Confusing weather with the climate
I almost hate to put this post up, because I'm not looking forward to the comments it will inspire from global warming deniers. But I feel I must, so here I go:
Many of us--myself included--look outside on any given day and use our immediate experience of the weather to help prove or disprove climate change. I myself have been known to do this during a spell of hot weather. ("It's so hot! We're turning into California!")
I'm vowing to stop doing that now.
Many commenters on BlueOregon the past week or so have been doing the same thing. They have used one snowstorm to prove that global warming does not exist. In doing so, they have confused the weather with the climate.
Let me be clear: weather is immediate and short-term. It's whatever is happening outside your window at any given time or in the past at any one point. Climate, however, is a look back at the aggregate of the weather over time. As U of O professor and author Bob Doppelt told me last year:
Weather is the daily and annual variations in local and regional climatic patterns. Climate, and climate change, is about long term 20 and 30 year trends. By looking at long term trends it is possible to see overall patterns, which show a clear global and regional warming trend.
Much the same could be extrapolated from the Oregonian's excellent graph on the front page today, which provided snowfall data from 1870 to the present. Over the approximate 140 years of the graph, it is easy to see that the snowfall in Oregon is on a downward trend. We're getting less snow, and more infrequent freezes, because our climate is warming over time. End of story.
So, while the weather outside is frightful (to us), Oregon used to see snowfalls and freezes much more often in the past, and they are becoming fewer as the climate gets warmer. One look at this picture or this one will give you an idea of just how much warmer.
|
December 23, 2008 |
Leslie Carlson | Comments (97 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Scott Jorgensen | Dec 23, 2008 3:05:39 PM
A lot of the doubt stems from the fact that in the 1970s, there was much fearmongering over global cooling. That later evolved into global warming, which has since morphed into global climate change.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Dec 23, 2008 3:09:35 PM
Weather changes are measured in centuries, but the historical record only goes back 150 years.
Posted by: Leslie Carlson | Dec 23, 2008 3:24:40 PM
Weather changes are measured in centuries, but the historical record only goes back 150 years.
Jeff's right about human-generated data being about 150 years long. Of course there are other ways to measure climate change over millenia as well. And those also point to a warming trend.
Posted by: George Anonymuncule Seldes | Dec 23, 2008 3:27:22 PM
"Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get."
Posted by: Unrepentant Liberal | Dec 23, 2008 3:38:19 PM
Yes, we had ourselves a little snowstorm. Big whoop. The polar ice caps are still melting.
Posted by: Greg D. | Dec 23, 2008 4:00:01 PM
Only an idiot (there are some) would deny that the planet is getting warmer and the glaciers and ice caps are melting. My question - as a dedicated leftie - is whether there is appropriate proof that the warming is caused by human activity vs. natural climate cycles or whatever. I don't ask this to be difficult, but because IF global warming is caused by human activity, the cost to remedy the problem will be placed on the shoulders of a lot of working class people in the form of lower wages, higher utility costs, higher municipal taxes, and higher costs for goods and services. Being "green" is a great luxury for those of us who can afford to pay extra for our power or to dine at "green" sushi restaurants (see Willamette Week this week) or whatever. But don't mistake it, a carbon tax or whatever will fall heavily on the middle and lower-middle class.
Meanwhile, the cost to heat my home in Palm Springs remains quite reasonable this winter, thank you for asking, although the pool boy charges me a mint and he looks at my wife with lustful eyes.
Posted by: Zarathustra | Dec 23, 2008 4:18:48 PM
Excellent, quick synopsis, imo. To put it even stronger, weather isn't climate and most history is about weather.
New research specifically looking at global climate is welcome, but when people cite things like the Little Ice Age, that's weather too. That could have been a warm period in Africa, with the Gulf Stream in subsidence as it would be in a warming scenario and Europe cold. Possibly our history being European history, is the only reason we say it was an ice age.
Put another way, all weather lore is anecdotal and cannot be falsified, and ergo, is not scientific. Admittedly there is a lot of room for error, but when you aren't sure, is that a good time to be conducting an unmonitored planet-wide experiment?
Finally, no one dare call this nay-saying anymore. You're still talking "we can do something". There's a paper that was presented at the American Geophysical Union this week at Moscone Center that points to the observation that the permafrost area, off the shore of Siberia, is right at the melting point. One researcher has reported free methane bubbles rising to the surface. If that all breaks loose and melts, it may not matter what anyone does. Literally like trying to put the genie back into the bottle. We know we're ignorant about long term climate. This is different. Really, that's the contention anymore. Few right wing-nuts say nothing is changing, as few who support creationism would deny that species change. Now, their premise is there's nothing special about climate change (and everything special about the origin of species). At least arguing causation is a step in the right direction. It seems to be dawning on the right that simply denying everything is a good way to attract torts.
Some really need their conspiracy theories though, so I'll suggest an alternative. Instead of something about toothless Al Gore, how about how baby Bush got the military to seed the clouds coming down from Canada, to wipe out xmas, so we get an economic crisis (when added to the market and banks), so he gets to declare an economic emergency, seize control through his EOs already signed, and refuse to turn over power? CIA black ops have an ornery, perverted twist to them many times and causing a freeze-out while fighting attempts to curb climate change would be about par.
Posted by: Theory1236 | Dec 23, 2008 4:35:44 PM
The Artic saw a low minimum in summer ice in 2007. In 2008, it actually had more summer ice then 2007. Antarctica has been consistently gaining ice for at least 10 years. This is even stated in the IPCC report. Climate change skeptics don't deny that climate changes. They have doubts that man is the cause through C02. 97 percent of CO2 emissions coming from the very Earth we live on. In the past 1000 years, we have had a Medieval Warming Period and a Little Ice age. Climate is not static. It never will be. It is vain to think we have more than a miniscule effect on it.
