There is something happening on the other side of the world that most Americans know nothing about. And it has, as of the moment, the potential to be the major disaster of the year. There is a category 5 hurricane in the Bay of Bengal approaching Bangladesh. It is called Typhoon Sidr.
This is probably the worst place in the world to have such a hurricane, and we know this from past experience. Twice since 1970 has there been large hurricanes in that region and both times over 100,000 people died. Think about that ... that is over 100 times the death toll of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. It is about 17 times the death toll of the worst hurricane (and indeed natural disaster) to ever hit the United States, the 1900 Hurricane in Galveston, Texas.
People in Bangladesh have been warned to evacuate. The problem is four fold ... (1) the hurricane is less than a day away; (2) evacuation shelters hold less than 500,000 people: (3) due to poverty in the region most people have to evacuate on foot; and (4) the country is low-lying and a storm surge of a category 5 hurricane can flood for a hundred miles or more inland.
My heart goes out to these people. I will be thinking of them today and tomorrow. I hope the storm undergoes significant weakening before landfall, but there is no reason to think it will. I think it a shame that over here we have not heard a single word about this impending disaster. I also think that it is probably true that global warming is playing a role in the increased frequency of severe hurricanes we are seeing worldwide.
I wish the Bangldeshi people Good Luck and I hope for the best as I fear for the worst.
Darwin's Beagle
I have been following this story closely. Immediately after the storm passed I read a story which said that 29 people had died. The death toll has risen continuously since then. It is presently at 3100 and climbing. There seems to be a consensus arising that the final death toll will be between 10 and 20 thousand.
By any measure that is an incredible death toll ... significantly worse than any natural disaster that has ever been inflicted upon the United States. It is also a shame that it continues to be pretty much of a non-story here in the US.
I think the reason may be that while this is a large death toll, relative to the two most recent hurricanes to hit this area it is very small. In 1970 a category 3 hurricane hit Bangladesh and killed between 300 and 500 thousand people ... a third to half a million people. In 1991 another large hurricane hit the area and 143,000 were killed.
Sidr was a category 5 hurricane and much larger than either of these hurricanes. Yet ... apparently many fewer people have died. Why? I think the reason is that we now have weather satelites over the Indian Ocean.
We did not have that in the past. Evidently the area received a much better warning and to a large extent heeded it. I was aware that Sidr was a large hurricane several days before it hit. Evidently they were too. Over a million people were successfully evacuated from coastal regions.
That is very encouraging, but still 10 to 20,000 thousand deaths is way too many.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
The only place that I had heard about this impending disaster before it happened was from your blog.
It's amazing to see that it's not front page news until 3100 people die unless it directly affects the US.
People knew this was going to be a big deal, and yet they did nothing to report it or protect the citizens.
Now, a lot of people are dead from it, and we're looking back saying "what could have been done to prevent it?"
----
this is war. every line is about who i don't wanna write about anymore. [Brand New]
http://progressiveu.org/143541-how-to-survive-the-2008-elections
"I also think that it is probably true that global warming is playing a role in the increased frequency of severe hurricanes we are seeing worldwide."
Hmmm.
Global warming does appear to be connected with increased evaporation from warmer oceans. More water vapor in the air leads to more precipitation, some of it in the form of severe storms.
Actual number of storms has missed projections for the past couple of years, so a simple causal relationship would be pushing it a bit beyond what evidence supports. I have had to listen to the recent droughts being attributed to global warming as well, so my patience with this politically motivated pseudo science is worn a bit thin.
A historical chart of global temperatures also appears to suggest that we are over due for a NATURAL warming period. The evidence that pollution caused global dimming may be responsible for the delay seems equally inconclusive to the theory that increased CO2 is causing warming. Strange, no big movement to INCREASE pollution to prevent the warming.
When the politicians get a hold of a little science the results sure get amusing.
I remember last year getting hit with a major snowstorm every week for 5 weeks. Drove my friend that works in city cleanup crazy because he had to work longer days and nights to get all the snow off the streets, only to have another load dumped the next week.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
The following conditions favor hurricane formation:
(1) Sea surface temperature greater than about 80 degrees Farenheit
(2) Lots of water vapor
(3) Low pressure at the surface of the ocean
(4) Weak wind shear
(5) Some pre-existing atmospheric disturbance.
Global warming will contribute to hurricane formation through factors 1 and 2, and possibly 5.
(1) This is only true for last year and in the North Atlantic basin. This year there were significantly more hurricanes than normal, fortunately none of them hit the United States with more than a glancing blow.
(2) The relative quietness of the 2006 hurricane season can be explained by the development of an El Nino that precipitated increased wind shear in the North Atlantic.
(3) That year there were a huge number of Pacific hurricanes ... remember we are talking about GLOBAL warming.
(4) This year it has been very active in the Indian Ocean basin.
(5) Emmanuel K, (2005). Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436:686-688. documents a doubling of the power dissipation of hurricanes over the past 30 years.
(1) Nope with regard to a natural warming trend.
This is a graph of global temperatures along with CO2 concentrations over the past 1000 years. The rise in temperature associated with global warming is occurring at an unprecedented rate. This is much faster than any rise going back to 650,000 years ago (as assessed by antarctic ice core data).
(2) To my knowledge no one has ever suggested that global dimming has caused a cooling trend. They have suggested that global dimming may be ameliorating anthropogenic global warming.
