Online Opinion has published my review of Al Gore’s film on climate change as an alternative to the offering by Bob Carter. I regard Gore’s science and his take on climate change as mainstream. He presumably has access to the best advice. In January, for example, he asked James Hansen of NASA GISS to critique his slide show. In this post I want to explore some of the edgier material that has come to hand since Gore made his film. Gore is far from the scariest guy around on the topic.
The scariest quote around is from Andrew Watson, Professor of Environmental Science University of East Anglia:
The Earth has been, broadly speaking, cooling over the last 50 million years and we are going to push it back into a very much warmer state. Is it going to be stable? That’s a very good question. I don’t know the answer to that. The fact is that the last time we had high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 100 million years ago and the Sun was a little bit cooler at that time. Now if we push it up…this is not something that most climatologists will talk about but I think that there is a small chance, maybe a 1% chance, that if we really hit the planet too hard we may push it into a runaway system in which the temperature simply goes up and up until the oceans boil into the atmosphere, and that would extinguish all life on Earth. (Emphasis added)
Annamaria Talas, who produced the ABC RN program this quote came from, said at Quiggin’s that the statement was speculative and came from computer modelling. But it was not off the top of his head. Talas says:
Watson believes we are all here because of a series of fortunate events that were just right for life to emerge and warns that things are getting more and more difficult even without human forcing, so please hands off! The system is instable.
James Lovelock too worries that Gaia is getting old and tired.
In the same radio program Vicky Pope, Group Head of the Climate Prediction Programme Hadley Centre, Exeter said:
Essentially the uncertainty is whether it’s going to be bad or very bad, not whether it’s going to be good or bad.
So the question is how deep are we in and how much time have we got?
James Hansen in his New York Review of Books article says that we are at the tipping point right now. For at least three years now he has been outlining a strategy to implement what he calls an “alternative scenario� wherein the CO2 is limited to 485ppm, which is what he thinks is necessary to limit warming to another 1C. Any more would be dangerous.
It is worth noting here that the relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature is, I understand, essentially logarithmic. The more we pollute the less impact it has at the margin. Bu it is estimated that if CO2 doubles from 280 to 560ppm then the temperature will go up by 3C. The ‘business as usual’ scenario sees this level being reached by 2100.
The usual response, in Britain at least, is to cut emissions by 60% by 2050 with the aim of limiting temperature rise by 2C. (Please note that Hansen and his associates think that’s already dangerous.) Scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research say we have to go further. They reckon the government has ignored air transport and shipping. When those two are dealt into the equation the reduction required becomes 90%!
They give us four years to get our act together. Then we have to reduce emissions by 9% each year for 20 years.
Peter Smith, Special Professor of Sustainability Energy at the University of Nottingham, is also in a hurry. He wants to limit CO2 to 440ppm and reckons in 20 years it will be game over if we don’t act now. He wants an immediate start on tidal bridge technology and would clearly like the House of Commons to be flooded in order to concentrate the minds of politicians. A bit of bad weather and a two metre tidal surge in the Thames should do the trick.
Finally, there are a couple of things that worry me about climate change. One is that in recent times scientists constantly seem surprised that things are worse than they thought. Recently we have had scares about Greenland ice melting, methane burps in Siberia, arctic ice melting quicker than expected and increased fragility of the Amazon rain-forest as some of the ones we know about.
Frances Cairncross in her British Association address gave them the full Rummy on knowns and unknowns and then focussed on the known unknown of “the possibility of some extreme and profoundly destructive event.� What we are coming to know, I think, is that rather than looking for a single destructive event we should be concerned about the whole range of events that interact with each other within the whole earth system. Taken together the net positive feedback could constitute the final tipping point. This is what makes this ‘tipping point’ stuff so hard, but climate scientists like Hansen are trying to tell us, I think, that that is where we are. But it is difficult to prove beyond doubt. Until we wake in fright one day and discover we have already tipped.
Secondly, Gore, Hansen and others who express confidence in the success of mitigating action mostly seem to rely on the geosequestration of CO2 from burning coal as a central part of the answer. If this proves impossible, what then?
Still, we needn’t worry. Our man in Canberra is right on the job. What’s more “Australia is actually chairing the major dialogue that is trying to build a post-Kyoto arrangement that is effective.�
She’ll be right, for sure! But so will the coal industry, methinks.
Yes, I’m afraid it will take another climate disaster or two (in the downtown first world, and not even its regions, eg New Orleans )to focus the mind of our ideologically obsolete politicians.
The only posiitive I can tihnk of: we are acually so indifferently wasteful with CO2, the first tranche of deep cuts will barely touch the sides. I doubt we’ll even notice the impact.
Its the second and third that will require some real change in the way the live.
Even if it proves possible, it is not going to be on stream on a sufficient scale to make a difference for a couple of decades or so.
That said, I think the environmental movement needs to be strategic about how it responds to the Howard government’s boosting of geosequestration as a fix. The response needs to be on two tracks:
1. The government is falsely counterposing geosequestration to renewables, energy efficiency and other steps that can and must be taken now. The environmental movement needs to avoid falling into this false opposition and, rather than finding things wrong with geosequestration, assert the positive case for alternatives which can make a difference sooner rather than later.
2. The current price signals means that power produced using “clean coal” technologies will be less economically attractive than power produced using conventional coal technologies. Therefore the Howard government is either insincere or incoherent in promoting geosequestration as a fix when it is opposing other measures (such as a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme as per Kyoto) which are necessary for “clean coal” to become a better option economically.
As I understand him, Hansen has a three-phase strategy.
1. Go flat out on renewables and other non carbon sources while you are solving geosequestration and other long-term replacement technologies.
2. Build only geosequestered coal power plants in the developed world from 2012 and in the developing world from 2022.
3. As new technologies and their infrastructure phase in, start a program from 2025 of bulldozing old-style coal power stations.