Posted by: bill-tb | Dec 23, 2008 5:08:50 PM
If you look at climate over the right time scale, you find ice ages and interglacial periods frequenting the last 5 million or so years on about a 100,000 year cycle. To look at a 50 year recent period and deduce that man is changing anything is downright silly.
What caused the last ice age? What ended the last ice age? And why was it so much warmer 6-8,000 years ago during the climate optimum? And the ice age before that and before that and ...
It's a sad fact that the "modern solar maxima" had to end just when the AGW hoax was going so good. Now the earth is cooling, and will continue doing so, until the sun decides to start operating normal once again.
The good news, Al Gore can't do adamn thing about that sad fact.
Posted by: dld | Dec 23, 2008 5:23:18 PM
As if Theory and Bill are two people.
See, you can put the argument right out there and they are going to say what they are going to say. It's social for them (and some of you). They can't think, they can't imagine, most of them can't spell... What per cent of the world is Catholic? 15? 20? Read some good old-fashioned Catholic doctrine and realize the sheer volume of people that believe things like they preach are possible, have happened, and will continue to happen.
Politically, I think you should be thinking about slavery. No argument, no facts ever one the day. By being open-minded and have discussions, you nearly got the country destroyed and an awful lot of good people killed. The social divisions remain today. This election, for many, was about THEN. Those errors never die. Here we are again. Are we going to wait until they take up arms to defend ourselves again? They always take up arms, that's why it's their "most basic right".
News flash: the population rest of the planet will deal with all of us equally if we don't deal with them.
Posted by: joel dan walls | Dec 23, 2008 5:30:14 PM
As expected, people are confusing weather and climate.
By the way, there are all sorts of proxy measures that have been developed by scientists in the last 50 years or so to complement and extend the historical record. These proxies play a huge part in the analyses that help us tease apart the anthropogentic effects from natural variation.
But hey, where's KarTalk when we need him? Yo, thanks, JK.
Posted by: Brian C. | Dec 23, 2008 8:20:48 PM
Somewhere in here there's an opportunity for mutual agreement regardless of one's opinion on human caused climate change. Emitting pollutants into our atmosphere is no good for our planet and it's inhabitants. Reducing consumption and phasing in greener energy sources over time would go a long a way.
Posted by: Buckman Res | Dec 23, 2008 9:43:55 PM
”Over the approximate 140 years of the graph, it is easy to see that the snowfall in Oregon is on a downward trend. We're getting less snow, and more infrequent freezes, because our climate is warming over time. End of story.”
Wow! I don’t know what’s more stunning about that statement, how it profoundly presents a misunderstanding of geologic time compared to the minuscule time frame humans have been around to measure natural phenomena or the even more profound dismissal of scientific method that invites skepticism and review.
The Earth may very well be undergoing climate change, as it has for millennium, but demonizing those who question “Man Made Global Warming” is not worthy of any thinking
person’s support.
Posted by: dmt | Dec 23, 2008 10:29:59 PM
Leslie's comment isn't being used to prove or disprove climate change. She's only directing people to look at the long term picture in regards trends in weather patterns.
You also don't really need to prove the benefit of conservationism. What is bad about using less energy, creating less waste, or saving money in the process.
To believe that we have minimal impact on the planet is ignoring environmental disasters from oil spills, huge collections of plastics in the ocean, or respiratory illness caused by smog in our cities.
Posted by: riverat | Dec 24, 2008 12:47:07 AM
Theory, it's not surprising there was more area covered in ice in the arctic in 2008 than 2007. That's what weather does, it varies a lot from year to year. The real question is "What's the long term trend in ice area?" and it hasn't been up. Some areas of interior of Antarctica are getting more ice and snow because it's getting warmer. The colder the air is the drier it is so air that's warmer but still cold enough to snow produces more snowfall. Around the perimeter of Antarctica lately there have been some unprecedented break ups of ice shelves as well (Google the Wilkins Ice Shelf) and overall the total amount of ice on Antarctica has been going down by about 150 cubic kilometers per year lately.
It's true that over 95% of CO2 emissions are natural but that's balanced in the carbon cycle by natural sinks that absorb that 95% plus maybe 40% or 50% of human emissions. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 35% since 1832 from 284 parts per million to 384 ppm. I think it increased by over 3 ppm in just the past year. It's trivial to show that the increase is due to human activities. The normal time frame for a CO2 increase of 100 ppm is 5,000 - 20,000 years.
Bill, The current ice age started about 2.58M years ago. The closing of the Isthmus of Panama about 3M years ago, and the subsequent change in ocean currents, probably had a lot to do with it. During that period there have been glacials (more ice) and interglacials. They estimate the next glacial will start in 10,000 - 20,000 years. It appears the glacials and interglacials are due mostly to changes in the various orbital parameters of the earth.
"The sad fact" is that changes in solar radiation don't account fully for the climate changes that are seen. Unless someone comes up with some new property of solar radiation we don't know about it can't be the answer.
Scott, a study of papers in the 1970's found there were 7 concerned with possible global cooling and 42 about possible global warming. Time and Newsweek (among others) kind of sensationalized the story (that's what they do to sell their magazines) but it doesn't really mean much.
