babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Prepare for global temperature rise of 4C, warns top scientist
August 7, 2008 - 5:12am
Source.
From the Guardian article in the OP:
The political and social elites have already determined they would prefer to risk a global catastrophe if it means the possibility of exploiting riches currently under frozen seas.
The average citizen is quite happy to continue the party unabated and leave the mess, no matter the consequences, to their children.
It is why even on progressive sites the majority of the discussions are not about what me must give up for a sustainable world, but how do we continue on without giving up anything at all.
Six Degrees
The general idea is to mitigate what can't be adapted to and adapt to what can't be mitigated.
According to a number of studies, the chances of a 2 degree rise in temperature are not negligible even if we were to stop emitting greenhouse gases now, and a two degree rise is likely to be exceeded with a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations. The worst-case scenario appears to be along the lines of the Permian-Triassic extinction. Something to be avoided.
[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: Policywonk ]
Al Gore's allegation that there is a "consensus" among scientists that CO2 has caused the current warming
Is that Right?
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Washington University is the author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with a focus on geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology; environmental and engineering geology Has to say This:
“there is no consensus” -- no one has polled the world’s several hundred thousand scientists. Gore (2006) claimed that of 928 articles dealing with climate change in the past 10 years, none expressed any doubt about the cause of global warming. Lindzen (2006), however, found that of those 928 publications, only 13 favored CO2 as the cause of global warming.
13 of 928 and thats concensus? Thats 2% folks.
Thats the opinoion of an expert, not a person eductated in economics as I am. Don't believe the people that are scaring you that its all our fault, fact is no-one knows.
The warming over the past 50 years is hardly even noticeable on the 15,000 year graph. Compare the peaks about every 800-1000 years for the past 10,000 years (since the last full ice age), all are much warmer than what we're experiencing now. In fact the last 1,000 years has been unusually cool for this interglacial period, just looking at the graph it certainly looks like we've been over due for warming (or if our interglacial period is over another full ice age which would be much worse).
Either provide links to this so we can assess their validity for our selves or maybe give up.
I don't care about Al Gore and his self promotion. You still will not respond to Canadian figures like Watt Cloutier. Just tells me all you've got on this issue is the same line.
So what about cancer. I suppose cigarette smoking has also still not been proven to be a cause of cancer because there is never a direct correlation that can be absolutely pointed too.
Yes, we get it MB, you think that the 0.1% of scientists who are deniers and in relevant fields to climate change are the only ones who should be listened to and you believe anything they say without question. Congratulations you are superior.
Previously, Michelle has got rid of these morons, as this is not a site for the promotion of far right-wing conspiracy theories. MB has contributed nothing to this site except his denier propaganda.
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]
The warming over the past 200 years is certainly noticeable on the 8000 year graph.
How about some links to Easterbrook's data and graphs? And why a 15,000 year comparison?
You might want to comment on this:
Article with graphs
Hadley Centre Prediction
I would be willing to bet that barring a few major volcanic eruptions, the decade 2011-2020 will be warmer than the current decade by a statistically significant amount, and that the Arctic ice cap will disappear in that time period.
Link?
This page refutes all of the arguments of the denialists, skeptics, and self-described agnostics
How to talk to a skeptic, including the idea the scientific view in the 70s was that we were on the verge of another glacial period.
The trouble is, they don't listen.
Righto. If Suzuki said that in the 70s the deniers would be reminding people of it daily. Either provide a link or some evidence or if you come up with none then please retract your statement.
[ 13 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]
David MacRae is a software consultant who works out of his home in St. Laurent, Quebec.
THE CONTRARIAN
GLOBAL WARMING
AND DAVID SUZUKI'S LIES
by David MacRae
When I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, one of the highlights of my TV-viewing week was David Suzuki's excellent The Nature of Things. Each week I looked forward to yet another lucid insight into the workings of technology and the natural world. As a consequence of that long-running series, Suzuki is by far the best-known scientist in Canada. In fact, he has a considerable reputation worldwide.
Half-truths man
It's sad to see how a man I once admired has recently stooped to obfuscation, half-truths and outright lies in support of the Luddite cause of stopping technological progress. He imagines that we should return to some mythical past in which Mankind lived in harmony with nature.
Of course, Man has never lived in harmony with nature. Instead he has fought it from the beginning, and rightly so. Until the capitalist revolution of the last 250 years gave us some control over Nature's depredations, the vast majority of people lived lives that were brutish, backbreaking and short. The « rich » were those who had a full belly with an occasional helping of meat.