That’s it in the broad. But lately he says he sees his “alternative scenario” slipping away which means more drastic action to catch up.
This is an important point, that unless a way can be found to extract more energy from the geosequestration process, than is being put in (highly unlikely), then it is always going to be more expensive and not take off unless either regulations banning dirty coal, or more efficiently, carbon taxes are put in place as well. As you say without that its pretty much an insincere effort.
It’s a curious thing, do those of us who believe in the urgency of action regarding climate change take the alarmist approach a la Lovelock?
I know that when I talk to most folks they have an awareness of the problem but no real sense of urgency about it. For most climate change is just something they read about in the papers.
And of course because the science is so complex it’s a difficult thing to outline to folks. As such I think that we’ll just keep on whistling into the wind until some big event knocks the stuffing out of us.
If geosequestration proves unworkable, there is nuclear power.
I defy anybody to look me in the eye and tell me that nuclear power, that has operated safely in the Western world for decades, is worse than the risks of continuing to use unsequestered fossil fuel power stations.
I defy anybody to look me in the eye and tell me that nuclear power, that has operated safely in the Western world for decades, is worse than the risks of continuing to use unsequestered fossil fuel power stations.
Well, nuclear power would be better than unsequestered coal, but it’s like Mr Norton said above, you can’t fall into a false opposition about it. Nuclear doesn’t help the cause of the problem, and it takes a long time to build, and in the meantime it’d be great if we could bang in a bunch of renewable power stations as well. An argument about the best way to do things is no use, if we just end up not doing anything about anything.
there was better formatting in there, I swear there was…
Meanwhile, over in Norway…
I was walking along the road with two friends. The sun was setting.
I felt a breath of melancholy – Suddenly the sky turned blood-red as the atmosphere tipped over into runaway greenhouse,I stopped, and leaned against the railing, deathly tired – looking out across the flaming clouds that hung like blood and a sword over the blue-black fjord and town.
My friends walked on – I stood there, trembling with fear.
And I sensed a great, infinite scream pass through nature.
( Apologies to whassiname)
A recent Scientific American (Sep 2006) talks about strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions over the long-term. In thinking about this, it isn’t useful to say “nuclear bad, renewables good” (ok I’m being extreme) but rather it’s useful to look at all sorts of possibilities, their positive and negatives, and what strategies we can use to achieve the goals people want to achieve.
The link between Mind and Social / Environmental-Issues.
The fast-paced, consumerist lifestyle of Industrial Society is causing exponential rise in psychological problems besides destroying the environment. All issues are interlinked. Our Minds cannot be peaceful when attention-spans are down to nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds. Our Minds cannot be peaceful if we destroy Nature.
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment.
Subject : In a fast society slow emotions become extinct.
Subject : A thinking mind cannot feel.
Subject : Scientific/ Industrial/ Financial thinking destroys the planet.
Subject : Environment can never be saved as long as cities exist.
Emotion is what we experience during gaps in our thinking.
If there are no gaps there is no emotion.
Today people are thinking all the time and are mistaking thought (words/ language) for emotion.
When society switches-over from physical work (agriculture) to mental work (scientific/ industrial/ financial/ fast visuals/ fast words ) the speed of thinking keeps on accelerating and the gaps between thinking go on decreasing.
There comes a time when there are almost no gaps.
People become incapable of experiencing/ tolerating gaps.
Emotion ends.
Man becomes machine.
A society that speeds up mentally experiences every mental slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.
A ( travelling )society that speeds up physically experiences every physical slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.
A society that entertains itself daily experiences every non-entertaining moment as Depression / Anxiety.
FAST VISUALS /WORDS MAKE SLOW EMOTIONS EXTINCT.
SCIENTIFIC /INDUSTRIAL /FINANCIAL THINKING DESTROYS EMOTIONAL CIRCUITS.
A FAST (LARGE) SOCIETY CANNOT FEEL PAIN / REMORSE / EMPATHY.
A FAST (LARGE) SOCIETY WILL ALWAYS BE CRUEL TO ANIMALS/ TREES/ AIR/ WATER/ LAND AND TO ITSELF.
To read the complete article please follow either of these links :
PlanetSave
EarthNewsWire
sushil_yadav
“Man becomes machine.”
?????
Is this the long-foretold coming of the Anti-Bird?
Here’s a thought, Sacha: in the medium-term, technological advances will cause carbon to become the preferred feedstock for manufacturing applications. This will lead to predictions of global cooling and environmental collapse as carbon is stripped from the atmosphere in large volumes.
BBB
There seems to be two basic issues with getting the AGW message out. Firstly in a noisy data set where the swings around the trend are bigger than the change in the trend, its hard to show people conclusively that something is happenning. If you want to try and claim that say 2005’s US Hurricanes were because of global warming, you’ll look like an idiot when the next year there is hardly any activity and to some extent you are an idiot. For all intents and purposes they are mostly random, the average additional effect is small compared to the swings that happen year to year. So we are left looking for a historical trend and by the time the trend becomes so blindingly obvious compared to the year to year swings the horse has already bolted.
The second issue I think is convincing people that it is worthwhile adjusting their behaviour. This is the line John Howard took on a national scale when he said
There seems to be no individual advantage in me putting in energy efficient lighting when my neighbour is putting in new airconditioning system.
Smaller electricity bills?
Kim, I don’t disagree with Paul’s observations. He’s quite right that the government’s position on “clean coal” is a nonsense; it might work (AFAICT, it probably will), but by its very nature it will be more expensive than simply sending the CO2 up the exhaust pipe.
Like Steve said, bring on the carbon tax, and let the most cost-effective ways of bringing down emissions do their thing. It’s just that I very much doubt that the answers are going to come down the way the green movement would prefer.