Here is a graph of Global Warming vs Global Dimming
Unfortunately, it doesn't completely show up here so I'll leave a link to the full picture:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/gw_and_gd.jpg
(3) In fact, Paul Crutzen has suggested that we inject sulfurous aerosols into the stratosphere to increase the earth's albedo and forestall global warming. Considering the fact that he is a Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry, it has caused a bit of a stir amongst climatologist ... most of whom oppose it.
No so amusing if you are actually a scientist and the politician is someone like Bush appointee George Deutsch
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Perhaps you should stick to the 'main point' if it bothers you.
I like the graph of temperatures that you chose. It only shows the present warming trend, and the reference I made was to the timing relative to previous trends. This might help;
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/images/historical02.gi...
Cherry picking the stats?
We are certainly due, and even past due for a warming trend. This data does cast doubt on the cause of the current trend. It also should show that even though spending vast economic resources may reduce carbon output there is no reason to think that will stop a new warming trend from happening. Those expenditures WILL help slow economic development in places that need infrastructure to allow their citizens to evacuate when storms threaten.
---
The 30 year storm study is another good one. It is a reasonably valid study as far as it goes. The time line is short, and the conclusions disputed, but it does appear to indicate what you say in a very carefully selected time period. Unfortunately if you lengthen or shorten the data sample the tendency it claims very nearly disappears.
Here is more data:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/05/26/hurricaneglobal-w...
---
There is a tendency for all researchers to seek funding. What do you suppose over 90% of the government funding for climate research is focused on? Global Warming.
What will happen to that funding if the threat does not appear great ?
Scientists have got to eat just like anyone else. This does not mean these studies are worthless, but be at least a little skeptical when people get more money for one type result, and less for the other.
---
I was pointing out the less known dimming phenomenon as an illustration of the complexity involved. Pollution is only one factor causing dimming. Water vapor is another even greater one. Warming is putting more water vapor into the air and thus dimming the earths surface causing cooling. Not a simple situation, a complex one.
Saying that Global warming causes storms is more politically correct than it is relevant to the people in the path of a storm, or scientifically accurate. Why did you stick it in there?
Is there a positive course of action you are suggesting?
BTW The Bush administration did not originate debunking this hysteria, but they have certainly added to the comedy involved.
When I reply, I always stick to the main point. Perhaps you should give it a try .... you could always write up a blog of your own if something peripherally intrigues you. But that would make you actually take a stand, wouldn't it?
Yes, severely ... but it is on your part. Here is a graph that shows what the study your graph comes from intended to show. That is the correlation between CO2 and global temperature.
Notice how over a 500,000 year period there is a strong correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature. If your only point was that there are natural cycles in temperature then your graph would be perfectly fine. But I was of the assumption that you were claiming that it shows that THE PRESENT bout of global warming is just the result of a natural temperature oscillation. If that is your point then your graph is misleading. The reason is that at this time compression one can hardly tell a temperature change occurring over 5000 years (like natural temperature changes do) versus one that occurs over 50 years (like this one). That is why the graph I posted is much more appropriate. Notice that the hockey stick graph has the sharp uprise significantly AFTER the initial rise in your graph. That means that this rise in temperature is not likely to be associated with a normal temperature cycle.
NO, the data used to make that graph DO NOT cast any doubt as to the cause of the current trend, for the reasons just mentioned ... the time scale is inappropriate.
Probably no more area of climatology is being more actively researched than that of the effects of global warming on hurricanes. There is a consensus coming about, and that is why I said what I said. Your source is over a year old. The situation now is not like it was then.
Here is blog exerpt by Kevin Trenberth, one of the leading researchers on climatology. This blogs briefly discusses the emerging consensus on hurricanes and gives links to original ressearch if you care to actually look at it.
Also IPCC AR4 FAQ 3.3 has a good up-to-date discussion of what is now known.
Spoken just like someone who doesn't have a clue about research. First of all, NO ONE gets a grant because he is proposing research that will only confirm what others have said. A person gets a grant because people believe that his research will shed light on a problem that people in the field think is important. If a person can show someone a major tenet to be wrong, then that person will have his career made.
Generally speaking, it is the global warming denialists who make this conspiracy claim. The overt irony is that they get their money from special interest groups, and do not publish research of their own so they do not have to go through peer-review. Why is it that you cannot see the problem of money affecting one's interpretation in their claims?
Water vapor is a feedback. That means it responds to temperatures. While it is true that an increase in clouds will increase the earth's albedo -- its reflectivity -- water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. The overall contribution to global warming is slightly positive not negative. That means that the overall effect leads to increased temperature not cooling.
(1) I think the claim is scientifically justified, especially the way I worded it above.
(2) The charge of political correctness seems to be made as a way of dismissing an objectionable statement without actually looking at it.
(3) The topic of hurricanes has become integrally related with global warming. You are correct in that it is a complex one. But the complexities have been resolved to the extent that I think it is important to at least tell what one believes if one is going to blog on the subject. I understand that one could avoid the subject, or make nebulous comments that suggest one thing but leave open plausible deniability if one is actually called on it, but to me that is a cowardly fascade not worthy of respect.
(4) The topic of global warming is not of immediate concern to the people in the track of Sidr, but it is of long-term concern to them.
(5) The question of a positive course of action does not have a consensus opinion. We must reduce our carbon emissions, and we will eventually. The only question is ... "How painful will it be?" VERY or DEVASTATINGLY SO. The best information on mitigating the problem I have found can be found here in the AR4 Working Group III Summary for Policymakers.
Bush has been part of the problem. He has consistently downplayed the scientific consensus that has developed on the subject. He requested that National Academy of Sciences go over the data, they did and reported that there was no doubt that anthropogenic global warming was real and a danger. He preferred to listen to Michael Crichton who had just published a work of fiction ... THE STATE OF FEAR. Bush probably values science less than any other president in recent history, especially when it comes to results he doesn't like.