In their mad dash back to this imaginary garden, Suzuki and the other eco-nuts have always set their sights first and foremost on the energy industry. This is because energy is the foundation of a modern of economy. Destroy that and mankind will truly return to the past. In their lemming rush, they ignore one small detail: if they ever achieved their goals, billions of people would die. In their death throes, they would unleash an ecological catastrophe that would dwarf the extinction of the dinosaurs.
Twenty-five years ago, the eco-nuts were fussing about how another ice age was coming. Remember that? Today it's the opposite problem; the ice caps are about to melt and we're all going to be drowned. Conveniently, the cause of this coming disaster is the energy industry. To support this idea Suzuki and the rest of the eco-nut fringe present us with the following « reasoning »:
1) The earth is warming up;
2) Man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, are the cause;
3) This global warming will have a disastrous effect on the future of Mankind and the planet on the whole;
4) The Kyoto Protocol, forcing developed nations to cut back on carbon emissions, will save us from this disaster.
All four of these claims are false. Let's take them in turn:
* Claim: The earth is warming.
* Fact: The global temperature reached its modern peak about 1940 and declined somewhat in the following decade. It has not changed significantly in the last fifty years although there has been considerable variation from year to year, largely due to the El Niсo phenomenon.
* Claim: The cause of warming is man-made increases in atmospheric CO2.
* Fact: The cause of global temperature change is – wait for this – changes in the amount of radiation emitted by the sun. Should this surprise anyone? It is intuitively obvious and was first verified scientifically more than a hundred years ago.
* Claim: This warming will cause global disaster.
* Fact: A somewhat higher global temperature would be beneficial. Since the end of the last Ice Age, the global temperature has usually been higher than it is today. A long high plateau occurred between 8000 BC and 4000 BC. This period is called the Neolithic Climatic Optimum, not the Neolithic Climatic Disaster. Another shorter rise around 1000 AD has a similar name: the Medieval Climatic Optimum. Global temperatures were at a minimum between 1300 AD and 1650 AD. This period is called the Little Ice Age. To put it simply: Heat good. Cold bad. Can any Canadian really doubt this?
* Claim: Kyoto will save us all.
* Fact: Even if fully implemented, Kyoto will have a minimal effect on atmospheric accumulations of carbon dioxide. According to the exact same climate models which supposedly prove that the earth is heating up due to CO2 emissions are the cause, Kyoto would not change things by more than 0.1єC over the next century, an insignificant amount.
I am not going to justify these statements. If you want to look further into it, Junkscience.com has some good links. I especially recommend John Daly's Still Waiting for the Greenhouse and Arthur B. Robinson's Oregon Petition Project. Instead I want to concentrate on Suzuki part in this scam.
Since his thesis contradicts known facts in every way, he necessarily resorts to lies, blustering and misdirection in order to support his position. This is typical of any fanatic.
The Canoe Session
Let's watch his mendacity and obfuscation in action. On September 21st, canoe.ca sponsored him in an Internet Chat Session on this subject. From the transcript, I've extracted all the exchanges he made with his debunkers, people who disagree with his precepts. The rest were supporters or people who were simply looking for information.
We'll start with a simple request for information before we go on to people who actually confront his lies.
Richard Weatherill: Is it fairly conclusive that human activity is the primary cause of climate change, or can it be attributed equally as well to some cyclic phenomena, of which we are only dimly aware, if at all? Thank you.
David Suzuki: It's possible of course that there are things we don't even know about but the overwhelming consensus of climatologists is that we are a major cause of a warming that is not a natural cycle.
This claim is simply a lie. The overwhelming consensus of climatologists is that, if warming exists at all, its causes are natural. In all polls of climatologists conducted so far, those who expressed an opinion were far more likely to disagree with the Greenhouse theory than to accept it. For example, a 1997 Gallup poll indicated that 83 per cent of North American climatologists disagree with it.
Alan Caruba: Is it not true that the earth's overall temperature has not increased in at least the past fifty years? That no satellite or radiosonde balloon data has found a rise in temperature since around 1950 or so?
David Suzuki: The data that have been gathered, including recalibrated satellite info, support a 1є rise in the last century.