BBB said:
Ahh – there’d you’d have the reverse problem! Quick, everyone start up their dirty coal power plants!
The problem with Howard’s strategy is that it all relies on hope – hope that improvements in technology and increased efficiencies will solve everything. I hope this is happens, but you need more than hope!
I havn’t heard Howard talk about a strategy that doesn’t rely on hope.
FDB, sure if it outweighs the addition upfront cost etc. Perhaps I should have said buying the more expensive renewable electricity.
Some may dismiss it as assuaging my middle class guilt, but I genuinely believe in being even a small part of the solution. There was a minor stoush here not long back when one wierd dude we all know and love was running precisely your current line.
As I told observa, the ‘one person/nation can’t make a difference’ argument is intellectually lazy, not least in that it’s simply wrong (i.e. no difference can possibly be made without many ‘one people’) but also in that it plays down the role of social pressure. Even without active prosyletising, seeing someone else set a good example sets off helpful things like guilt and shame. Unless these feelings are massaged away by the fallacious notion that one person can’t make a difference, they might be drivers of change in one more person, then another, then another.
A veritable snowball of do-goodery.
Further to Howard’s comment that:
Has he thought through the implications of applying this logic to the presence of Australian troops in Iraq, when the facts are that whatever contribution they are making to a “solution” (at great expense to the taxpayer and increased risk to Australians from terrorist attacks) will be and is being overwhelmed by the errors and omissions of other actors?
Just sayin’
I hired an old early 60’s Twilight Zone DVD the other day, and, lo and behold, it was about Global Warming! But not as we know it.
Unlike the current debate, Rod Serling kept it simple, but somewhat more immdiate and dramatic. The earth somehow tilted on its axis (or something) and was drifting towards the sun, giving life on earth about 2 weeks to live!!!
FDB,
I’m not saying we shouldn’t do anything for this reason, I am saying it makes it harder for individuals to see it when there doesn’t appear to be much tangible benefit.
People can cooperate for collective gain I’m just saying many times they won’t for this reason.
Just on what Steve said about noisy data sets, there hasn’t been much news about hurricanes this year, and denialists are apt to remind us that they have had big ones before. I find that people are very unscientific about these things. These days farmers take global warming as an accepted fact, but I’m not sure that’s based on an appreciation of the science. After WW2 they blamed weather anomalies on ‘the bomb’ and before that on all the cannon fire in WW1.
Probably I’m being ungenerous.
btw, I heard today (on our ABC) that the ozone hole had reached record proportions. The reason? Antarctica had been experiencing unusually cold weather this year. So we are going to no doubt hear that all is well and we can relax.
On getting people to change, I think the carbon tax can do much. It should be steep enough to provide real disincentives for buying air-conditioners etc, while desirable behaviour should be supported.
The Tyndall people were suggesting things like a new building code, a return to train travel, not allowing planes to take off unless they were full.
George Monbiot has some interesting comments on the Tyndall study. It seems that we can take being strategic and politically realistic too far. As he says:
But if you were ever depressed you could always read some Amory Lovins. Now it seems you can also read Gar Lipow who reckons it’s all a piece of cake.
Very interesting and powerfully written post, Brian.
Thanks muchly, Kim.
Brian sez:
“I regard Gore’s science and his take on climate change as mainstream.�
Mainstream for science-workers when taken as a group perhaps. But suppose we took climate-scientists over 50……
I would say in that case its a minority view. That is the idea that it is ALREADY time to worry about a heating disaster would be a minority view in the older climate-scientist networks.
This whole thing has been fueled largely by leftist journalists and NON-CLIMATE-SCIENCE-SCIENCE-WORKERS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“In January, for example, he asked James Hansen of NASA GISS to critique his slide show.�
Well thats all well and good but:
1. Asking aint enough.
2. We rely on the specialists for the CONCRETE FACTS… and from there we must make our OWN judgement calls. Now Hansens the real deal alright. He’s seriously able to give up the concrete facts. But why not ask a skeptic? Just as a fact-checker why not ask a skeptic? Because of the eminently qualified people Hansen is at the outer edge of the LETS-PANIC-NOW crowd.
3. With regards to BOB CARTER you should when you are judging contending EXPERTS boil it down to concrete facts before making your own judgement call.
Now when all is said and done it might be that HANSEN would not dispute with a single concrete non-speculative fact that Bob Carter says…… AND VICE VERSA.
So the idea is to get from the academy what the academy can rightly give.
Otherwise you wind up following your own fears and dreams.
GMB’s iron law of persistent public disputes is that the mainstream virtually MUST BE substantially wrong in these cases and this is no consolation to the most prominent alternative which is likely to be substantially wrong itself.
So when scientists disagree it is time for the laity to check their reasoning.
A job for which they ARE INDEED qualified for.
A job for which they CANNOT AFFORD to wimp out of.
Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist, has a great new blog which covers the common misunderstandings about climate change exceptionally well. Lots of other bits and pieces too. Very highly recommended. This post is essential reading for all who want to know why denialists are talking out their arse.
This name “denialist” is only ever said by idiots.
Its incredibly dishonest. Its actually leftist projection.
Whose a denialist and what are they denying?
Right Nexus 6.
I went to this fellows blog and I posted the following message. I want people to think about how much of the conclusions some of these guys have come to are not really CLIMATE SCIENCE conclusions. The contain also economic inferences which the climate scientists aren’t really the best people to be taking advice from.
So anyhow this is what I wrote. And I don’t know whether he’ll let it through or not:
“For small warming (e.g., 1 deg C over the next 100 years), current thinking is that harms and benefits are largely comparable, although it is estimated that harms still outweigh the benefits. As the warming increases, the harms get much bigger, and begin dominating over benefits somewhere around 2-3 deg C of warming. That’s why 2-3 deg C is often referred to as a tipping point or threshold for dangerous anthropogenic interference. Warmings much greater, say 5 deg C, would be a calamity of Biblical proportions … real Wrath of God stuff.”