Jeff, weather changes are measured in minutes, hours and days, etc. Climate changes are measured in decades, centuries and millennia. Currently climate scientists are using a 30 year baseline for most things, long enough to smooth out the various short term oscillations such as El Nino/La Nina. Accurate thermometers have existed since the middle 1700's but humans have been gathering weather data for all of recorded history. It just gets more detailed and accurate as time goes on. As Leslie said there are other ways to measure climate besides direct observation.
---
The simple facts are that you can't account for the climate changes we've seen without including the increase in CO2 in the equations and you can't account for the increase in CO2 without including human CO2 emissions. If you could do that you might win a Nobel Prize. Yes, climate has always been changing over time but the rate of change we are currently measuring is unprecedented in earth history outside of the occasional catastrophic event. It all adds up to humans causing the majority of observed climate change.
Dave
Posted by: Demesure | Dec 24, 2008 1:35:11 AM
What, so you mean the media's and politics' hysterical claims about global warming when there is hurricanes or heatwaves or lack of snow or forest fires or thousands of things caused by AGW are all hot air ?
Posted by: Garage Wine | Dec 24, 2008 6:40:11 AM
From today's SF Examiner:
"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?" asked Dr. David Gee, chairman of the 2008 International Geological Congress’ science committee.
Posted by: Bert Lowry | Dec 24, 2008 6:45:21 AM
Demesure, to the extent that the media says "this hurricane only happened because of global warming," then, yes, that is hot air. It would be silly to argue otherwise.
I am by nature (and training) a skeptic. As such, I believe that a) global warming is real, and b) human activities are almost certainly a major cause of global warming.
I arrive at this conclusion by applying Bertrand Russell's "rules of skepticism," which are:
(1) ...when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment.
In the case of global warming, it seems pretty clear to me that the experts are agreed: global warming is real and largely caused by mankind. I know fanatical people on the other side claim otherwise, but I have not found, nor has anyone shown me, a legitimate, peer reviewed paper that states global warming is not caused by man. Instead, they always point me to confused webpages edited by non-experts who use their own misunderstanding of very technical papers to pretend that there are inconsistencies.
As a skeptic, I am frankly dumbfounded by how passionate and certain global warming deniers are. Their entire argument seems to rest on the principle that the science is unclear amd the scientists don't agree with eachother. If that is the case -- which I doubt (the scientists seem pretty agreed to me) -- then basic skepticism should lead them to state that no opinion can be held to be certain. Instead, they seem to fervently hold that global warming, if it is happening, is certainly not caused by humans.
Am I rambling? Let me try to wrap up in some way. Because I believe that scientists are overwhelmingly in agreement about global warming and its cause, I believe global warming is real and caused by man. Since the global warming deniers seem to believe that scientists are not in agreement, common sense dictates that they should hold no strong views about global warming. The fervency of their views shows they are not skeptical, but rather fanatical.
Posted by: Zarathustra | Dec 24, 2008 8:04:59 AM
Posted by: Garage Wine | Dec 24, 2008 6:40:11 AM
From today's SF Examiner:
"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?" asked Dr. David Gee, chairman of the 2008 International Geological Congress’ science committee.
How 'bout listening to the webcast from the American Geophysical Union in SF last week, instead of a Mormon talking-head at the Examiner? If anyone would bother to look at the referenced data, it doesn't matter who's doing it, or what the trend is. Massive methane releases are an immediate problem, regardless of where we are on the trend line.
And trend-line fantasizers... When in the planet's history did the oceans become too acidic to support life? When did that last happen? We're less than an instant's thought from it in geologic time. Personally, given the level of discussion, I find comfort in the same two words the comedian Andy Hamilton does on the issue, "human extinction". No, it isn't going to destroy the planet or all life. It will destroy human civilization. "Peace on earth, Good riddance to man".
Posted by: Zarathustra | Dec 24, 2008 8:08:30 AM
Oh, had to dig out this link . We've really progressed.
Side note: should we be noticing which posts say "open discussion". Seems to always go that way.
Posted by: Jonathan Radmacher | Dec 24, 2008 8:12:28 AM
Nice to see that trolls don't take Christmas Eve off. Leslie, would you please post about the "theory" ("Theory") that the Earth is round, not flat, and see what the trolls do?
On a related note, can someone please advise as to where to find information about Portland's carbon emissions during the past week?
Posted by: dartagnan | Dec 24, 2008 8:13:30 AM
The global warming deniers are talking up the December cold spell but I noticed they didn't have much to say during our November and early December warm spell.
Posted by: ValkRaider | Dec 24, 2008 9:50:05 AM
It is also worth noting that most of the information I have read claims that one of the _effects_ of global warming is more severe weather.
Like 16 inches of snow in Portland.
As the climate changes, the patterns that we have become accustom to will change with it.
For the Portland area which has traditionally been very moderate, it could potentially mean more severe winters and hotter drier summers.
I am dreading all the "global warming my ass" people coming out of the woodwork. (Also, "global" implies bigger than Oregon...)
Posted by: rw | Dec 24, 2008 10:30:42 AM
Zarathustra: I frequently come across things I would like to share with people here, fantasizing like minds and catholic reading habits... and there is typically not an adequately-related thread through which I can share the gleanings.
I don't know about others, but that is possibly what is happening.
Also: remember what the art of conversation is. It is not simply the ability to maintain a steady, unwavering focus upon one idee fixe and only that -- it's actually the ability to describe loops, spirals, angles and apertures whilst never really utterly abandoning the nugget we started from.
It behooves us to consider whether some treat this as a platform upon which to present well-crafted (off to the side in Word, no doubt) disquisitions, others may be treating this as an elegaic conversational opportunity that relies utterly on the willingness of others to acknowledge their presence, let them in on the play...