I think that is dangerous.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
1970 300,000+
1991 143,000
2007 3,500 to 10,000
I think we can both agree that humanity is making some tremendous progress in protecting these areas from the effects of hurricanes.
Better transportation and infrastructure would be another step in the right direction. Progress toward that goal will be quicker if the free market and most economically feasible technologies are allowed to be used in this region. Under the Kyoto protocols this would not be allowed. Carbon producing industries would not be permitted to expand to anywhere near the level enjoyed by the richest nations.
That preceding paragraph is my position if you wish to have something to attack. I care more about those peoples welfare than I do about the halt or reduction of carbon emissions. There is strong evidence that within a few decades the conflict between these two worthy goals will be significantly reduced by cheaper solar and other advances, and I'll be glad when it is.
---
"I understand that one could avoid the subject, or make nebulous comments that suggest one thing but leave open plausible deniability if one is actually called on it, but to me that is a cowardly fascade not worthy of respect."
Impartiality = cowardice?
You seem to think I have to have an opinion on a matter that is fact. I try to never have opinions about facts. They would only get in the way of considering the data. The debate on Global Warming would benefit if more people refused to be sucked into the adversarial positions.
---
"Notice how over a 500,000 year period there is a strong correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature."
Actually the CO2 FOLLOWED the temperature increase in the two historical instances (AL Gore lied about this also). This time they coincide. I am aware that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, are you also aware that increased CO2 and temperature is a stimulator of plant growth? Plants consume the CO2 (thus reducing the atmospheric presence) and crops and forests become more abundant. Foliage cools the earth by transpiration and storing sugars (carbon based fuel).
---
"If your only point was that there are natural cycles in temperature then your graph would be perfectly fine."
Actually the timing of this rise was the point. Another question begging an answer is the cause(s) of those previous rises.
If you graph the temp and CO2 over the past 150 years it also complicates the picture. CO2 levels shot straight up, while temperatures declined between 1940 and the late '60s.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11639-climate-myths-...
This is a link to an article which debunks the myth that CO2 and temperature are unrelated. I chose this one specifically to underline the humor of EITHER side of this 'debate.'
---
"There is a consensus coming about, and that is why I said what I said. Your source is over a year old."
And the one you originally cited was two years old. Consensus will exist when it is arrived at, not before. Intuitively I agree that warming should increase storms in frequency or intensity maybe both. The problem I have with asserting the position is the lack of any conclusive evidence; the studies are inconclusive mainly because the observational data that goes back centuries indicates cycles. The more complete and accurate data that has been collected over the past 40 years is too short a time line to conclusively bridge one of these cycles. Thus public warnings of increased storms fall squarely in the realm of hysteria mongering unless they include the disclaimer that consensus does not exist.
---
"First of all, NO ONE gets a grant because he is proposing research that will only confirm what others have said. A person gets a grant because people believe that his research will shed light on a problem that people in the field think is important. If a person can show someone a major tenet to be wrong, then that person will have his career made."
Your first sentence is flat out wrong. Follow-up studies to confirm previous studies are very common. Your second sentence implies that the 'people in the field' and the first 'people believe' are the same people. That is not the case. Companies with their own agendas and governments (politicians) are the two largest sources for research grants. You finally get something right in the final sentence.
---
"Generally speaking, it is the global warming denialists who make this conspiracy claim. The overt irony is that they get their money from special interest groups, and do not publish research of their own so they do not have to go through peer-review. Why is it that you cannot see the problem of money affecting one's interpretation in their claims?"
I'm pointing out bias, not conspiracy. Aren't you the one denying that one side might be biased also?
The 'special interest groups' are mostly private companies that would suffer under draconian carbon reduction mandates. Have you considered that if they grow they hire, and if their profits shrink so does their work force? Are the employees they might have to lay-off if this hysteria is not considered rationally a 'special interest' as well?
---
"We must reduce our carbon emissions, and we will eventually."
I agree with the second half of that, and think the first would have benefits that might not out weigh the price. Also 'we must' isn't how I would describe something that is CERTAIN not to happen in the short term. Carbon emissions are going to increase rapidly because the developing nations are not ruled by governments that could survive slowing or stopping economic growth.
Reductions and the technology to accomplish them will come from the most advanced nations. As better tech replaces more polluting tech the reduction will begin eventually. I am all for anything that government can do to make that happen sooner, but I am against stopping third world growth as a solution (even though it is the biggest part of the problem). The development cost should occur in the US and advanced nations.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
I think the progress has been due to early warning. And that progress has been due to the deployment of weather satelites that cover the Indian Ocean.
I do not know that is true. (1) The Kyoto protocols make exceptions for 3rd world countiries. (2) The vulnerable area is primarily the low-lying delta of the Ganges River, it is not clear to me why carbon-emitting technologies would help with protective infrastructure. The best solution would be to encourage the natural growth of mangrove to serve as a buffer zone to lessen the impact of future storms. But that would mean relocating the millions of people who already live there. I don't know how feasible that would be.
You have presented us with a classical example of a false dichotomy. It need not be that we EITHER control carbon emissions OR we help the people. In these low-lying areas controlling carbon emissions WILL help the people.
Cowardice = impartiality??
I realize that one could make nice-sounding pablum statements that actually are meaningless as well. Let's take a look at facts
(1) Facts in and of themselves are meaningless. Their meaning comes from whether or not they support or contradict theories that explain them.