Look dude. You can comment on anything you like of course. But third parties should realise that when it comes to the above you ARE RIGHT OUT OF YOUR FIELD OF EXPERTISE.
And people don’t realise this. I come from the point of view that warming will be good. Warming of ALL the magnitudes you mention here. But my background is in economics. Not in Climate Science.
So far I have not seen any concrete facts about climate science offered by you that don’t sound right to me.
But the above words that I’ve quoted of yours contain quite a great deal of economic inferences. Economic inferences that I find implausible.
Now how is it that you reckon a 5 degrees average increase in temperature would be so catastrophic IF IT WAS CAUSED BY CO2-BASED WARMING.
Since it would be a case of heat differentials reducing its likely to be very benign.
And how can you possibly suggest that the net of benefits/costs is likely to be skewed towards the cost side with CO2-based warming?
As you would know CO2 increases plant yields and reduces water transpiration of plants. CO2-based warming is going to increase average rainfalls.
So its not credible (speaking from an economics perspective) that costs would outmatch benefits on an A-PRIORI basis.
Nexus 6, thanks for the link. It’s a great blog. I like his style.
Bird, when you said the term ‘denialist’ was only used by idiots, I thought you were referring to me. If I realised you were referring to Nexus 6 I would have deleted the comment on the grounds that you should be courteous to other commenters. I’d say id the cap fits…
I’d call Bob Carter a denialist. I think I’ve called you an enthusiast in the past.
I actually doubt that Hansen and Carter would agree about much except that the most important greenhouse gas is water vapour, or we’d all be frozen solid. You might be interested in this post at RealClimate. It’s Gavin Schmidt tearing into an Australian climate ‘contrarian’, almost certainly Bob Carter. I think you’ll find Schmidt works for Hansen.
Have to go to bed now. More later.
But its a stupid word Brian.
What on earth do you think that Bob is IN DENIAL of?
He’s not denying that the earth has gotten warmer. And he’s not denying that humans putting CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of some of it. So what are you claiming he’s in denial over.
Once again. Its an IDIOTS WORD. And there can be no doubt about that.
>>>>>>>>>>
Now over to that climate scientists blog. My comment made it through. And he acknowledged that for this allegedly disastrous effects he was relying on others. But he didn’t mention any eonomists. He was relying on the IPCC “experts”.
Then someone put together those alleged experts and none of them were economists.
So the whole thing is circular. They are panicing over nothing. If we could only tap the climate scientists for what they know and seperate that from any econmic inferences we would see that there is just no panic.
Surely Brian its you in denial here. I mean I’ve been talking to you for awhile now and have you been taking any of it on board?
Warming beneficial? It’s an interesting view to take but one that denies scientific evidence. Hence, the correct term for those that stick the heads on in the sand is denialism. Pure and simple.
I saw a good presentation by Steve Long last week on the effect of elevated CO2 and ozone levels in field experiments testing crop response. Turns out predictions of beneficial growing conditions based on earlier greenhouse experiments didn’t hold up in the field. Unfortunately, when these results are factored into models of future crop yields what was a slight increase in many cases becomes a rather large negative (country by country). One of the more worrying results I’ve seen.
So why is warming beneficial then, Bird?
Oh goodness gracious me!
Don’t you worry about that!
“btw, I heard today (on our ABC) that the ozone hole had reached record proportions. The reason? Antarctica had been experiencing unusually cold weather this year. So we are going to no doubt hear that all is well and we can relax.”
Yes we probably will hear this, but it will show how ill informed (or dishonest) the denialists are. One of the key predictions of Greenhouse science is that the stratosphere will get cooler. (Think about it – greenhouse gasses don’t create more heat, they just trap it in one place. This means that somewhere else has to be cooler to make up, and one of those places is the stratosphere).
It’s in the stratosphere that CFSs destroy ozone, and they do so more effectively at cold temperatures. So increased global warming leads to increased strospheric cooling, which leads to increased ozone depletion.
The ozone hole has broadly remained constant over the last few years (on a seasonal basis). The reason appears to be that reduced emissions of CFCs have been balanced by increased Greenhouse gasses, meaning that those CFCs still up there are more damaging.
“Warming beneficial? It’s an interesting view to take but one that denies scientific evidence.”
No thats not true at all. You are the one denying the scientific evidence. Extra CO2 improves plant yields. There is no scientific evidence that CO2-based warming will cause economic hardship in the net sense. And you will not find such evidence here or on Quiggins site.
The panic-first crowd studiously stay away from the evidence.
I’ve got access to a site with hundreds of studies to do with CO2 enhancing plant growth. And they are all lined up in tables.
But everytime that someone conducts one of the few studies where this doesn’t work all that well it becomes interenational news.
This is not science this is tendenciousness. The study that Nexus posted is not some research breakthrough. It is to line itself up with the thousands of other studies out there. The overwhelming number of which show CO2 is greatly beneficial to nature.
“SoyFACE has added a unique element by introducing surface-level ozone, which also is rising. Ozone is toxic to plants. SoyFACE is the first facility in the world to test both the effects of future ozone and CO2 levels on crops in the open air.”
They’ve bloody added Ozone to the plants to reduce the plant yields.
Well thats the end of that mystery. CO2 makes plants grow faster. Whereas Ozone HURTS plant growth.
Way to go to rig an experiment.
Bird, are you really saying that experiments such as FACE shouldn’t try to match what the conditions are expected to be in the future? You’re not reading their results correctly either. Increased CO2 (on its own) provides far less of a benefit than expected for some crops and no benefit for others. The addition of ozone, which is increasing in the lower atmosphere due to hydrocarbon burning, then puts the yields at a comparative negative.