I am sure there are any number of other variations on understanding and useage of the blogspace. :)...
Posted by: Leslie Carlson | Dec 24, 2008 10:31:14 AM
On a related note, can someone please advise as to where to find information about Portland's carbon emissions during the past week?
I'm not sure that the data is captured weekly (rather than monthly or yearly) but you might ping someone at the city's Office of Sustainable Development. They are in charge of the city's climate protection efforts.
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Dec 24, 2008 10:59:06 AM
Climate actually was colder but less extreme during the last ice age. Those big glaciers are great stabilizers.
Global warming is likely to result in many parts of the world--NW Europe and NW America--having a much less stable and more extreme climate if ocean currents (Gulf Stream, Japanese current) are disrupted. Hotter summers, colder winters; less like the world we know and more like, say, Mars.
I really don't understand how climate suddenly became seen as being subject to opinion--it's science, not theology. That massive inputs of new gases into the atmosphere would change the world climate after a couple centuries seems obvious even without data; but the data is unequivocal.
Posted by: fbear | Dec 24, 2008 12:03:57 PM
Antarctica has been consistently gaining ice for at least 10 years.
It seems that global warming deniers have a problem distinguishing small parts from the whole.
They see a certain cold weather event and say "hah, what global warming" (while pooh-poohing hot weather events)--they see one item as equaling the whole.
And they see ice increasing in one part of Antarctica and say that it's increasing in all of Antarctica.
Posted by: Zarathustra | Dec 24, 2008 12:21:46 PM
Jamais (as in when people will get it) has it spot on, imo. It's about water. Mars is a great comparison; it lost most of it's. That's why things like the pH of the oceans are important. The earth is 3/5 water and it's true we know more about lunar geology.
That's why I always like the metaphor of turning up the heat in a terrarium. It'll get hotter, but water will start running everywhere and cause molds and all kinds of "cold weather phenomenon" like the soil being soppy in spots where it was dry when it was "cooler", etc. Simplistic, but it at least gets people thinking about the right variables.
Posted by: rw | Dec 24, 2008 12:23:55 PM
This will be met with thunderous silence, disinterest, fair enough. But I'll say it anyway, as your converse just kicked a mini-epiphany into my brain. The Old Ones we walk with keep saying, "this is the time of Purification. It cannot be stopped, the only thing we can do now is every day do all we can to slow it. To give our children more time." I was thinking with the frantic, suspicious mind of human deviltries and all such. Now I realize: it is climate change. We cannot stop it, for it is natural, and the earth herself is moving through her times. We ARE making it move faster, and with more toxins as part of the mix. And so it is that the nay-sayers in a sense are "right", as we are undergoing the shifting of the earth's own physiognomy that cannot be stopped with any amount of Right Living and Environmentalist Orthodoxy. HOWEVER, we are pushing this faster and faster, and we are separating ourselves ever more completely from the Natural Way and the natural world so as to make more bleak our ability to adapt, survive and live for as long as it will be possible before this earth enters another age of healing.
I am thinking of the doors of the sweatlodge. The first round is the Purification round -- everyone is kind of suffering b/c we are not totally there yet, we have not shifted our consciousness completely. It is a lot like this time of toxic buildups, cataclysmic change and discomfort including the rise of discord in those who misinterpret the nature of what is occuring in its' wholeness and those who wish to deny it completely.
The second round is the Healing round - this is when we feel the heat with corporeal intensity, but actively pray for more and work to surf that heat like an eagle playing on the updrafts, no kidding. Still working, but now shifting. As the heated stones come into the lodge, we speak the names of those things needing healed - people, places, body parts. There will be a time when the earth is going into her hard freeze or whatever it is that is coming, and we will be mere ants crawling across the great change.
The third round is the Prayer round, and I have no intellectualization or innate understanding of what this could be. A good measure of where I am/not as a person, really. And the fourth is the Going Home/Sending Them Home round. We sing thanks and also send the helping ones home to see them again soon.
So today, your discussion gives me a little extra purchase on the Small Lodge prayer we make; and also an intuitive shift as to getting what the Old Ones are telling us. And why we are all arguing, fighting, intellectualizing over this.
We are so separated from the Great Rhythms of the Natural that we cannot accept what is coming with good grace, and work together to prolong the health and wealth of our lives as a phylum upon this earth.
Posted by: Zarathustra | Dec 24, 2008 12:38:38 PM
rw, I've actually been thinking about pulling together some information on the an interpretation of the Maya calendar that pulls together exactly the themes you're talking about for New Years but was thinking also that it was a bit over the top.
I have to say, though, thinking that way has been something of a paradigm shift (and I'm a stickler for the term). One has to think that if the next Maya period is characterized by awareness of corporate ethics that people like Cheney have been necessary to raise consciousness toward that end. Anyway, humans traditionally invoke the spiritual to explain great things when reason cannot, and this topic definitely qualifies for a bit of that, in my estimation. Maybe a counter-balance to evangelical inspired skepticism.
Posted by: rw | Dec 24, 2008 12:38:55 PM
ps so for those who read and dug Casteneda (to borrow phraseology from my elders that I hung out with), this is a realization that should cause us/me to live with intent, focus, will etc as if it really matters although I know it don't.
What was that phrase? Anyone remember that Toltec Sorcerer's rendering? Something something Fallacy. It's a magical, spiritual existentialism. It's the jiu jitsu we really need for these times.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Dec 24, 2008 4:31:15 PM
Jeff, weather changes are measured in minutes, hours and days, etc. Climate changes are measured in decades, centuries and millennia.