(2) To make use of any fact, then. You MUST have an opinion about it. At the very least your opinion must pertain to how reliable you feel it is. Because the FACT is that no matter what you think of as a fact; it could be wrong.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You are saying that rises in CO2 concentration leves are just as likely to result in global cooling by increasing plant growth and respiration??
Unfortunately for that hypothesis we can make the needed measurements and we know that is not so. CO2 concentration rises are FORCINGS. That means that it will lead to a rise in temperature.
Milankovitch cycles
The link you chose tells exactly why that cooling period occurred. It was due to sulphate aerosols. They have been known for quite some time to increase the earth's albedo and therefore lead to cooling. That sounds a lot more like addressing problems with a theory rather than "underlin[ing] the humor of EITHER side of this 'debate'"? One side -- the anthropogenic global warming side -- seems to be much better at addressing problems than the other. But then again they are the ones who actually publish in peer-reviewed journals.
Er ... that is the reason I gave you links to more recent publications. Those links suggest that my original source has withstood the test of time, while your source hasn't.
You are mixing things up:
With respect to anthropogenic global warming
(1) There is a VERY STRONG consensus in the scientific community. It is real.
(2) The cumulative data is beyond reasonable doubt at this point.
(3) There is long-term observational data that shows that there are cycles in climate but there is absolutely no long-term observational data that suggests THIS period is due to climatory cycle. Every observation suggests it is due to man-made emissions of greenhouse gasses.
With respect to global warming on hurricanes:
(1) There is a consensus emerging. At this point it is not nearly as strong as the consensus on the reality of anthropogenic global warming, but there is an overall consensus that the frequency of strong hurricanes worldwide is increasing.
(2) The data on that is strong but in my opinion not conclusive.
(3) There is NO long-term observational data on hurricanes.
Read what I wrote again ... "First of al, no one GETS A GRANT [emphasis revised] because he is proposing research that will ONLY [emphasis added] confirm what others have said."
(1) There are almost no studies that simply replicate another experiment. Replication comes when someone uses some else's work to ask further questions. The one exception to this is where one group says something and a second group says it is not so. A third group may try to replicate the results to settle the controversy.
(2) But even for that one does not write a grant specifically to do that. One does it from discretionary funds available to the lab. Grants are not given to strictly replicate anything. That has already been done. Grants are given for novel approaches.
(1) By FAR the major source of research funding is the government. Most notably the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). To get a grant one must write a grant proposal. The grant proposal is then sent to an appropriate Study section. The study section is comprised of researchers in the field. They review the grants and give them a score. Then once it is known exactly how much money is available to be awarded those grants with the highest score are given the appropriate funds. Others don't make it. It is always a very stressful time for scientists.
By and large politicians have almost nothing to do with who gets the money from THESE agencies.
(2) There can be political input. Congress can pass laws establishing "set asides". That is money that is earmarked to go to certain place bypassing peer-review grant applications. But compared to NSF, NIH and some other smaller governmental granting agencies who use the same peer-reviewed process of NSF and NIH, this money is small.
(3) Occasionally an industrial firm will give a grant and they can do it for whatever reason they wish. But again this is very small potatoes in the world of scientific funding of grants.
(4) Industrial companies can do their own in-house research. Usually this is propietary and doesn't get publish, however sometimes the companies do allow their researchers to publish data in the scientific journals.
(5) Global warming denialists are much more likely to work for industrial companies and NOT publish their results in peer-reviewed journals. They get specifically paid by the company to further the company's ends.
(6) In my paragraph I got a lot more things right than you did in yours.
Er ... excuse me. You were making an overt accusation that scientists were conspiring to give grants to people that only found results consistent with global warming so that they could keep the gravy-train of money coming in. It is a little disingenuous to now claim that you were only pointing out bias.
Everybody is biased ... so what? Science is a process, not a person. People involved in the process have different biases. If a field is important, it will attract a lot of researchers. These researchers will not likely share the same biases. If there is a mistake due to bias it will show up as people build on each others research.
Look at the global warming denialists. They don't build on each others research. Some of them claim that global warming doesn't exist at all. Some of them claim that it exists but is a natural cycle. Others claim that CO2 has nothing to do with it. Others claim that CO2 does have something to do with it only we didn't make it. Others claim it is due to cosmic rays. Others claim it is due to solar activity.
Climatologists have looked at all these things. They have worked hard to determine what the effects of these factors are and they have PUBLISHED their findings. Global warming denialists haven't or if they have they persist in their claims without addressing the response to them.
My point was not to claim that there is no bias. My point was to claim that it was the very people whose word you seem to be stressing here are the ones who are most subject to the problem you attempted to attribute to the PUBLISHING scientists.
The 'special interest groups' are mostly private companies that would suffer under draconian carbon reduction mandates. Have you considered that if they grow they hire, and if their profits shrink so does their work force? Are the employees they might have to lay-off if this hysteria is not considered rationally a 'special interest' as well?
I'll repeat what I said before ... We MUST reduce our carbon emissions, and we will: The only question is will it hurt a LOT, or will it be DEVASTATING.
Perhaps we can find a way to maintain economic growth and still cut CO2 emissions. Perhaps not. In either case we will still end up cutting CO2 emissions. I do not pretend to know when it will happen, or what will be the thing that makes it happen, but it will happen whether we want it to or not. It might come through enlightened agreement of the recognition that we all live on the same planet and share mutual concerns that we need to work together to solve; it might come about by a breakthrough in technology that affords us an abundant energy source that does not add CO2 to the atmosphere thereby allowing us to continue with our economic development without slowly basting the planet; or it might come about through the distruction of civilization as we know it.
