Global warming it must be true.

[Technoid]

Originally posted by Nowhere
And good exercize for europeans before yellowstone will go BOOOM.

The question is...wchich one of these will be sooner :|

It will probably equalize

[Brian Ellis]

OK, I've kept out of the political diatribes pro and con Iraq because, on the whole, they are too stupid for words and end up as a dialogue between the deaf. I cannot keep out of this one because I am professionally involved here. I have worked many times as a consultant for the United Nations Environment Programme and I sit on one of their Technical Committees.

First of all, let me say that "Global Warming" is a misnomer. The correct term is "Climate Change" (hence the overseeing body is the IPCC). There is a world of difference between climate and weather and whether we can cut our hedge in March or freeze the balls off a brass monkey in March has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with climate, if it is something exceptional. These are weather phenomena, pure and simple. This planet has a long history of unstable weather phenomena with hundreds of different causes (El Nino, Mt Pinatuba, variations of the sunspot cycle, the angle of the earth's axis, the radiation characteristics of the sun, the phase of the moon, pollution of various kinds, etc. being just a few of the more variable ones). We, as atmospheric scientists, have a pretty reasonable idea that the effect that each of these have in the global weather, even if meteorologists can't guarantee getting local weather - a very different kettle of fish - right with 100% accuracy over more than hours.

This knowledge comes from mathematical modelling from observations. However, climate, as opposed to weather, may be considered as long-term averaging of weather. There is no doubt, from global observations, that the average climatic temperatures have increased significantly over the last century or so. There have been many causes and the mathematical modelling has not tied in with the observations, taking into account all the natural variations. The scientists therefore started to take into account the variations in the concentrations of the so-called "greenhouse gases" (not just carbon dioxide, but also methane, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride etc.) due to human activities. When these are factored in to the equation, the correlation between the global observations and the mathematical models fit like a glove. These calculations take into account both the sources and the sinks for these gases, as well as their atmospheric residence time.

On this basis, although there is no formal empirical proof that anthropogenic gas emissions are causing climate change, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence that is very conclusive. I can assure you that many a person has been hanged on less evidence than this.

This is no place for a lengthy dissertation on the phenomena. If you wish to know more, you can find any amount of information on the known facts and theory, in simpla and scientific language at http://www.ipcc.ch/

[GNEP]

Thank you Brian.

[The PIT]

Cheers Brian some reading later today.

Of course if it gets warmer I will have to cut the hedge earlier Unless of course it does the honarable thing and dies.

[Dr Mordrid]

On this basis, although there is no formal empirical proof that anthropogenic gas emissions are causing climate change, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence that is very conclusive. I can assure you that many a person has been hanged on less evidence than this. [/B]

Exactly right on that there is no empiracle proof, especially given that it's highly unlikely that what we call "global warming" is anything but a normal cyclical change.

There to the contrary much evidence that changes of +/- .5C above the average trend line are the norm for the last 10,000 years. During this time the hottest time was during the "Holocene Maximum"; a period between 7,500 and 4,000 years ago when the average temperature was about 1.2C above the trend line.

More recently; around 800 AD the average global temperature was .5C below the trend line since then. About 1000 AD it was spot on the average and about 1200 AD it was again .5C above the trend line.

About 1350 AD the average temperature again dipped below the trend line, starting what is often called "the mini ice age".

From then until the late 1800's the average temperature fell into a cycle on either side of a slightly lower average; typically ranging from .25C to .5C below the long term trend line.

Only since 1880 has the global average temperature returned to levels above the trend line and only now is the curve leveling off at ~ .5C above the trend line. Even here though there is precious little evidence that things have changed much. Here are the temperature graphcs for Janurary to December in the US from 1880 to 1995;



I defy anyone to show a consistant warming trend in this graph. In fact it's on average cooler now than it was during the 1930's!!

By far the gas with the most influence on the greenhouse effect and temperature cycles is water vapor, of which 99.999% is of natural origin. Can't do much about that, but the fact is that most climactic models do not include water vapors effect!!

The greenhouse gases we get all riled up over include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (NO) and other miscellaneous gasses. The vast majority of these gasses are naturally created, not man made, and their effect is miniscule: about 0.562% of the total greenhouse effect.

In short: "global warming" is more in mother natures hands than ours.

Dr. Mordrid

[Brian Ellis]

As a lemon-grower (this year, a phenomenal crop ), I must say that Lemon Buyer's hedge may just start to get increasingly scorched until that consummation so devoutly wished

[Brian Ellis]

Doc

Please read the IPCC site before coming out with things like that, quoted from the publications of the political opponents.

On 17 September 1987, the Montreal Protocol was signed, while there was still no empirical proof that ozone depletion was caused by chlorofluorocarbons and like substances. This raised just the same kind of opposition from the naysayers as we are hearing now about climate change. The difference is that the scientific proof came within about a year and the naysayers had to back down very fast. I've never seen a large corporation like DuPont (largest manufacturer of CFCs) turn their coat so darn fast. One day, they said that the whole affair was a load of nonsense. Literally three days after NASA published the smoking-gun proof, DuPont announced that it was essential that CFCs had to be phased out in an orderly way.

