Not long ago, most climate scientists stuck to the future tense when they talked about the impacts of global warming. Now, they are using the present tense — and using it more and more often. Now, they tell us the damages have arrived in the United States.
In other words, climate change isn’t just a problem for our kids anymore. It’s here and now and getting personal.
They’ll also introduce information to update the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose findings now are considered conservative and “wishy washy” by many in the science community, in light of more recent research and its more extreme conclusions. As Michael Lemonick reports in Yale Environment 360:
Since (2007), new reports have continued to pour in from all over the world, and climate modelers have continued to feed them into their supercomputers. And while a full accounting will have to wait for the next IPCC report, which is already being assembled (but which will not go to the printer until 2014), the news is not encouraging.
The new reports, many of them documented in an October 2008 paper by the World Wildlife Fund, include estimates that sea level rise may be triple what scientists projected just two years ago; that we should start preparing for an average atmospheric temperature rise of 4o C, twice the level the European Union defines as “dangerous”; that the Arctic Circle may be ice-free 20 years ahead of the most pessimistic IPCC projections; that carbon dioxide emissions are accelerating faster than expected; and that some of these adverse impacts already are locked and irreversible for the next 1,000 years.
John Holmes, the Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, concluded:
Climate change is not some futuristic scenario, it’s happening today, and millions of people are already suffering the consequences.
Back in 2005, the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies convened scores of experts in Colorado to analyze the gap between what scientists were saying and what the public was willing to do. Dan Abbasi, then associate dean, wrote the conference report and this conclusion:
The problem of climate change is almost perfectly designed to test the limits of any modern society’s capacity for response — one might even call it the “perfect problem” for its uniquely daunting confluence of forces.
One of those daunting forces is the “psychological barriers that complicate apprehension and processing of the issue, due in part to its perceived remoteness in time and place”.
Four years later, climate change and its risks are remote no more. For example, a fresh report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, currently in draft form and undergoing public review, concludes:
Climate-related changes already have been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers and sea ice… These changes are expected to increase and will impact human health, water supply, agriculture, coastal areas, and many other aspects of society and the natural environment.
Or consider this June 2008 report from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program:
Changes in extreme weather and climate events have significant impacts and are among the most serious challenges to society in coping with a changing climate. Many extremes and their associated impacts are now changing. For example, in recent decades most of North America has been experiencing more unusually hot days and nights, fewer unusually cold days and nights, and fewer frost days. Heavy downpours have become more frequent and intense. Droughts are becoming more severe in some regions, though there are no clear trends for North America as a whole. The power and frequency of Atlantic hurricanes have increased substantially in recent decades.
Been riding the Mirror 156 on all kinds of terrain over the past few weeks from powder days in Sun peaks and Sunshine Village to laps through the park in Mammoth.
Overall been stoked with the board... super stable at speed, floats nicely through the pow, poppy and most importantly fun to ride.
Lyrics to Collapse (Post-Amerika) :
When our rivers run dry and our crops cease to grow
And when our summers grow longer and winters won’t snow
From the banks of the ocean and the ice in the hills
To the fight in the desert where progress stands still
When we’ve lost our will
That’s how we’ll know
This is not a test, oh no
This is cardiac arrest
Of a world too proud to admit our mistakes
We're crashing into the ground as all fall from grace
When the air that we breathe becomes air that we choke
When the marsh fever spreads from the swamps to our homes
When your home on the range has been torn down and paved and
The buffalo roam to a slaughterhouse grave
What more will it take
For us to know
This is not a test, oh no
This is cardiac arrest
Of a world too proud to admit our mistakes
Kissing the ground as well fall from grace
This is a chance to set things straight
To bend or break the rules back into place
There is no middle ground, no compromise, we’ve drawn the line
With perfect aim, we stand back and throw
Glass windows break and it’s all about to blow
Lights go out as we pass the torch again
In hope that it stays lit
Neutrality means that you don’t really care
Cause the struggle goes on even when you’re not there
Blind and unaware
That’s how we’ll know
This is not a test, oh no
This is cardiac arrest
Of a world too proud to admit our mistakes
We're crashing into the ground as we all, yeah we all, all fall from grace
Sir,
regarding Peter Westmore's article "Arctic melting..." Nov 22, 2008 - you continue to misrepresent data in a form that is egregious in its ignorance of both statistical theory and fact.
I realise that this will be a wasted effort once again, but I provide countering facts to your article using data over a much longer period than your 1 year, and where possible using scientific organisations unlikely to have a vested interest beyond recording statistics:
1. Polar bear numbers since the 1970s have increased due to conservation efforts not increased sea ice - overall their numbers are decreasing again due to lack of adequate habitat: see here http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/Polar_Bear_%20Status_Assessment.pdf - doesn't sound like the utopian "no adverse impact to flora and fauna" you describe.
2. You can not pick two close discrete points of data and claim a long-term trend based on this; as I have said before it's dishonest and incorrect; sea ice is getting lower in summer - you would expect summer to suffer first as it is more marginal - see http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ and http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/legrande_02/
3. Summer polar ice, when compared to the 1979-2000 mean, has been the lowest on record the last two years - that 2008 was higher than 2007 does not disavow this fact - the trend remains intact.
4. Temperatures continue to trend upwards, see http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/. Please stop using satellite data as a means for proving cooling. It is a poor means of measurement. As the atmosphere grows denser from more moisture, it increases its shielding capability, making the Earth appear cooler from space when in actual fact the heat is being absorbed into the ocean creating a positive (bad) feedback.
Further:
1. You don't need a marked increase in temperatures to cause catastrophic change; 2-3 degrees will do. Snowlines up, alpine habitat destroyed, wetlands in trouble, Barrier Reef in trouble due to increased ocean acidity and temperature.