All earlier economic projections for beneficial plant growth conditions were worked out with greenhouse experiments, not field experiments. You do understand the difference between a greenhouse and a field experiment don’t you? You do realise that FIELD experiments are always more accurate at judging the effects of certain conditions on FIELD grown crops? Are your super tables results from field experiments or are they not? Do fill us in. You sure are providing a wonderful example of denialism in action.
“It’s in the stratosphere that CFSs destroy ozone, and they do so more effectively at cold temperatures.”
Now why would that be the case? Lets see some evidence for that champ.
In any case while O3 filters out some of the intensity of the UV sinlight extra water vapour blocks some of that intensity and most likely even the CO2 a little bit. Or at least thats how it has been argued on this site. When people want to steal money off others they will tend to throw everything into the argument.
So even supposing that the ozone problem isn’t solved, as STEVE-I seems to think, we have two other factors mitigating against the loss of ozone.
We have extra water vapour, including cloud cover and we have extra CO2 (if indeed CO2 filters out much UV at all).
Now then there is also the idea that losing ozone (it not being established that we haven’t solved this alleged problem) is really not much of a problem at all.
Look at where this ozone hole opens up. In very low latitudes where the sun isn’t particularly intense in the first place. They still have hats and sunglasses in places like Christchurch and Buenos Aires. And surely the idea is to have a few trees around for the critters.
Where is the big problem with that? We have two unnecessary layers of panic here. Actually 3.
1. We have compensating water vapour, cloud cover and CO2 if there is extra CO2-based warming.
2. We fixed the O3 problems anyhow.
3. It wasn’t a problem in the first place.
In fact with the extra aerosols, cloud cover, water vapour and CO2, and so forth you might want that O3 getting the hell out of the way so we can get more UV to the plants.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Back to that science worker/leftist journalist nexus and how it is that they mislead.
Looking at the NEXUS-6 link we find some extraordinary fancy footwork to make it look like this is some sort of NEW STUDY THAT SHOWS THE CO2 DOESN’T WORK.
The way they do this is lead in with the open air nature of the study. Now how the hell it is that you can both have a controlled atmosphere AND open-air isn’t quite explained.
But it is insinuated that this is a more realistic study then the thousands of others that show CO2 to be a massive boost to plant growth.
BUT IT SHOWS NO SUCH THING.
It is well-known that OZONE INHIBITS PLANT GROWTH.
Ozone inhibits plant growth and CO2 mitigates against the growth inhibiting effects of the OZONE. So there is nothing NEW about this study. And its just been spun that way. And the worst combination of all would be to have all this extra OZONE around and not to have the extra CO2 to compensate for it.
So here we see the madness of the panic movement. You have OZONE that is the problem. And yet they blame it on CO2???????
OZONE AT GROUND LEVEL………………BAD
CO2……………….GOOD.
Everyone got that yet?
“All earlier economic projections for beneficial plant growth conditions were worked out with greenhouse experiments, not field experiments.”
Thats bullshit too.
But in any case if they think that its not the OZONE that inhibited the plant growth but instead some sort of alleged enhanced realism of the experiment then these science-workers aren’t fit to wash a real scientiests feet.
I must repeat. That the plant growth inhibition of OZONE is well known. And that CO2 helps combat that.
Now you allege that the atmosphere is going to be burdened with all this extra OZONE. Where is your evidence for this? Why don’t we do something about the OZONE instead of the CO2?
OZONE……….HURTS PLANT GROWTH
CO2……………HELPS PLANT GROWTH.
CO2 production is inherent in fossil fuel energy production. OZONE is not.
“ou’re not reading their results correctly either. Increased CO2 (on its own) provides far less of a benefit than expected for some crops and no benefit for others. The addition of ozone, which is increasing in the lower atmosphere due to hydrocarbon burning, then puts the yields at a comparative negative.”
No you are making that up.
And the journalist nutball who wrote the article isn’t linking any scientific report of the experiment for us to see what really happened.
You have NOTHING in this article.
Nothing at all.
The obvious net benefits of CO2-based warming still stand undented by this nothing link.
Bird, your argument doesn’t make any sense. Do you even understand how science works? Have a good read of this paper.
You will note that I’m not making anything up but rather relying on very recent peer-reviewed scientific papers. Sorry to show how utterly wrong you are, Bird. Don’t let it be too disheartening.
No its your argument that makes no sense.
And its you that are the denialist. And its you that appears to not know how good science works.
Now don’t hide behind any links fellow. And its not true to say that you showed that I was wrong. I showed that you were wrong and not the other way around.
Man your last post was such a wasted post.
Can you believe this Nexus-in-denial.
He posts a pay-per-view link and then smugly tells me that he’s won the debate.
Man thats dumb.
Hmmm….I guess the link doesn’t work if you don’t have access to Science. In this case (Science 30 June 2006: Vol. 312. no. 5782, pp. 1918 – 1921)
Anyway, the important bits that show that perhaps for have no idea what you’re talking about:
I suggest you read all the paper, it’s very good.
Right lets look at this:
“Model projections suggest that although increased temperature and decreased soil moisture will act to reduce global crop yields by 2050.”
Well thats some pretty bullshit models right there aren’t they. Because as we all know we expect CO2-based warming to increase precipitation.
So we can expect more and not less moisture as well as better yields due to the extra CO2. The extra moisture and the extra CO2 helping eachother along.
“The CO2 fertilization factors used in models to project future yields were derived from enclosure studies conducted approximately 20 years ago.”
Right so the very next statement is horse-shit as well. Tendentiously attempting to emphasise the supposed uniqueness of this one study.
There was not 5000 studies all around 1986. There are ongoing studies all the time. And nearly all of them showing far better growth with extra CO2 under most conditions.
“In those trials, elevated [CO2] enhanced yield by 50% less than in enclosure studies.”