I do not think that "third world growth" IS the biggest part of the problem (unless possibly you consider China to be a third world country). Industrial nations have by far the largest carbon footprints.
Third world economic development is a good thing. However, a stable environment is a better thing. If we cannot have both then it makes more sense to go for the stable environment. But I am not yet at the point that I believe we cannot have both. There are certainly more carbon friendly technologies we can develop. I would love to see us do so and export those technologies to the developing world.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
IMHO cowardice is denying facts to run with the herd.
---
"(1) Facts in and of themselves are meaningless. Their meaning comes from whether or not they support or contradict theories that explain them.
(2) To make use of any fact, then. You MUST have an opinion about it. At the very least your opinion must pertain to how reliable you feel it is. Because the FACT is that no matter what you think of as a fact; it could be wrong."
That may be one of the stupidest statements I have ever heard. Perhaps it is caused by a definition problem. Facts are actual, true, and absolute. They are subject to theorizing only when people are unsure of them. I think you might actualy have a meaningful point if I substitute 'observations' or 'conclusions' for 'facts' but It seems that your need to disagree has made you skew things again.
Theory seeks to find facts.
Facts=goal
Theory=method
---
"With respect to anthropogenic global warming
(1) There is a VERY STRONG consensus in the scientific community. It is real.
(2) The cumulative data is beyond reasonable doubt at this point.
(3) There is long-term observational data that shows that there are cycles in climate but there is absolutely no long-term observational data that suggests THIS period is due to climatory cycle. Every observation suggests it is due to man-made emissions of greenhouse gasses."
"no matter what you think of as a fact; it could be wrong."
I like the way you hide the least defensible part of this statement in an obscure word.
"anthropogenic global warming"
The assertion that this warming trend is caused by human activity is a theory. It may be true. It is not a concensus at this point.
Temperatures have risen now, and in the past. In the past the periods of higher temperatures ended. Once again it would lend credence to the anthropogenic theory if they knew why those previous non-manmade events came about. It would also convince more scientists if they could model the mechanisms and make verifiable predictions based on those models. There is at this point no concencus on why ,with very high CO2 levels present the temperature dropped in the historical instances. We also know that temperature increased rapidly with no change in CO2 until later in those instances.
---
"With respect to global warming on hurricanes:
(1) There is a consensus emerging. At this point it is not nearly as strong as the consensus on the reality of anthropogenic global warming, but there is an overall consensus that the frequency of strong hurricanes worldwide is increasing.
(2) The data on that is strong but in my opinion not conclusive.
(3) There is NO long-term observational data on hurricanes."
This was the coment that I responded to, and I am glad to see that you agree with me.
Long term data becomes less complete the farther back you go, and is skewed to be fairly good concerning huricanes that struck land, and less so with those that did not.
---
"You were making an overt accusation that scientists were conspiring to give grants to people that only found results consistent with global warming so that they could keep the gravy-train of money coming in. It is a little disingenuous to now claim that you were only pointing out bias."
Not disingenuous at all since the statement I made was about bias. The term conspiracy was introduced in your responce. A conspiracy would require that two or more people conspired. The bias on the other hand flows like water to where ever the money pulls it.
A very good recent example of this same mechanism at work were the studies in the early 1980s which made wild epidemic predictions with regards to AIDS. After the hysteria peaked AIDS research was receiving in some cases 50 to 100 times the funding on a per case basis that other deadly diseases received. Your description of the process is nice, but does NOTHING to rufute the assertion I made.
---
"global warming denialists"
You are using a very prejudicial term here. I understand that it reflects you prejudice, but calling a skeptic a denialist is very DISINGENUOUS.
Most of the people you are attempting to tar with this brush do not deny global warming at all. The vast majority are very well aware of the change in temperature measurements. They question a variety of the conclusions theorized by those that believe this is a BIG CRISIS, or caused by human activity. Skewing terms to influence opinion is also a hysteria mongering method. Why do you choose to obscure the truth in this way?
---
"the very people whose word you seem to be stressing here"
Straw man falacy? Who am I stressing?
Just as trying to put conspiracy into my statement, or denialist into the skeptics you are trying to obscure the issues. Al Gore had to lie 34 times in his nobel prize winning film. That and your own attempts to personalize this rather than dealing with the actual issues make me even more suspicious of how flimsey some of the side you are supporting is.
---
"'Actually the CO2 FOLLOWED the temperature increase in the two historical instances (AL Gore lied about this also). This time they coincide. I am aware that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, are you also aware that increased CO2 and temperature is a stimulator of plant growth? Plants consume the CO2 (thus reducing the atmospheric presence) and crops and forests become more abundant. Foliage cools the earth by transpiration and storing sugars (carbon based fuel).'
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You are saying that rises in CO2 concentration leves are just as likely to result in global cooling by increasing plant growth and respiration??"
No I was just pointing out a natural machanism that can REMOVE carbon, and reduce temperature. When I want to say something I'll say it. You can just say what you mean. That will save a lot of time with you trying to put words into my mouth. May I assume that you are aware of the process I describe?
---
"We MUST reduce our carbon emissions, and we will: The only question is will it hurt a LOT, or will it be DEVASTATING. "
There are other possibilities. One of these is to remove the carbon from the air. Plants do it, and modern technologies can as well. There is an experiment ongoing as we discuss this which is seeding the ocean with iron oxide dust to increase plankton growth. There are vast deserts that will someday be needed to produce food. The deserts could be planted to increase the amount of carbon trapped.