This and to Leslie way above: I actually meant weather. It's important parsing the difference between climate and weather, but you can also look at weather longitudinally, too. Leslie pointed out that fascinating article in the Oregonian showing less snow over the past few decades. That might or might not be a function of changing climate; what it is is weather. We now get far less snow than we did 80 years ago. This may be related to climate change, or it may be related to something entirely different. (Or, put another way, weather patterns could change in the absence of climate change for reasons like desertification through deforestation, etc.) Not to quibble, but you get my point.
As to those who wonder if climate change is caused by humans, the answer as an epistemological truth is of course elusive. But as a matter of science, it's settled. The overwhelming majority of scientists and a near unanimity of climate scientists finger humans. The "skeptics" are political hacks, unlettered hacks, or hacks from fields other than climate science.
Posted by: billy | Dec 24, 2008 4:46:35 PM
Lislie: Climate, and climate change, is about long term 20 and 30 year trends.
JK: There are a number of historical temperature record sets. The most accurate is generally considered to be the USHCN kept by, Al Gore advisor, Dr Hansen. It shows 1998 the warmest year in history TIED WITH 1934. Most show 1998 still the warmest year, so we have been cooling for ten years. Two recent papers, one from the Hadley center and one from NASA predict a ten year cooling period just starting. That meets your minimum definition of climate. Cooling.
JK: I hope you know about the solar scientists who study solar cycles. The sun has been in a record breaking state of high activity for the last few decades. Now it is bordering on record breaking low activity. Some of these scientists have noticed the activity and climate are related (first noticed 200 years ago). In fact if you look at the solar cycle length vs. temperature it is a very good fit. Much better than CO2 and climate. (BTW that million year chart of temperature and CO2 in Al Gore’s movie actually shows CO2 LAGS temperature - if there is a cause and effect it is temperature causing CO2 not CO2 causing temperature - AL lied - review that scene if you don’t believe me - AL never actually said CO2 caused temperature because he knew better.)
Anyway, many solar scientists think that we are just entering a 30 or so year cooling period resembling those of the early days on the O’s chart or worse.
Of course, The real issue is not wether we are warming. The real and only issue is: is man causing warming and thus can chancing man’s activities cure it?
Leslie:Over the approximate 140 years of the graph, it is easy to see that the snowfall in Oregon is on a downward trend.
JK: Interesting thing is that all those big peaks are whole season snowfalls. Our season is just starting. This has been the snowiest December on record per channel 2. So it is apples and oranges until March. Also notice that the chart starts at the tail end of the “little ice age”(1500-1850), so one would expect a lot of snow.
Further, man did not emit a lot of CO2 until the 1950's. The warming started in the early 1900's. Notice the average lines: 1871-1900;1901-1930; 1931-1960;1961-1990. Each lower. Notice the big drop between the first two – far before man emitted significant amounts of CO2.
dmt: What is bad about using less energy, creating less waste.
JK: That depends on the details. If we use less energy because BHO (or Oregon’s democrats) doubles the price of energy, a lot of people will suffer. If some magic technology appears that cuts both the cost and CO2, then we benefit. NO SUCH magic energy source exists. Not wind. Not solar. (both too expensive, unreliable.) Only Nu Clear appears to be able to save both CO2 and money. Unfortunately scientifically illiterate paranoids have effectively banned it in Oregon. (they don’t even know that long lived radioactive materials are the low level ones. It is the short lived ones that are dangerous, but only for a few years.)
riverat: It's true that over 95% of CO2 emissions are natural but that's balanced in the carbon cycle by natural sinks that absorb that 95% plus maybe 40% or 50% of human emissions.
JK: This claim amounts to a claim that the Earth’s CO2 cycle is delicately balanced and just a little from man will throw it out of kilter. This amounts to a claim that the earth is unstable. If so why didn’t it run away millions of years ago when the CO2 levels were many times greater than now? The answer is that the earth is stable through many negative feedback mechanisms. Many yet to be discovered. One that the warmers never seem to talk about is the natural air conditioner provided by evaporation from tropical oceans.
riverat: The simple facts are that you can't account for the climate changes we've seen without including the increase in CO2 in the equations and you can't account for the increase in CO2 without including human CO2 emissions.
JK: That is simply NOT TRUE. The correct statement is: we cannot figure out how to account for. . .there fore we will pick CO2 because there is a correlation. That is exactly what is going on here. Unfortunately for the CO2 believers, the correlation with temperature is better for solar cycle length than it is for CO2.
ValkRaider: It is also worth noting that most of the information I have read claims that one of the _effects_ of global warming is more severe weather.
JK: The issue is not wether we are warming. The issue is: is man causing the warming and thus can changing man’s activities cure it?
rw: . . .we are separating ourselves ever more completely from the Natural Way and the natural world so as to make more bleak our ability to adapt, survive and live for as long as it will be possible before this earth enters another age of healing.
JK: Lets look at this a little closer:
We have separated ourselves from many killer diseases through, not doing things the natural way. Small pox: gone from the earth; polio: almost unheard of; whopping cough: only springs up rarely in the unvaccinated; cholera: only occurs where some back to nature nut cut the use of chlorine in city water supplies (see some South American countries.)
Diseases are natural, It is unnatural to kill off all those viruses and bacteria. I choose unnatural.
We practice the unnatural act of mining and transporting fossil fuels so that we don’t have to freeze in the dark. We practice the unnatural act of spinning magnets with steam and water so that we can have computers, lifesaving medical equipment and radio. Don’t forget arsenic, lead and heavy metals are 100% natural.