Right. So your other article tried to mislead us on this. There were still massive improvements in yields. But they were only half as much as what was gotten under the far more numerous studies. Its up to these guys to show why it is there study diverged from the others. Likely they fucked it up or cheated by blowing O3 at the plants. But its up to them to figure out why they are the oddball in the crowd.
THE KEY POINT TO NOTE IS THAT THEIR STUDY REAFFIRMED THAT CO2 IMPROVES PLANT YIELDS.
“This casts serious doubt on projections that rising [CO2] will fully offset losses due to climate change”
NOW HERE WE HAVE A FUCKING GIVEAWAY.
Its usually not admitted that CO2 will indeed fully offset losses due to climate change. But here they admit it while wrongly concluding that their study shows otherwise.
Plus these great costs to climate change that are usually alleged are not alleged by economists who would be considered to be in the position to make such judgements. But instead by such luminairies as other scientists at the UN.
“Wheat and rice FACE experiments included nitrogen treatments. At the lowest [N] (15 to 70 kg of N ha–1), the average yield increase with elevated [CO2] was only 9%, ”
A 9% increase in yields of rice and wheat is nothing to sneeze at unless you are some sort of psycopath who wants poor people to starve.
But they haven’t adequately explained the divergence in results. And it might just come down to learning how to farm under the new conditions. Whats important is not the actuality of higher yields but THE POTENTIAL FOR IT. And the enclosed studies show not 9% increases in yields for these crucial crops but (BY THIS PAPERS OWN ADMISSION) instead massive yields of 27% or thereabouts.
So when the reasons for the divergence in results is found….. clearly this is an oppurtunity for agriculturalists to capitalise on. And its not as if they don’t have a long time to find these things out.
Because the CO2 is growing at less then 0.4% every year.
Bird, on denialists, Carter is denying that humans have any significant impact on the climate, he’s denying that variations in levels of CO2 have anything significant to do with it, and he seems to be denying that the world is warming, at least since 1998. If you take the 5-year mean this looks rather heroic. This map gives another view of what is going on.
On global warming and crops, there is plenty of support for Nexus 6. This report of a report to a conference in 2005 outlines the Illinois research, now written up in a peer reviewed journal, plus more:
The dreaded Greenpeace reports on the prospects for rice grown under global warming conditions.
Bird, I’m sure we would all like to see further studies on this topic, but at the very least you would have to admit that you can’t pronounce on the benefits of increased CO2 with the total confidence you have heretofore displayed.
Can we move on to some other topic, please?
“Bird, on denialists, Carter is denying that humans have any significant impact on the climate, he’s denying that variations in levels of CO2 have anything significant to do with it, and he seems to be denying that the world is warming, at least since 1998″
That can be dealt with very quickly.
1. Depends just what you mean by SIGNIFICANT.
2. Depends just what you mean by SIGNIFICANT.
3. He’s right since 1998 is the peak year. And the world has grown colder then that by definition. This being the peak year. And I don’t think its in dispute that this is the peak year.
“Bird, I’m sure we would all like to see further studies on this topic, but at the very least you would have to admit that you can’t pronounce on the benefits of increased CO2 with the total confidence you have heretofore displayed.”
Yes I most certainly can. And part of that is in my answer that you are yet to approve.
There is absolutely no doubt that CO2 brings the benefits that I’ve said. And the study posted by Nexus reaffirms this.
“A University of Maryland scientist, Dr Alan Teramura, conducts the first experiments in which rice is grown under conditions likely in the middle of the next century, with elevated ultraviolet radiation levels and higher carbon dioxide concentrations. With carbon dioxide alone increased, the biomass of the rice increased by up to 50 percent. But with high levels of UV-B, the increase in yield was obliterated. Teramura also notes from the work of others, that temperatures near 40 C can seriously retard the growth of rice, wheat and corn. Half the world’s population obtains 70 percent of their calories from rice. Note also that rice paddies emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas.”
Thats fine Brian. But UVB rays aren’t increasing on the ground. If anything they are reducing.
The DENIALISM on the panic side of the argument just never bottoms out.
“With carbon dioxide alone increased, the biomass of the rice increased by up to 50 percent.”
This is the main thing to take home.
A 50% increase in yields is no golden goose to slaughter.
And the farmers will surely be able to work around this alleged UVB problem. That is unlikely to come about and would not justify reductions in CO2 if it was.
You must understand Brian. It takes me three times as many words to refute these red herrings as it takes for people to post them.
But there can be no doubt that these red herrings are being taken care of with great despatch one after the other.
Bird, I had to dig my own comment out of the spaminator because it had too many links in it. Then I heard a glass break in the kitchen when my son (not Mark!) really should have been walking the dog. Having sorted that out I remembered some chores for ’she who must be obeyed’.
On the matter of warmest years this NASA report gives 1998 as the warmest followed by 1998, 2002, 2003, 2004 in that order. The 1998 anomaly was due to a large El Nino event. That’s why I think the 5-year averages better represent the underlying trend.
I did see another NASA report that had 1998 and 2005 as a tie. I can’t find it again. No matter. James Hansen tells us that global warming brings stronger El Nino events, but not necessarily more of them. I think there is a slight bias towards more. So the 1998 year can in part be attributed to global warming.
Anyway we are approaching a million-year high, so you can relax for a bit about the next glaciation.
Brian,
what is the point in letting Bird post his drivel here? Other left-of-centre sites have banned this idiotic troll. Why allow him to waste the time of people who have a genuine interest in exploring topics like climate change?
Debeak the bustard, clip the wings of the cuckoo and make pigeon pie out of this stupid squawking fool!!!
No doubt that statement is true, Brian. Which is why farmers in the Southern Hemisphere plant cereal crops in the cooler months of May and June and not in, say, January or February, and of course vice-versa in the Nortern Hemisphere.