There is always an alternative. The free market makes better decisions that centralized mandates IMHO. The world economy has been growing at 7 to 8% per year for well over a decade. This is rapidly increasing the carbon output, and just as rapidly building our capability to do something about it.
The global warming debate is just a part of the environmental movement. As such it has raised awareness of very important issues. Making unfounded claims in the name of science weakens the credibility of scientists. Thus I am against making this adversarial, and for making accurate statements to help increase knowledge. Perhaps that would make a less entertaining movie, but the backlash from misrepresenting the facts damages an important area of study.
Yeah, like claiming that the data suggests the present global warming trend is just part of a natural cycle.
Using your definition and depending upon how skeptical one wants to be, one could say there are no facts. Nothing in science is absolute. Everything is subject to reevaluation with the advent of new data. Every piece of data has the possibility that it is wrong. Having said that, ... there are plenty of things in science that we have confidence in that approaches certainty. That is because the overwhelming amount of reliable data supports it.
Spoken just like someone who doesn't know what he is talking about. In actuality if you replace "fact" with "data", the process of science begins almost exactly opposite of what you have said. First we collect data concerning a phenomenon, then we seek a theory that will explain that data. Then we try to expand that theory into areas beyond where the data takes us, that is called making a prediction. Then we test that prediction by collecting more data. We readjust or extend the theory based upon that data.
The important part of science and its goal is the theory. Data is the way we test the theory. So it would be better to say that:
Theory = goal
Data ["facts" in chillbill terminology] = method
Correct. Even a strong scientific consensus COULD be wrong. But with such strong evidence there is no reason to believe it is.
The term "anthropogenic global warming" is NOT obscure. It is the terminology that is used in the literature. It means human-caused. And despite your assertions to the contrary there is a VERY STRONG consensus in the field that it is the case. Read the IPCC AR4 Summary for Policymakers
(1) Again you ignore the data. This event is happening at least 10 times faster than any global warming event we know of.
(2) There is a perfectly good theory that DOES explain those other events, I even left you a link .. Milankovitch cycles.
(3) What do you mean by rapid? In the graph you linked to rapid was 5000 years. We have undergone a similar rise in the last 50 years.
You still are not clear. What do you mean by long-term data? With respect to anthropogenic global warming long-term data goes back thousands of years. Hurricane data goes back perhaps 100 years..
Nice rewrite of history. In the early 1980's we knew very little about HIV (in fact, it wasn't even called HIV at that time). From everything we did know about the virus suggested that it COULD lead to a pandemic. So there was very good reason to devote resources to something like that. It is because of the research that we did that has led to the treatment regimens that we have now. HIV is no longer the death sentence that it once was, not because it was less dangerous than we thought it was. It is no longer the death sentence because we have learned how to treat it so that people don't die. ... or at least don't die in the numbers they used to here in the United States, in Africa it IS a pandemic and remains a death sentence for most of the people infected with the virus because they don't have access to the same medicines we have today.
So you would prefer I use the term "skeptic" for people who DENY that global warming exists, or DENY that humans cause it, or DENY that it is a problem, or DENY that there is anything we can do about it??
Er ... that would be the global warming denialists ... make that "skeptics" Who did you think?
Then you had no point at all. Of course there are mechanisms that remove carbon from the air. But if you go back and read what you said you explicitly describe an effect that if it were correct would lead to cooling not warming. The logical implication is that you were saying that increasing CO2 concentrations would lead to cooling not warming. And that would be an absolute misrepresentation of the evidence. Why do YOU misrepresent the evidence that way?
If you think that resolving the problem of carbon emissions will be resolved without pain then you are living in a dreamland. Our carbon emissions have continually been going up. Carbon sequestration has promise, but without a concomittant reduction in CO2 emissions it is unlikely to do the job that is needed.
Er ... we see the rapid increase; we don't see the "do[ing] something about it"
The one misrepresenting the data seems to be ... you. It is the dishonest global warming denialism that you quote that has enabled the Bush administration to avoid taking actions to mitigate it.
You are correct it is important. At the present time it may very well be the most important problem we face. The environment we evolved in is disappearing. We can survive for a while because we can make small local environments for ourselves. But this is not possible for the ecosystem as a whole. The changing environment brought about by human activity has caused and is still causing extinctions at a rate that will soon qualify as the 6th major extinction event in the history of life. There is no assurance that we will be one of the species to survive it, in fact, considering our dependence upon non-renewable resources there is every reason to think we won't.
Global warming is going to hasten extinctions. That will simplify the ecosystem. That means that there will be less checks and balances. I am by no means competent to assess how bad it is going to be, but I am having a hard time seeing the silver lining.
Have a Happy Thanksgiving. I have to go ... sorry I don't have time to go back and check anything for formating, or spelling.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I love the spirit with which you have defended against your perception of my position. Unfortunately most of the position you seem bent on defeating is held by someone else.
The discussion of Facts VS. Data is not of any interest to me. The emotional responce is the furthest from a detached interest in the truth. Perhaps you can rationalize it to be otherwise, but it seems that you get further from the actual issue the harder you try.
"verifiable predictions" is one of the standards you set for theoretical proof. What prediction are we looking for here? Is it the 40 inches sea levels are expected to rise in the next century? The examples of plant growth, and cloud cover are just two of many mitigating variables that make predicting the future climate a dificult task. The worst case scenario is not a certainty.