This is summarised by a quotation from Robert Watson, Co-chair of the Scientific Assessment Panel of the Montreal Protocol and former Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, one of the world’s most renowned atmospheric scientists:
‘Although scientific evidence that human activities were causing stratospheric ozone depletion was quite robust in the late 1980s, there were a number of sceptics who said, “wait for perfect knowledge; there is uncertainty in the ozone models.” Unfortunately, the sceptics were absolutely right. The models were inaccurate. They underestimated the impact of human activities on stratospheric ozone. This means that with the Montreal Protocol and its adjustments and amendments, society will have to live with stratospheric ozone depletion not only over Antarctica, but over all of the globe, except for tropics and subtropics, for at least another 50 years. Some of the same sceptics are now saying that not enough is known about climate change.’

[GNEP]

It sounds like Doc's been reading ExxonMobil's strategy documents from about 2-3 years ago...

[Dr Mordrid]

Sorry GNEP.....the temps are from data taken from ice cores cut at Russias Vostok station in Antarctica. Other data comes from the EPA and texts that predate the controversy. The US temperature graph is from NOAA.

I would argue that taking the long view lays out a powerful case contrary to that of the "global warming" theocracy. This is I'm sure uncomfortable for those with an anti-industrial belief system. Too damned bad.

As for Dupont having a "change of heart"....not really. By accepting the CFC data it opened a new market for them: "environmentally friendly" coolants and conversion kits at inflated prices

Please note I didn't say a thing about OZONE save for the fact that CFC's (which do reduce ozone levels in the stratosphere) are a greenhouse gas....a very minor one in that its effect, combined with other trace gasses, is only about 0.047% of the total greenhouse effect.

Dr. Mordrid

[Brian Ellis]

Sorry, Doc, but you are being political, not scientific.

Firstly, it is unscientific to show a graph related to the USA alone, when discussing a global phenomenon. The USA, however big it thinks it is, occupies a small part of the earth's surface. It has been stated many times that "global warming" means that some regions will get hotter and others colder (this is why the term "global warming" has be replaced by "climate change"). What happens in one area is totally irrelevant to the global picture.

I have a mean temperature graph for Cyprus which shows, since 1900, an increase of over 1 deg C with a greater trend since 1950. I won't show this here because it is as irrelevant as the one for the USA (actually, perhaps slightly more relevant, because, being a small island, it is influenced more by sea temperatures, which are also rising for the same reasons).

Secondly, the effects of water vapour ARE calculated in to the models. However, the global water cycle tends towards a negative feedback effect (higher temperatures>more evaporation>more clouds>higher solar albedo>less radiation reaching the sources>lower temperature). This means that water vapour, while important as a relatively constant "global warmer" (without it, the global average temperature would be ~-18 deg C), it plays very little role in climate change, but even this is factored into the calculations.

Schimel and Houghton published some figures in 1996 which you may find interesting (resp. 1850 concentration; 1995 concentration; annual increase over 1980s in %; sources; global warming potential; percentage apportionment of radiative forcing due to increases of all greenhouse gases)
CO2: 280 ppm; 358 ppm; 0.4; fossil fuels;1; 56
CH4: 800 ppbv; 1720 ppbv; 0.6; rice paddies, cows, wetlands, natural gas leaks; 40 (25-60); 11
N2O; 280 ppbv; 312 ppbv; 0.25; fertilisers and consequent microbiological activity, fossil fuels; variable (short residence time); 4
CFCs; 0; 0.27 ppbv; ~0; refrigeration, foams, solvents, aerosols etc.; 1000-3000; 24
Stratospheric water vapour: x;x;~0; mainly evaporation; x; 4

This is a very complex subject involving many disciplines, some of which I'm more versed in than others. If you wish to understand it better, there is an excellent book written for those with a good, general, basic, scientific knowledge (better than high-school science, but not necessarily up to BSc standard), which I can strongly recommend, just to get a better grasp of the subject. It is Atmosphere, Weather & Climate by Barry and Chorley, ISBN 0-415-16020-0 or 0-415-16019-7. Barry and Chorley are two academics, respectively professing at the University of Colorado and the University of Cambridge, so they have no axe to grind.

The estimates of global mean radiative forcing due to changes in concentration of halocarbons, nitrous oxide, CH4 and CO2 together total about 2.4 W.m-2 +/- 0.4 from 1850 to 1992, with a high confidence level (Houghton et al 1996). This compares with ~0.3 W.m-2 +/- 0.2 for variations in solar output.

[Dr Mordrid]

Your statement that Cyprus is warmer now has no more validity than my showing US temperatures over the last 100+ years.

What I see going on is a new version of the old human behavior of thinking that it's the center of all things on Earth regardless of common sense or past history to the contrary.

In the past the Earth, and us, were thought to be at the center of the universe with all things moving around us. Now some find it necessary to think we are at the center of the thermal cycle dispite the fact that a +/- ~0.5C variation in average global temperatures has been going on many hundreds, if not thousands, of years before the industrial age began.