Farmers have noted, equally, that a protracted period of cool wet weather when cereal crops are ripening can severely reduce yields.
Statements like the one quoted are only useful if they can then be correlated to expected seasonal temperatures with global warming at the different latitudes at which food crops are grown.
Right. So 1998 was the warmest year.
Notice that we have had two or more posts that purport to say somethng bad about CO2-Based-Warming but end up saying the opposite.
For example we’ve had links here which say OZONE AND CO2 causes plants to grow less fast. And then we find out that it is OZONE that is the problem. And not CO2-based warming.
And then we had some other posts that showed MASSIVE PLANT GROWTH FROM CO2 but instead of emphasising this they say OZONE DEPLETION AND CO2-BASED WARMING will cause problems.
But looking at it more closely the problem is ozone depletion. Once again it has nothing to do with global warming.
What is the matter Steve Munn? Am I going too fast for you?
You are not capable of refuting anything I’ve said and were you an honest man you would admit I’m right.
Since the cause of elevated UVB is ozone depletion, attributed to CFCs, the question arises as to what the outcome would be for rice and other food crops if we had elevated levels of UVB but not higher carbon dioxide concentrations in the middle of the century. Dr Teramura’s research seems to suggest that if, as postulated, we then have higher UVB levels we will need higher carbon dioxide levels to cancel out the damaging effect of the UVB on rice yields.
Well what would be better Gregg is to reap the benefits of the CO2 and avoid the ozone depletion.
But since there is no reason to believe that the ozone layer will have dissapeared by then this reduces to the reccomendation that we ought to just reap the benefits of the extra CO2.
The two problems are totally unrelated in nature.
Now people.
We have got to stop being taken in by this SHIITE!
This was immense unreason from our friends in Greenpeace.
I must admit, Bird, you’ve made no sense so far and there’s really no point attempting to set you right in your ways. Keep denying, old fella!
No you are being an idiot Nexus.
I’ve made complete sense all the way through.
And it clear that you are in denial.
Just to make clear, I edited out a couple of lines there.
Steve, we had Bird-free commenting up to almost 30 comments. Then on Friday we had no comments all day. At that point the thread would have slipped off the side-bar.
So it’s a game in two halves, as it were.
Damn, I just had to install haloscan commenting to try and stop the Bird and my blog is only 2 days old. Some choice naughty words directed my way in order for me to “debate” climate change with the Bird on LP. Oh well. I’ve heard of passionate advocates but sheesh!!
GregM, it still remains that looking forward with the ozone problem, if we have more CO2 we’ll have more warming, which means we’ll have more grond-level ozone.
And Bird, some researchers are saying that the extra ozone will negate the effects of enhanced growth from CO2. If that is what they find in real world simulations by pumping in the ozone then that is what they find and I can’t change that. Of course the experiment has to be properly designed and implemented, but peer reviewing you would hope sorted out any such problems.
I’m not in favour generally in taking as gospel findings that are not replicated, but what has been said makes sense and I say again it should dent your confidence about the beneficial effects of CO2.
GregM, one of the problems in farming is that there are likely to be more extremes of hot, cold, wet and dry. Also farmers get terrific advice on the weather these days, but changing patterns that diverge from the historical mean that planning is inherently more difficult.
btw Bird, the ground-level ozone and the ozone hole are not entirely unrelated. The ozone hole allows phytoplankton in the sea to be killed. Phytoplankton are part of the carbon absorption process.
Nexus 6’s new blog can be found here.
Welcome to the ’sphere!
Why thank you, Brian. Blog will be mainly science, politics and wine. Hopefully it’ll be fairly civil, but not off to such a good start on that one. At least the wine reviews shouldn’t be too controversial!
“And Bird, some researchers are saying that the extra ozone will negate the effects of enhanced growth from CO2.”
Well what on earth do you think I’ve been saying?
Plants LOVE CO2 and they HATE Ozone.
You cannot therefore say that CO2 is bad by projecting Ozone along with it.
Look Brian. Its pretty important that you are not taken in by such a transplanet ploy.
I pointed out that we had seen that self-same ploy used with OZONE in two different settings. And in both cases the concrete facts reaffirm CO2 as a good thing.
Can you stop acting like a zombie about this.
It should be absolutely obvious that all the links so far reaffirm the great benefits of CO2.
One link shows that Ozone at ground level is a bad thing. Another implies that losing Ozone in the stratosphere could be a bad thing.
But all links reaffirm the great benefits of CO2.
And when we are talking about global warming it is CO2 we are talking about.
Now I must ask people just to try not to be so gullible as to let this sort of conflating of issues fool you so quickly and compreshensively.
Nexus, I’ve put a link to your blog from mine. Looking forward to reading it!
Bird: “It should be absolutely obvious that all the links so far reaffirm the great benefits of CO2.”
Bird, your routine of saying that all the “science workers are stupid, why can’t they see what’s obviously true” is boring and tiresome. You will convince precisely no-one by writing about your ideas on a non-science blog like this. As I’ve said many times, if you want to taken seriously, write up your ideas and submit them to a scientific journal.
And don’t go on about bias in journals. That is just convenient rhetoric on your part so that your ideas are never tested.
Labor MP Kelvin Tomson’s attempt to silence global warming skeptics with a letter he has sent around today is a little unhelpful in my view. The letter and my thoughts on it are here.
“is a little unhelpful in my view”
Really? “Unhelpful”? I’d use phrases like “complete twat” and “playing right into your opponents’ hands”. Makes you wonder how Kel got this far in the ALP with such cack-hand outreach skills. Um…on second thoughts, no I don’t wonder why.
And Sacha, as it must have dawned on you by now over at Catallaxy, Birdy looks upon the scientific method the way a cat contemplates a can opener. “One day I’ll figure out its infinite mysteries but in the meantime I’ll just keep yowling until it’s employed to give me something I like.”
