science I am extending an open hand and open mind. If you want to discuss how we can move forward on an energy policy that will reduce our dependence on unstable foreign suppliers and ensure economically viable sources of energy for the future I am anxious to participate.

The choice is yours. Call me names and demonize me or acknowledge that we have a difference of opinion on the science and work with me towards a compromise on our future energy supply.

I'll worry about rising sea levels when they start to actually, you know, rise.

That was the argument I made with my car insurance company. I'll get car insurance when I actually, you know, need car insurance. I'm sure they'll be sympathetic when I need to file a claim.

Lance,
I apologize if I made you feel demonized. Such was not my intent. You asked me for a response, so I layed one out as carefully as I could. That you took it as you did only proves your point that this IS an emotional issue.

As to your rational dialogue about the science, I keep going to the peer reviewed literature, as I presume you do, and I keep coming up with things that say the climate is changing, that change is being accelerated by human actvities, and not for the better. If you have genuine peer reviewed sources that say otherwise I'd love to see htem. I do think the crox of the arguement between us, scientifically, though, may turn on how much uncertainty we each, professionally, tolerate in our science.

Biology is sloppy - the error bars on most of what biologists do are huge. Same with us Oceanographers I'm afraid. What physics I do read (mostly on large scale ocean movement dynamics) seems to drive to a much finer resolution - smaller error bars. I suspect what you are driving at, at least in part, is that you aren't comfortable with that much uncertainty, and your libertarien streak (I can think of no other good word to describe it) says governments shouldn't be making huge economic policy changes with so mcuh uncertainty.

I can sympathasize, and I'm a bit handicapped in that I haven't seen all your responses, so I don't know where you sit on this quesion - should we wait until the level of error narrows, or should we act now, even if we have to tweak our actions later? The post that got our dialogue started - which I have to say was uncharacteristic for Chris - seemed to imply that, with the latest Washington Post news article and its underlying study, we should just give up. I'm obviously not in the wait and see camp, nor am I in the give up camp. And I take the stand I do because I believe I have a moral, ethical, religious, and scientific obligation to try my darndest to leave my daughters (plural) a better world then I found when I became aware of it.

You said we should work towards a compromise on future energy supplies - I agree. Yet you and I have gone at each other already over the effectivness of solar energy, so I made the incorrect assumption taht you were in the do nothing camp. That was my error, and I won't make it again until the evidence overwhelming says so.

That said, let me close with a weblink to a NOAA seminar I attended today. The graphics are a little hokey, but the pioint of it si that our whole disagreement, indeed the whole climate change fight, may well boil down to which part of our brains is ultimately incharge. it's actually quite fascinating.
http://www.lib.noaa.gov/about/news/NOAATalk.ppt

Philip

Phillip H.

Thanks for your thoughful reply. I went to the slide show link. I'll comment on it later, but wanted to take a minute to ackowledge your attempt to lower the rankor and communicate honestly.

Lance

Lance -

The fact that you are happy to dismiss computer models that have both a good predictive track record and a foundation in basic physics puts you in the denier category; and the insistance that AGW predicts imminent catastrophe is another indicator. Stating the IPCC's position on sea level rise without also mentioning that they deliberately exclude ice sheet dynamics is a third.

As far as alienating people goes.. I'm not going to change my conclusions because I want to be popular or because those conclusions disagree with my politics. AGW is a threat in the medium to long term, Fossil fuel depletion and the related geopolitics are a critical short term threat, and outside of low population density areas, there is no credible model for the ramping of renewables that can meet this challenge.

Andrew Dobbs,
What do you mean when you state that fossil fuel depletion is a critical short-term threat?

Andrew Dodds,
Apologies for misreading your name.

Andrew Dodds,

Lance -
The fact that you are happy to dismiss computer models that have both a good predictive track record and a foundation in basic physics puts you in the denier category

The fact that you continue to hurl invective rather than present evidence puts you in the category of disingenuous emotional advocate.

Computer models, contrary to your unsupported claims, show little predictive value. Just one glaring example of this mismatch with reality is the fact that AGW theory, and the computer models that it relies upon, predict that the middle troposphere should warm more quickly than the lower portion. In fact just the opposite is observed.

Your next proof that I am a "denier" is farcical in its hypocrisy. To claim that I am guilty of exaggerating the "catastrophic" predictions of AGW is laughable. One need look no further than this blog to see that I am hardly guilty of exaggerating the doomsday predictions of AGW proponents. From a Washington Post article linked to in a recent dour post by Chris Mooney titled "Global Warming Sucks" comes this quote by European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas,on the reasons we need to cut CO2 emissions by even more than the previously proposed draconian 60 to 80%, he darkly intones,"If that is not enough, common sense is that we would not let the planet be destroyed." So please don't even try to say that I am exaggerating the claims of AGW doom-mongers.

That I don't include vague references to "ice sheet dynamics" when accurately quoting the IPCC estimates of sea level rise is just so much irrational whining. The fact is that there is no evidence that there is any net trend of ice loss in either Greenland or Antarctica over the last two decades for which satellite data is available. That you would appeal to this diversion as some sort of failing on my part is further evidence of your illogical bias on the subject of global warming.

Phillip H.,

I definitely agree with your remark that, "...the whole climate change fight, may well boil down to which part of our brains is ultimately in charge." Although scientific evidence for the "right brain/left brain" phenomenon is somewhat anecdotal I think it makes for a good analogy of the disparity of views on the topic of global warming.

If you visit ClimateAudit, a skeptical website, you will find that most regular posters have educations in science or engineering. GristMill, an environmentalist website, on the other hand is populated by people, that while of (mostly) high intelligence are generally speaking not scientists or engineers.

In my experience people do look at the world through these two distinctly different filters.

You say that you are comfortable, as an oceanographer, with "huge" error bars. My biggest problem with most of the science used to justify carbon mitigation is that the "error bars" are often vaguely and unscientifically defined and stated, larger than the quantities being measure, or just unstated because they are impossible to quantify or are indeed unknowable.

Given these ill-defined uncertainties that do not provide scientifically verifiable reasons to claim that we face dire future consequences from global warming, advocates of carbon mitigation are forced to appeal to the "precautionary principle". This is a purely emotional appeal given the fact that there are very real costs to cutting fossil fuel use to the extreme necessary to reduce CO2 to levels that approach the "pre-industrial" era.

That is why the majority of AGW proponents resort to emotional name calling rather than rational discussion of the evidence. It is easier to arrogantly declare that the science is "settled" and attack those that challenge your claim as "denialists" that don't care about the future of our "children".

I hope that you and I can avoid this simplistic and unproductive course in our conversation of climate science and the attendant policy issues.

Global warming, even if the some of the worst case scenarios come to pass (by the way, there will be no "runaway global warming"), is not the problem. It is a symptom. But it is not a symptom of "burning fossil fuels," though this may be the proximal cause. Nor is it a result of some kind of moral turpitude. But even if the symptom could be treated, the problem would remain.

One need only examine the historic, and even the prehistoric record, to see the origins of our current human predicament. But the bloggers-in-chief are not expert in these fields and appear to be poorly versed in human cultural systems, population, and resources. Indeed, they remain steadfastly mute even on our modern energy crisis.