Shivering in a cave, fearing saber tooth tigers is natural. Modern life in unnatural. I choose modern life.
BTW, warming can be good: Warmer weather extends the growing season. Warmer weather has FEWER deaths than cold.
JK: Since there are so many well informed people here, perhaps someone can help me add to my collection of peer reviewed papers. Can you direct me to peer papers that prove the following:
1. Today’s climate is out of historical norms on a geological time scale.
2. CO2 can actually cause warming at today’s CO2 levels (past a degree or so.)
3.Man is actually the source of the CO2 buildup.
Again: The issue is NOT whether or not we are warming or polar bears or ice caps. The only issue is: is man causing the warming and thus can chancing man’s activities cure it?
Two very good videos on this subject are:
The Great Global Warming Swindle
Science & Context in the Global Warming Debate, blip.tv/file/791876/ (Select mp4 for near DVD quality on the slides)
Thanks
JK
Posted by: Stank Think | Dec 24, 2008 5:04:24 PM
Human beings are the scourge of the planet earth. Most Americans act as if they are hell bent on rendering it unihabitable, with uncessant demand for SUVs, Slurpees, and Stuff.
As depicted in the movie Wall-e, we will consume the earth's natural beauty and leave nothing but trash and destruction in our wake. Unlike the indigenous people who only consumed what they required to survive and left nary a trace in their wake.
American Gluttony will eventually require us to colonize space and other planets until destroy the entire solar system. Then the cockroaches will return to the top of the food chain, and the universal equilibrium will be restored. That's why I drive a Prius and only smoke organic tobacco.
Posted by: billy | Dec 24, 2008 5:08:22 PM
Jeff Alworth: As to those who wonder if climate change is caused by humans, the answer as an epistemological truth is of course elusive. But as a matter of science, it's settled. The overwhelming majority of scientists and a near unanimity of climate scientists finger humans.
JK: What about the below 650 scientists and these IPCC scientists:
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
I suggest you browse the list of scientists at:
epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
Jeff Alworth: The "skeptics" are political hacks,
JK: As if AL Gore isn’t a political hack. Or Jim Hansen. Or Michael Mann.
Jeff Alworth: or hacks from fields other than climate science.
JK: Tell us what field Hansen and Mann have their Phds in? Hint: it is not climate science.
Thanks
JK
Posted by: dmt | Dec 24, 2008 5:12:05 PM
Garage Wine, before you copy a sentence from the Web about "experts on climatology" please do at least a little research into the organization.
Here's the International Geological Congress and their sponsor list on the bottom (they don't have a strong incentive for being objective, being that most of them are oil companies.)
I'm sure Chinese researchers are just as objective regarding the effects of dumping factory water into their rivers....
Posted by: billy | Dec 24, 2008 5:46:07 PM
dmt: ...before you copy a sentence from the Web ... please do at least a little research into the organization ... sponsor list ... being that most of them are oil companies.
JK: So how about the accuracy of the information that was posted? Or are you incapable of judging the claims made? (I have noticed a tendency of Al Gore's followers to ignore facts and just attack the messengers.)
Thanks
JK
Posted by: Zarathustra | Dec 24, 2008 10:56:02 PM
JK: I hope you know about the solar scientists who study solar cycles.
If you do, you'll know that every new wavelength that gets explored reveals a whole new class of stellar phenomena that totally rewrite the "what is the sun doing now" hypothesis.
No reputable solar astronomer would tell you they understand the solar cycle let alone could relate it to meteorology and earth science.
And I repeat my first assertion, way back, history is weather, not climate, for the reasons already cited.
BTW, is there any indication that an Obama administration will increase basic research into comparative planetology, which budget currently consists of projects in the millions, not billions? We will never understand CO2 and solar cycles until we understand how Earth, Venus and Mars are different in the ways they are.
I have to wonder. The sci-fi series Space 1999 had the moon going out of earth orbit because of a nuclear accident. The thing is, the moon is leaving earth orbit, orbiting further and further out every minute. No one would say that the dramatized event wasn't caused by human activity, even though it "merely" reinforced an existing, natural tendency, right? (You want to talk about human induced climate change, try blowing the moon off) It's really an identical scenario, except for the time scale of the human effect. So, it's just a matter of our inability to deal with the time scale. Whatdyaknow...that bit on the Mayan calendar wasn't so off!
Posted by: riverat | Dec 25, 2008 12:06:50 AM
Jeff, I guess we define weather differently. The common definition of weather is the atmospheric conditions at a point in time and climate is the statistical compilation of weather conditions over long periods of time. Climate defines the envelope of conditions that weather fits in to. Any change in long term weather patterns is by definition climate change regardless of the source. But I understand where you're coming from.
Dave
Posted by: riverat | Dec 25, 2008 2:31:49 AM
billy/JK: The atmosphere in total contains about 3.3Tt (trillion tons) of CO2. In 2004 human burning of fossil fuels (FFs) released about 30Gt tons (billion tons) of CO2. That's easily calculated from the equations for the chemical reactions in the combustion of those FFs. We know how much CO2 is released when we burn a ton of coal. Of that 30Gt right now about 40% (12Gt) are absorbed by the oceans and biosphere and 60% (18Gt) remains in the atmosphere which correlates well with the 3.x ppm increase in atmospheric CO2. The fact that the increase is caused by the burning of FFs is shown by the change in the ratio of the isotopes C12 to C13 in the atmospheric CO2. The living organisms that produced the organic material that became the FFs prefers C12 over C13 therefore FFs have a higher ratio of C12 to C13 than the atmosphere so burning them changes the ratio. Also the reduction of oxygen in the atmosphere correlates well with the burning of FFs. It takes 2 oxygen atoms for each carbon atom to make CO2. Besides, measurements of the amount of CO2/C stored in the oceans and biosphere show both to be increasing. If those are increasing and the atmosphere is also increasing then where is the CO2 coming from? You might think volcanic activity but that's only about 0.33Gt per year (about 1% of human emissions). Maybe outer space? But the only real answer is the burning of FFs.