Pure mental masturbation.

Dr. Mordrid

[GNEP]

This isn't necessarily the right place to put the following, but it's vaguely relevant to this discussion and I found it interesting (and thought some of you might too...)

It's written by a "trusted source" but I probably shouldn't be copying it straight from internal emails so won't name the writer...

It is prudent for organisations to take a flexible position in the face of
change. That is, to continue with what you are good at doing - modulated in
all manner of ways by the new pressures - whilst building a position from
which options can be exercised at the appropriate level of scale, risk
containment and regulatory interaction. ExxonMobil (EM) plan USD 100 bn of
oil and gas exploration over the next decade, but have also committed
themselves to developing the Stanford-based Global Climate and Energy
Project, GCEP. This will cost USD 225 mln, shared between EM, GE, E.ON and
Schlumberger, which initiated the project. EM, however, will carry USD 100
mln of this project.

One would expect environmentalists to rejoice about this. They do not.
Greenpeace call EM the "Death Star" of the global warming debate. Here is
why.

One of the core ideas in public affairs is that an organisation's public
face must clarify and amplify, not camouflage or contradict, its values and
goals. The body of opinion which viewed climate change as a major policy
issue grew in strength during the 1990s. Exxon was very public in funding
and propagating resistance to this. It underwrote contrarian scientific
assessments, and it funded anti-regulatory lobby movements in the US. The
twin themes that it developed were that climate change was anyway a
questionable idea; and that a strong policy response would heavily damage
US interests. Exxon-branded full page advertisements in newspapers set out
this agenda.

EM were the largest contributors to the Bush presidential campaign. The US
now has an administration which appears, to environmentalists in and out of
government, to have embraced exactly the position which Exxon had been
setting out. EM is blamed for this. The chief executive of EM, Lee Raymond,
is the particular subject of vilification. EM Executive Vice President Rene
Dahan told the Financial Times - in advance of clarification by the
administration - that Bush's plan "will not be very different from what you
are hearing from us."

There is now something of a feeding frenzy developing amongst activists.
Quite extraordinary vituperation can be found on the alt. usenet groups. It
is conventional wisdom amongst a wide range of opposition groups that EM
are the prime movers behind the current Iraq crisis. More practically, EM
projects are coming under particular scrutiny - in North Africa, South
America and elsewhere - and local opposition to them is being orchestrated
by a loose confederation of NGOs. New issues are being brought into play
- for example, EM does not recognise partnership rights for gay employees,
and this has stimulated boycotts of EM products in several countries.

Robert Monks - founder of the leading United States corporate governance
consulting firm, Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. - announced the
move, charging that Raymond's "increasingly extreme position" on global
warming and other environmental and social issues was harming the company's
reputation and share values. It is, indeed, hard to see what gains EM are
making from the position which they have taken. It is all too easy to see
what negative consequences they are building for themselves a decade from
now.

[Dr Mordrid]

This has little to do with politics.

People ranging from a co-founder of Greenpeace to those that are both very liberal and very conservative are having second and even third thoughts on enviro issues ranging from global warming to deforestation.

Most are coming to the opinion that the computer models are not good enough to take action on and that some previously sacrosanct enviromentalist numbers are cooked.

Also: it's stated by environmentalists that anything we do now will not have any effect for at least another 50-75 years. Long before then the supposed problem techologies will be outdated and replaced by more efficient devices.

This will be helped along by changes in lighting technologies (solid state lighting panels for one) as well as in high efficiency heat and local electric cogeneration using fuel cells. Cogeneration devices, both local and substation size, are already available and mass production will make them much cheaper.

The future power distribution model being pursued in the US is to have electric companies lease cogeneration plants and charge for the gas to run them. Alternatively substations could be replaced by large fuel cell generators.

Either would have the secondary benefit of eliminating widespread power outages, though local cogeneration would provide homes with both electricy and hot water.

Dr. Mordrid

[GNEP]

I see it like this:

When there is a risk of there being a problem, but you can't tell what the likelihood is, but the outcome of that possible problem is very detrimental and you have a possible (relatively cheap) remedy, do you:

a) say "it's not going to happen" and do nothing, costing yourself zero.

b) say "it's probably not going to happen, but if it did then having done x and y now will probably reduce a lot of the negative effects of the outcome a relatively little cost"

what do you do? I'd go for (b) (but then I'm a prudent accountant) - it might not be a problem, but then spending some time and money now won't have any detrimental effects (apart from the as said relatively small costs), but could have huge benefits.

[Dr Mordrid]

c) run around in a panic; trying to get people to spend needless resources to cure a problem that will cure itself as technology advances and more energy efficient technologies come into play. These are already making it to market...particularly in lighting technologies.

I can remember back in the 60's when a communications crisis was being made a big deal. That we are having this conversation across half the world put that crisis to bed.

Another was in the early 70's when it was stated that we were headed for another ice age. This one made it to the front pages of every paper in the world. Oh well.

Dr. Mordrid