I do not disagree with you on the goal of taking action, I just prefer action that gives the human race more wealth, food, and development. I think it is not only more humane, but does not attempt to stop a very strong trend of growth and development. Trying to mandate carbon emissions is a political fools errand. No responsible government will hurt their ecconomy on purpose.
---
"Global warming is going to hasten extinctions. That will simplify the ecosystem. That means that there will be less checks and balances. I am by no means competent to assess how bad it is going to be, but I am having a hard time seeing the silver lining."
Hopelessness is against my religion. Knowledge is growing at an amazing pace. There may even be a resurgence in nuclear power, but the hysteria against it(Strangely similar to this one) was firmly rooted in the '70s. If you understand that science is unable to predict the future of climate why be so certain of doom?
I am a nonpolitical extremist, so blaming Bush does nothing for me. I hope you condem Clinton for not doing anything as well. The next administration is likely to be Democrat, and they seem to have all the availiable funding and more promised out. We will have government healthcare to deal with the heat exhaustion you forsee.
---
"The changing environment brought about by human activity has caused and is still causing extinctions at a rate that will soon qualify as the 6th major extinction event in the history of life."
You must be talking about something other than a 2 degree increase in temperatures from a cold period called the 'little Ice age' Right? The temperature is closer to 1 degree above the average. This alone has not caused one extinction. Habitat loss, and chemicals perhaps, not global warming. This is rather an off topic aside which again serves to create hysteria rather than address the issue.
---
"The environment we evolved in is disappearing. We can survive for a while because we can make small local environments for ourselves."
HYPE! WOW! Humanity is facing extinction now? Get real.
Please forgive my dismissal, but discussing this seems a little to advanced for you. The hyperbole gets more extreme with every post. Am I a 'denialist' if I doubt that the human race is about to be exterminated by vastly increased temperatures? How hot do you think it is goig to get? How soon?
If you can't present what you actually believe in an intelligent manner then it is hardly my fault that I have misunderstood your true position. But I don't think I have.
1. The actual issue was Bangladesh. It is you who took it to where it is now.
2. Only someone who is lax with the terminology or incredibly naive talks about "truth" in science. Ultimately you can never be absolutely certain that you know the truth concerning anything. But you CAN certainly have enough data to have confidence approaching certainty that your idea is correct.
(1) Modern climatology research into global warming have produced models of the earth's climate. Why? Because models make predictions. Here is a relatively up-to-date account discussing those models, what each is used for, and how they have been refined to become more and more accurate.
(2) There are 6 different climate models that researchers in the field use to assess sea level rise. The difference between the models concern different scenarios about what we will do to mitigate global warming. Their predictions range from 0.28 +/ 0.11 meters to 0.42 +/- 0.18 meters (Data extracted from graph on page 821). Your figure, 40 inches is just a touch over 1 meter. Thus, you are misrepresenting what the actual forecast is by a factor of 2 or so. More hypocrisy coming from someone who whines about others misrepresenting him.
While a quarter to half of a meter rise in sea level may not sound like much, it is enough to devastate island countries in Oceania and it is enough to do many billions of dollars worth of damage to ocean front properties in the US.
(3) You are incredibly naive if you think that global warming models do not account for the effects fo cloud cover and plant growth.
Sigh ... how can you be so obtuse? If we don't take care of the environment then no action we will do is going to give the human race more wealth, food, or development.
In case the above picture does not fully make it in these compressed boxes, here is the link: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2006/12/wheat_shift.gif
It was originally taken from the Scientific American website in an article that discussed possible in habitats that will support wheat farming over the next 40+ years. Think about it for a while. That is a shift of a thousand miles or more. Most plants do not have that distribution and a change like that is beyond what we can expect natural dispersal mechanisms to handle. Ecosystems are going to change and change drastically if this scenario is right. A Kansas wheat farmer is going to be shit out of luck. He is going to have to drastically alter his way of life.
Is that scenario true? I don't know. But I do know that the USDA has already altered its map of Plant Hardiness Zones northward to account for the effects of global warming that we have already seen.
(1) You have a very annoying habit of writing in such a way that your meaning isn't clear. What do you mean by "... the future of climate"? Do you mean that science is unable to predict what the climate will be like in the future? If so then I disagree. After having read the IPCC AR4 I think the modeling work done by global warming scientists DOES accurately predict the climate in the future within the parameters of their assumptions. What they can't do is predict what we will do to attempt to ameliorate global warming and when we finally get around to doing it. That is why they have different models based on different scenarios of what we do and when we do it.
(2) No one said doom either. I said pain. I think we are going to be forced to take very painful measures. If we keep denying the problem exists for another decade or two then I'll get back to you on the doom scenario.
For someone who is "a nonpolitical extremist" you certainly are good at parroting Clinton-bashing right wing radio talk show hosts. However, for your information I do blame Clinton for not making a more forceful stand to get Kyoto ratified in the Senate. I also realize that the general consensus is that he could not have gotten it passed anyway and if he would have made a concerted effort he would have burned political capital that he was able to use to get other bills passed. And I am nowhere adept enough of a political analyst to evaluate whether or not that perception is real or not. But I would still have liked for him to have made the effort.
I also recognize that the deciding opposition to having Kyoto ratified came from the Democrats who controlled the Senate at the time. And yes, I do blame them for it. I also recognize that a large part of the reason they didn't support it was because they felt it gave developing countries like China (who according to some studies have recently passed us as the number 1 emitter of CO2 into the atmosphere) a free ride. That is something that I too was opposed to.