Of course there are negative feedbacks and that's why there has been no runaway reaction. But taking carbon that's been sequestered in the form of FFs for hundreds of millions of years and putting it back in the active environment changes the equilibrium and the carbon cycle will keep adjusting until we stop emitting CO2 and it reaches a new equilibrium. Of course the energy absorbed by evaporation over the ocean is released again when that water vapor condenses and falls as rain/snow. It never disappears. That's basic thermodynamics.
To say "...we pick CO2 because there's a correlation" is bass ackwards. The chemical and physical properties of CO2 have been studied in detail. We know the absorption characteristics for different wavelengths of energy at different concentrations of CO2. We can measure the solar energy and wavelengths falling on the earth and can measure the energy and wavelengths re-radiated from the surface. From that we can calculate how much energy the CO2 will absorb. The first speculations that increases in CO2 might cause global warming were made over 100 years ago when the absorption characteristics of CO2 were first being studied. The correlation between global temperature and solar activity was good until around 1975. Since then global temperature has continued to rise sharply while solar activity has leveled off.
If you want peer reviewed papers I suggest you go look at Skeptical Science or RealClimate.org. Both contain many references to them on various subjects. Here's a post on The Great Global Warming Swindle that analyzes the science in it.
The evidence is pretty clear that most of the climate change we are seeing is from human activities therefore changing them can affect the course of climate change.
Dave
Posted by: billy | Dec 25, 2008 3:19:25 AM
riverat: The fact that the increase is caused by the burning of FFs is shown by the change in the ratio of the isotopes C12 to C13 in the atmospheric CO2. The living organisms that produced the organic material that became the FFs prefers C12 over C13 therefore FFs have a higher ratio of C12 to C13 than the atmosphere so burning them changes the ratio.
JK: Burning includes natural fires of fossil fuels. How the about decay of ancient organic material? How about unknown processes? Again correlation DOES NOT EQUAL causation. Until we know ALL POSSIBLE sources, we cannot just assign some unknown part to man.
riverat: If those are increasing and the atmosphere is also increasing then where is the CO2 coming from?
JK: Here you repeat a basic fallacy: we can’t think of anything else, so it must be CO2..
riverat: Of course the energy absorbed by evaporation over the ocean is released again when that water vapor condenses and falls as rain/snow. It never disappears.
JK: And exactly where that energy goes is unknown. Some goes to space & some back to earth & some stays put but in what proportions?
riverat: The correlation between global temperature and solar activity was good until around 1975. Since then global temperature has continued to rise sharply while solar activity has leveled off.
JK: The climate correlation is with sunspot cycle length. My graph shows good correlation until it ends in the late 1980s (it is based on a 1991 paper: Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen, Science, 254, 698-700, 1991)
However if you agree that the solar correlation was good until recently, perhaps we should be looking at what happened recently. First CO2 increase started big time around 1950 - decades too soon to explain the 1975 deviation. Since satellite data shows little warming, perhaps we should suspect contaminated ground data - you know those weather stations in the middle of growing urban areas and parking lots. Rural stations generally show less warming. McKitterick found a correlation between surface temperatures that have been CORRECTED FOR URBAN HEAT ISLAND effect and city growth -- OOPS.
riverat: If you want peer reviewed papers I suggest you go look at Skeptical Science or RealClimate.org.
JK: OK, so you haven’t seen actual evidence either.
Since you mentioned realclimate, you may be interested in their take on CO2 vs H2O (CO2 at most is 30% of warming):
. . . the maximum supportable number for the importance of water vapour alone is about 60-70% and for water plus clouds 80-90% of the present day greenhouse effect. (Of course, using the same approach, the maximum supportable number for CO2 is 20-30%, and since that adds up to more than 100%, there is a slight problem with such estimates!). (realclimate.org/index.php?p=142)
Thanks
JK
Posted by: Zarathustra | Dec 25, 2008 12:58:43 PM
However if you agree that the solar correlation was good until recently,
It wasn't. n-1 data points will always predict n random samples with no error. If your degrees of freedom increase and your error variance increases with it, that's called a bad theory, not contaminated data. This is why people scoff at 16 dimensional universes and the like. If you add enough terms to the equation, you will eventually "predict" everything you've observed.
You could have a rewarding career as a statistician for a major pharmaceutical concern, though, or fighting job discrimination suits (they use the effect in reverse)!
Posted by: rw | Dec 25, 2008 1:27:21 PM
Heheheheh.... Zara, after Chris Lowe pointed out that I can be a fearsome shredder with pointy teeth, I turned it off, mostly. But you tempt me....heheheheheh
Posted by: billy | Dec 25, 2008 4:10:37 PM
Zarathustra: However if you agree that the solar correlation was good until recently,
It wasn't.
JK: Actually it was (and is)very good. Better than CO2. See:
see: Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen, Science, 254, 698-700, 1991
Thanks
JK
Posted by: anon | Dec 25, 2008 6:35:08 PM
I am fifty four years old. I became an environmental activist in 1970.
The air is cleaner than it was in 1970.
The water is cleaner than it was in 1970.