2. In regard of the above; the carbon we pumped into the atmosphere 20 years ago until today will add to the CO2 load for the next 20 years or so - it is not a boolean switch we can turn off - the worst is yet to come.
3. There are an estimated 2 Billion Chinese and Indian middle class yearning for the consumer-driven western way of life (read pollution).
4. Picking one scientist to quote to back your point is not what I would call consensus.
5. Further increases in atmospheric temperatures will unlock a predicted 1000 Gigatons of Methane (CH4) from Arctic permafrosts - methane is 20 times more dangerous than CO2 and that is more CO2 equivalent than in the entire atmosphere.
The climate is an amazingly complex thing, we don't know for sure what will happen but this all comes down to risk Peter. What would you rather: if you're wrong and we've done nothing, it'll be too late. If I'm wrong, I'll look stupid, but the worst I'll have done is removed inefficient polluting industries addicted to cheap energy like crack addicts (or forced them to pay the real cost to the community) but also have created many, many jobs and innovation in removing man from being a slave to non-renewable resources in green industries. Hmmmm.
The argument has moved from Yes versus No. It is now a question of "How bad will it be." You might like to read "Hot, Flat and Crowded" by Thomas Friedmann to avail yourself of some facts and figures.
Cheers and thanks for the chance to reply
Tim Marsh
Director, Heresy Snowboarding
Disclaimer: I have a vested interest in the alpine industry but I have a vested interest in the Earth as a human who wishes his children to see a clean healthy planet
Tamas Calderwood writes: Re. "Richard Farmer's political bite-sized meaty chunks" (yesterday, item 11). The most important point to note about the temperature graph referenced by Richard Farmer is that the entire global warming case rests on a warming trend that occurred over the past 30 years. This warming was no more dramatic than the previous warming trend from 1910-1945.Tamas has a history of casting aspersions on GW - as he is entitled to do. But, he also has a habit of cherry picking data to back his claims - very naughty.
Furthermore, the GW theory has no explanation for the cooling trend between 1945-1980. Finally, if recent chilly temperatures are not evidence that global warming may be slowing then what standard of evidence is required? Is the theory not falsifiable?
Tim Marsh writes: Calderwood is being mischievous again. Really, Tamas, you're starting to sound like A. Bolt and science notwithstanding, you cannot claim a chilly Melbourne early December as proof positive that GW/AGW is a furphy/slowing/etc; statistically that is impoverished thinking and it's intellectually childish (perhaps you were being a bit cheeky or ironic?). What next sir; some rain in January means the drought is broken?
You continue to seem to ignore or recognise the broader concerns about high CO2 (and related CH4) emissions creating a long-term positive feedback with unknown consequences and to cherry pick little titbits on a micro-level in a disingenuous manner. For what it's worth, I'd rather act, and be wrong (and on the way develop sustainable energy and reduce reliance on Big Petro), than not act and be wrong. Wouldn't that be a monumental stuff up?
Tamas Calderwood writes: Stephen Morris (yesterday, comments) says the Global Warming hypothesis can be supported with data from at least 1900 onwards but human CO2 emissions only really took off after WWII, just as the planet stopped warming for about 35 years. Surely this implies that natural factors are more important in determining our climate than CO2. Tim Marsh (yesterday, comments) chides me for claiming a chilly Melbourne December means global warming is falsified. Huh? I said the past eight years of cooling are evidence that global warming may be slowing.
Matt Hardin (yesterday, comments) claims there is too much evidence from too many fields in support of the GW hypothesis. This is a common claim but it’s false. The only "evidence" in support of GW is a slightly warmer planet over the past 150 years and a bunch of computer models that say it’s caused by man-made CO2. But the climate constantly changes. Recent fluctuations are within normal bounds. Natural factors have always dominated our climate and I’m yet to see convincing evidence that that’s changed.
The burden of proof is therefore on the GW theory. If the planet keeps cooling (as it shows signs of doing) then policies for massive taxes to "stop global warming" are going to look increasingly ridiculous.
Tim Marsh writes: Crikey, although I don't wish to engage in a slanging match on your pages, I really must take issue with Tamas Calderwood (yesterday, comments) either cherry picking or misquoting people/facts/stats, or being slightly unclear. Tamas, on Dec 9 you said (my highlighting): "Furthermore, the GW theory has no explanation for the cooling trend between 1945-1980. Finally, if recent chilly temperatures are not evidence that global warming may be slowing then what standard of evidence is required?" Firstly, I don't see a cooling period on trend-terms between 45-80.
Moreover, although I will acknowledge you did mention 1945-1980 (you did not mention eight years anywhere as you claim on Dec 11), you clearly seek to link the recent chilly temperatures to support your beliefs. I inferred, by the use of the term "recent", that you meant December or some similar timeframe. Perhaps my mistake, but again I make the point that on a pure statistical basis there is a trend upwards.
This link shows data beyond the 30-year period you mention, and regardless of a temporary decline, the trend is:
1. clearly upwards on a statistical basis, and
2. has accelerated as the emissions from the past 100 years have begun to create a feedback loop.
More information (amongst a raft of it) here.
Tamas, I again state: I would MUCH rather be wrong about this, having acted (and created a new world of non-fossil fuel based jobs, products and services), than be on your side of the fence, and not act (waiting, waiting), because that would be disastrous. The train of ecological destruction, once past tipping point, is not a simple switch to turn off.
From a purely business-risk point of view, I am firmly of the belief that we should act regardless. You, it seems to me, see risk/costs/job loss. I, as an innovator, see many opportunities for new job creation and smarter, better and more efficient ways of doing things, so my kids can surf, snowboard and enjoy this Earth (still the only habitable planet we know about for now) well beyond my death. Think about it. What are you so scared of?
Posts
All Comments