Given that, neither Clinton nor the Democratic Congress back then have taken the insidious steps that the Bush administration and the Republican Congress has. They have actively tried to suppress scientific investigation and censure what publically funded scientists say about their research to the public. That is taking the it to a whole new level.
(1) I said exactly what I meant to say ... "The changing environment brought about by human activity ..." Of course that would include things like habitat destruction, and pollution. These are directly relevant to global warming. If we keep on increasing our carbon emissions like we have been and continue to do, then there will be habitat destruction on a scale not seen since major mass extinction events.
(2) How exactly do you know that global warming hasn't already caused extinctions? Perhaps it has. Global warming has direct effects, and indirect effects. It contributes to habitat destruction as well. But habitat changes that have occurred so far are miniscule to the ones that will happen if we don't do something SOON to stop or at least slow it down.
(3) http://www.greatdreams.com/little-ice-age-temps.jpg
That link provides you with a graph of the temperature spaning the Little ice age. If you notice that immediately prior to the Little Ice Age was the Medival Warm Spell. If you will also note that the temperatures NOW are higher than they were during the Medival Warm Spell. In fact, they are higher now than they ever have been over the 2,000 years depicted on that graph. Also look at the slope of the temperature rise.
That rise in temperature we already see is significant, but if we continue doing what we are doing with respect to CO2 emissions then what we have already seen will be miniscule to what we will see. Here is a graph of what the IPCC TAR projects as future temperature rises. The IPCC AR4 has similar projections but they tend to be slightly higher.
Not now, but if we don't do anything about global warming and the present projections based on the very best information we have are true, then we may be.
No apologies are necessary on a forum like this. You are free to think that I am a hypocritical idiot, just as I am free to think you are conceptually challenged pinhead whose intellectual capacity rivals that of a bucket of hair.
(1) You are denialist if you think that the evidence doesn't warrent a major effort to mitigate global warming by reducing our CO2 emissions.
(2) The magnitude and the rate of the temperature rise we see depends upon what actions we take to reduce CO2 emissions. Read that section from IPCC AR4 on climat model predictions to get a better idea.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
So, why am I sceptical about how severe this crisis actually is? Here are a few reasons from your links:
Global Warming Already Causing Extinctions, Scientists Say
""The species dependent on sea ice—polar bear, ring seal, emperor penguin, Adélie penguin—and the cloud forest frogs are showing massive extinctions," Parmesan said."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061128-global-warming.ht...
If you actually read the article though NONE of the animals mentioned face extinction from global warming at this time. Just more hype. Why do they think lying is needed?
---
I plucked that 40" figure from memory (Hypocracy might apply if I said you provided it) of what the max increase in sea levels might be. I was using it as a low figure, so half of that as suggested by your models works better for me. Looking for that link I found even more hyped numbers.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0420_040420_earthday.htm...
From the same hysterical source that provided that 'extinctions' article.
---
page6
"The Antarctic Ice Sheet is projected to remain too cold for
widespread surface melting, and to receive increased snowfall,
leading to a gain of ice. Loss of ice from the ice sheet could
occur through increased ice discharge into the ocean following
weakening of ice shelves by melting at the base or on the
surface. In current models, the net projected contribution to sea
level rise is negative for coming centuries, but it is possible that
acceleration of ice discharge could become dominant, causing
a net positive contribution. Owing to limited understanding of
the relevant ice fl ow processes, there is presently no consensus
on the long-term future of the ice sheet or its contribution to sea
level rise."
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch10.pdf
So according to your source the sea level might rise OR FALL.
Median 4"of increase. Even the largest temperature change might not mean the largest rise in sea level.
---
"the future of climate" "climate in the future" How dificult is that?
---
Next look at the projected temperature chart you provided. The High number ia a 4.5 degree increase, and the low is 0.5 degrees. That seems about right for the degree of accuracy I expect from this. Now let me guess.......You picked the 4.5 number for your predictions, right?
---
That wheat chart is another classic. I found it in four different places none of them mentions anything about the temperature assumptions it is based on. I assume it would be that worst case scenario you seem hooked on. Is that ~2 degrees in 43 years?
Luckily the people that grow wheat are ready for it now.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_11...
The entire science of genetically engineering crops has improved from zero to the present state in about that same time period, so I think there is some chance it will improve a bit more by the time this happens. BTW the dude on that blog you linked it from makes Rush Limbaugh look unbiased.
---
"You are denialist if you think that the evidence doesn't warrent a major effort to mitigate global warming by reducing our CO2 emissions."
I am not against lowering them. The term 'major effort' is a little vague for me. You are foolish if you think that we will even quit increasing the output levels within ten years even under the most pessimistic temperature increase. Since the average is the most likely, and the low end is as likely as the high it will probably be longer.
---
"The magnitude and the rate of the temperature rise we see depends upon what actions we take to reduce CO2 emissions. Read that section from IPCC AR4 on climat model predictions to get a better idea."
As I read it the accuracy is based on back testing due to the many recent (past decade) modifications. That is a pretty unreliable method when applied to financial models that I am more familiar with. Hopefully it works better with climate. I do not doubt the validity of these predictions however.
The actual level of CO2 is what they claim will influence these models, not the actions we take to acheive them. If we reduce emissions the level of CO2 will continue to increase. Removing CO2 will be needed in any event.
I can easily see where the world economy will benefit from desert planting and reforestation activities, while the only growth positive reduction measure I see is Nuclear power. Benefit to most of humanity is tied very closely to wealth especialy at the poorest end of the scale. Think about where we were technologically 100 years ago, and the likelihood of innovating our way out of this looks good IMHO.
Lovely how our news carries all this "major" world news.