Environmental conciousness was almost zero in 1970, now it is on the forefront of most people's minds.
A modern V8 SUV burns cleaner and way more efficiently than the V8 sedans and station wagons of 1970.
There was no recycling in 1970. Now it is nearly universal.
The fact is we are doing way better than we were forty years ago. And we will continue to improve.
People on here who advocate an immediate stop to using fossil fuels, banning all autmobiles and tearing down dams just don't get it.
Live a little longer and maybe you will.
Posted by: dld | Dec 25, 2008 7:43:48 PM
There was no recycling in 1970. Now it is nearly universal.
The fact is we are doing way better than we were forty years ago. And we will continue to improve.
Your generation is proud of its environmental record, but as you might say, if you're not a part of the solution you're part of the problem.
Recycling nearly universal? Very progressive and respected contributors for this blog work for apartment complexes that don't have recycling facilities for glass, IN PORTLAND.
Yes, people slowly learn. The thesis is, we don't have another 40 years. Personally, I would like major monuments, explicit monuments, to the human-uber-alles culture. My one fear is that there won't be enough technology in the future to read electronic media like this, and no one will be able to tell the story of what happened. We need major monuments that say, "We own the earth. God gave it to us. We use it as we please, we smite disease and want, and we will determine its future". These generations won't get it in time. You want a fact that you need to accept as you grow older? That's one you can hang your hat on. This culture isn't up to the challenge. You raise generations that can't think for themselves, inundate their "leisure viewing" with scenes of unrealistic relationships, stupid ultimatums, revisionist history and the cult of "the great male". You elect governments that appeal to the lowest common denominator and lie and lie and lie, even to your significant others. Anywho, if there's a lucky mutation and society ever becomes something more than a bunch of chimpanzees with toys, it would be nice if they knew how and why we screwed the pooch.
Posted by: Locutus of Aloha | Dec 26, 2008 12:45:18 AM
Yes, age is relevant. I like the way Blue Oregon is so open to comments, but having userIDs would help the debate, I think. I love the idea that people can throw rhetorical stink bombs- how else do you know what they are thinking? I love the idea that kids can debate politics.
Unfortunately it is just a waste of time letting people that aren't old enough to vote shout their opinions as fact with the same bandwidth as actual voters. "Billy" needs someone to talk to, but it wasn't the intention of the people that came here to read Blue Oregon to babysit him. I would bet my last dollar that 1/3 of the posts currently up suffer from this effect. A quicker solution would be to start a topic about WWF and ban the IPs of anyone that posts to it. Would you debate this with Beavis and Butthead? Then, why are you?
Posted by: billy | Dec 26, 2008 5:11:00 AM
Locutus of Aloha
"Billy" needs someone to talk to, but it wasn't the intention of the people that came here to read Blue Oregon to babysit him.
JK:
So, what is your problem with fact based discussion? Except that facts sink a lot of people's delusions?
Thanks
JK
Posted by: rw | Dec 26, 2008 5:34:59 AM
Locutus: although I think I understand where your frustrated sentiments come from, I have to say a couple of things about that, courteously.
I've only skimmed most of what JK says, as somehow I do not find myself interested in the emptiness and rationalized content and am not tempted into a pissing match with this JK nor am I fantasizing JK will ever meet me in the middle of anything. SO I am not promising I've totally "gotten" all that is wrong with JK as you experience him. But:
1. Your tone, if I were to take you at face value, indicates a healthy disdain for younger people, and endangers any rhetoric you might have offered up about how wonderful the Obama-supportive youth vote is and any other rhetoric about how we must help kids learn and practice citizenship to become strongly participatory citizens;
2. Are you really so sure that kids waste their time researching anti-anti-globalism, anti-anti global warming and the like? Not awfully likely;
3. I've noticed, actually, more rage and caustic hate-posting on the part of self-proclaimed Left Wing extremists (I will not lean to calling them "radicals", as I still have a bit of respect for that moniker!) than on the part of this kid;
4. I've also noticed more rudenss, and petty picking on the part of probably-clearly adult posters who get "respect" on this board and seem to show a little bit of a cliquey or status heirarchy posture, than this kid.
I know this JK has a stick in the shit-bucket and keeps stirring, stirring over a period of days, but, frankly, at a level that at least is intricate enough to warrant more respect than you pay it, and at least as much respect as such as "Ray Duray" or "Harry Kershner", or at least to recognize as anticipatory socialization -- mammalian play. In sociological terms -- the activities of juvenile anything/whatevers that are preparing for real life tasks. Think of lions and bear chasing down prey then getting bit on the pay, not sure of the next step. Like that.
Lastly, if someone wants to joust this person with spoon to fork over the lunchtable on a snowy set of days, my guess is that something in THEM is playing out and being satisfied (whether positive or negative), and you might just as well question them too!
Not meaning this to start a fight. It all just popped into my head.
One thing about when we take to poking someone sardonically - we will often use weapons of word that say a lot about us. Disdain for the efforts of the youth is the most important part of that here. Or it can say something about the known weaknesses of the target - in our house nobody said "You are ugly"... they ALWAYS said, "You are stupid" even if that did not fit. The goal always to hurt the other, and the known was that stupidity was feared and disdained too. Use that always, as you want to hurt for real, always.
Just a wee-hours thought about your post.
JK could be silenced if nobody responded to JK. It is BO bloggers who keep it going. :)
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Garage Wine | Dec 23, 2008 2:51:52 PM
If climate is a 150 year phenomenon, then "end of story."
But, what if climate changes over millennia, rather than "just" a hundred or so years?
There are probably a few more chapters in the story ...