Notice that he did not answer the question. Everyone agrees that temperatures have risen over the last century. In fact, they have risen steadily over a three hundred year period starting about 1650. As I noted, the modern peak in 1940 and temperatures have been stable since 1950. Yes, temperatures rose in the first half of the twentieth century. The question was about the second half.
« As the years go by, there is a stronger and stronger consensus among climatologists that global warming does not exist. There is virtual unanimity that if warming is taking place, the causes are natural. »
Edited to add:
And by the way, since you're the one who brought up Suzuki in the first place, knocking him down amounts to beating up on a straw man.
[ 13 August 2008: Message edited by: pogge ]
You have offered no evidence of such. Please retract the statement. Deniers manage to find and repeat such things over and over again. If Suzuki had said such a thing then Deniers would be repeating his remarks daily. They have found no remarks from Suzuki. Retract your lie please.
This is also the second time that you have called those who are in agreement with 99.8% of the scientists in fields related to climate change - econazis. Is that allowed on babble?
Ah, a scientific expert I see.
One method of dealing with climate change may be to stop technological progress. A far more likely route is actually to increase the speed of technological progress. Doing real good so far MacRae.
This is completely irrelevant, we are discussing the science of climate change - something MacRae gets completely wrong.
25 years ago there was almost no scientific support for a looming ice age. Even at that time there was far more scientific support in favor of warming due to increases in ghgs. Read the scientific journals. In the 70s you will find almost no mention of a looming ice age in scientific journals - and most of those mentions are critical of the idea, while there are already far more mentions of global warming in those scientific journals.
Whether the cause is convenient or not is irrelevent, it is still the cause - well understood by the scientific community and any lay person who understands basic science and has taken the small amount of time required to understand the issue.
This is beyond false. Not even the likes of Lindzen, Spencer and Christy would make such a bogus claim.
Complete bullshit.
Complete bullshit. The relationship of solar radiation/intensity and temperature has a strong link going back a couple hundred years and up until the mid- to late 1970s. This has been well established by Dr Sami Solanki whose work has often been used incorrectly by deniers and indeed who has been listed as a denier by many including Soloman in his NP articles and his book called Deniers. Of course none of them bother to say that Solanki hasn't shown that the Sun is responsible for the warming - which is what he set out to prove - but in fact the opposite as Solanki himself makes clear stating that the temperature has increased rapidly in the last 30 years while solar radiation/intensity has not increased.
I don't think that there is any point going farther.
Please do not spread these lies on babble.
[ 13 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]
I don't know if it is irrelevant, but it is an astoundingly stupid thing to say as we are products of nature. For all we know we are fulfilling our natural function by bringing about ecological changes that will be catastrophic for us but will be barely a blip in the life of the planet.
I think the reason why Tickell thinks it's dangerous to make contingency plans for a 4 °C is that giving yourself a chance to make it through the catastrophe might take away some of the sense of urgency to prevent things from going that far. I don't think this is the case. I suppose it's possible, just like I suppose it's possible that people who wear seat belts or helmets are more likely to crash their vehicles.
Now an even newer study from the Tyndall Centre has more bad news:
4° temperature rise "almost certain"
The methane time bomb
The Independent - Arctic scientists discover new global warming threat as melting permafrost releases millions of tons of a gas 20 times more damaging than carbon dioxide
On the other hand, the MSM covered this story in the past few days: Discovery waters down fears of fast-melting ice.
I think the threat from methane clathrates is more serious than that of melting permafrost on land even if localized wedges of ice do survive warming periods, especially if some idiots try to disturb the clathrates by trying to exploit them for energy.
Don't forget that in the atmosphere methane oxidises to form CO2 and H2O, so even it's decay products are greenhouse gases, making it the global warming "gift" that keeps on giving.
Actually, oxidizing (or burning) methane is a good thing relative to releasing it into the atmosphere because the global warming potential of carbon dioxide is much less than methane and the atmospheric lifetime of water vapour is much less than that of methane.
Ah, but the residence time of CO2 (more than a hundred years, and growing) is an order of magnitude greater than for CH4 (ten+ years). The residence time of H2O is mere days, but as the atmosphere warms, it will hold more water vapour.
The GWP of methane is rather more than an order of magnitude greater than carbon dioxide averaged over the residence time of methane.
A warmer atmosphere will hold more water vapour regardless of whether it comes from combustion or evaporation (which dwarfs combustion by several orders of magnitude).
Quite true, but my point is you get both from methane emissions, since when the methane oxidises (not the same as combustion) it turns into CO2.
Also true.