Oh, and Nexus 6, if yer not used to Birdy, he can be a bit much at first. But he’s always good for a laugh, sometimes on purpose, and he is keeping it real..for the kids y’know.
Frankly, I think he’s just having a go at you ‘cos he’s pissed off he’s only a Nexus 2 stuck on sanitation duty in a really crappy mining colony.
Thanks for that Nexus 6. It is disappointing that Tomson feels he needs to adopt the same tactics against the skeptics that were used to try and intimidate those that support the consensus regarding climate change.
The science will sort itself out without the politicians dictating the terms of the argument.
Sorry I’ve arrived late to this thread, but the excess of Bird comments has put me off. (Ban the tit!)
Last year, sea temperatures in the Caribbean were high, causing a record hurricane season in the southern states of the US. Many scientists concluded that GW was responsible.
This year, sea temperatures have been lower, and the hurricanes have virtually disappeared. The connection between sea temperatures and hurricane activities is well established, but denialists have leapt on the lack of hurricanes to claim that GW is a myth. They would be wrong.
This year has seen the beginning of a new El Nino, and while the predicted effects for countries such as Australia are a decrease in rainfall, the effects for the US are benign, as the El Nino paradoxically decreases sea temperatures in the Caribbean. Now, the increased GW leads to an exaggerated El Nino, so paradoxically we have GW leading to less hurricanes in the US. This situation is unfortunate, because it gives some comfort to climate change denialists in the US, the country chiefly responsible for GW.
Our cat would look at the can opener, then look at me, then meow at me until I did her bidding. And then she’d look at us from a few metres ago, and then sit sphinx-like for an hour or two in a couple of different positions, and then go to bed, waiting for her owner.
A good life!
Kelvin Thomson’s letter is appalling!
Sacha. For petes sakes read the links and try and see how it is the journalists (if not the science workers) are trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes.
Now your suggestion was always a stupid one. It was a stupid one when you first came up with it. And its even more stupid each time you repeat it.
This panic is not been driven by science and is not to be overcome by science. Nor am I qualified to do original research work. Nor could I get money for such a project.
I cannot understand why you would be so damn silly as to keep repeating such a bogus suggestion. It just goes to reinforce my predjudices about science-workers when you think about it.
Birdy unplugged.
“Science! I don’t need no stinkin’ science to prove I’m right about science stuff”
The Kelvin Thomas letter says that Al Gore:
The correct figures are 928 studies and 53% of reports in MSM.
I dispute all that. The majority of older CLIMATE SCIENTISTS aren’t buying into this. And the scientists are the last people to be able to make ECONOMIC inferences about different climate scenarios.
(Nabs don’t be daft. The links are there for you to see. Its not clear who is to blame for the shabby reasoning so I would tend to blame the journalists AND the science-workers.)
Here is some information on scientists. Perhaps as horrified as me by science workers gone wild. They’ve signed this massive petition to reject Kyoto.
Its most important that any of you qualified PHD’s out there put your signature on this one too.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/pproject.htm#357
Bird, I’m extremely tolerant, which is why I’ve actually talked to you via blogs.
A “bogus suggestion”? So let’s see – you have an idea that challenges the scientific concensus on the effects of atmospheric CO2 emissions, which may, if true, demonstrably change our understanding of the impact of emitting CO2. You keep on talking about it here, and referring to how “stupid science workers” can’t see what you can see, presumeably because their training leads them to not see things that outsiders can see.
This is all plausible. What you need to do is to test your ideas. To do this, either work at them yourself, which might necessitate learning all the relevant material, or ask people who know something about it to evaluate your ideas. To do this, you need to not abuse them, or there’s every chance they won’t take you seriously.
After you test your ideas and think that they, or some descendent of them, might have a hint of truth, the next question is how do you make them to have an impact? You could write to people who currently work in the area and see what they say, or send them to a journal.
Writing about them here will convince no-one. It seems to me that in your view of the world it is impossible for your ideas to gain any currency regardless of their merit – the science world is irretrievably biased against your ideas because it’s filled with “stupid science workers”. Thus no real progress is possible.
Do you think this is a fair reflection of reality?
Bird, I’m tired of counselling you. It’s a waste of my energy and I won’t enter into any further discussions about “stupid science workers” or “idiotic journals” or how you can try to see if your ideas have merit.
Its a dumb suggestion Sacha.
What is wrong with you? It could not be a more mindless suggestion.
What I’m telling people here is just so well known to science.
What would another study do?
Now have you read the Oregon petition?
It tells you what I’ve been trying to tell you people all this time. By the way as soon as someone mentions OREGON PETITION anywhere in the world then anti-scientist Lambert will show up and lie about it.
“A “bogus suggestionâ€?? So let’s see – you have an idea that challenges the scientific concensus on the effects of atmospheric CO2 emissions, which may, if true, demonstrably change our understanding of the impact of emitting CO2.â€?
No Sacha. No No NO NO NO NO NO.
I haven’t challenged science at all. Science is on my side.
You see you are not THINKING you are not READING and you are unwilling to LISTEN.
You have shut your mind off right from the start. And it was this dumb suggestion of yours that allowed you to shut your mind off all this time.
Now just remember. You are NOT a climate-scientist. You are a mathematician. And you should be listening to people who know more about this sort of stuff then you.
Well, Bird, since you invited me to comment: What’s wrong with the Oregon Petition. You don’t seem to be capable of identifying anything wrong with my criticism.
Yeah but you won’t debate it on Catallaxy will you.
Lamberts objections are idiocy. There is nothing wrong with the petition. Literally thousands of names.
The panic is not driven by climate scientists. Its largely a non-climate-science driven panic.
And Lambert features very strongly in this panic. All over the world you will find people quoting this know-nothing non-scientist.