Climate Change And You - Sometimes Good Ideas Are Actually Bad Ideas
Posted: Monday, November 30, 2009
by Ben Morrish
http://alltruism.blogspot.com
With the ever-mounting evidence that human activity is contributing to potentially disasterous climate change (quite apart from the natural cycle of climate change) many of us seek ways to live cleaner, greener lives that won't spoil our world for future generations.
Unfortunately, some of the common things people try and do in their efforts to live greener lives aren't very effective at all - and some, even though they sound like great ideas - actually INCREASE environmental impact.
One thing a lot of people try to do, and a lot of environmental organisations try to encourage, is "buy local".
This makes a lot of sense - transporting products long distances (in trucks, cargo ships, trains etc) costs energy, and generating energy produces carbon and pollution. Not only that, but the vehicles use precious resources in their construction and maintenance.
So surely buying local is a no-brainer if you want to do your bit to help the environment? Actually no, not necessarily. Often buying local is better, but not always.
A recent study suggested that New Zealand lamb, consumed in the UK, actually has a smaller environmental footprint per kilogram than some UK-produced lamb consumed in the UK, despite being shipped half away around the world!
This is, for me at least, extremely counter intuitive. The reasons behind this relate to New Zealand's cleaner energy, more suitable climate and naturally rich pastures. In this example, it means UK consumers wanting to minimise their environmental impact might actually be best advised to choose New Zealand lamb!
Another example is cut flowers purchased in the UK - some flowers produced in Holland (which is not too far away from the UK) have a higher carbon footprint than flowers bought in from Kenya (which is much much further away from the UK than Holland).
Again, this seems counter intuitive. At least it does until you consider the production methods - in Kenya, with its sunny climate, the flowers are grown outdoors. The flowers from Holland, with its considerably less sunny climate, are grown in heated greenhouses.
I'm not saying buying local is a bad idea, usually it IS the more environmentally friendly option - but don't automatically assume that it is.
Think about more than just the distance before making your choice.... consider the natural climate in the various countries offering the product you want, and think about how much man-made energy might be required to produce it in those climates.
Also consider the types of power generation used in those countries - do they use renewable energy, nuclear energy or older, less environmentally friendly methods?
Another thing many people do in an attempt to "do their bit" for the environment is to buy a shiny new energy-efficient hybrid car, with headline-grabbingly low carbon emissions per mile. That may seem like a good idea. For some people it might be the most environmentally sound option - but for many others it might not.
While a new, super-efficient car might produce less emissions for every mile driven, building a new car takes huge amounts of energy and materials. It has been estimated that producing a modern car generates about 8 tonnes of CO2. This is about the same as would be produced driving over 20,000 miles in your current, not-so-efficient car.
When you take into account the difference in CO2 emissions per mile for your current car and the brand new hybrid you're considering, don't forget to include the 8 tonnes of extra CO2 it takes just to get that hybrid on the road in the first place!
Think about how many miles you'd have to drive in your new hybrid, or how many years of usage you'd need to get out of it, before you break even in terms of your carbon footprint.
If you regularly drive long distances, and currently have an extremely fuel-inefficient car, maybe a new hybrid is the most environmentally sound option for you. If you don't, chances are it isn't and your best option for keeping your carbon footprint low is sticking with your current vehicle!
Obviously new cars are going to be needed, and eco-activists and governments need to do all they can to ensure that new cars are fuel efficient and low emission. But the best thing most of us as individuals can do, if we want to help the environment, is to try and avoid purchasing a new car.
Finally, if you want to help reduce humanity's carbon output, you can do your bit by cutting down your energy use, right?
Sort of, yes. But it isn't quite that simple.
If everyone in the UK made an effort and reduced the amount of power they used, UK power plants would produce less energy, and therefore less CO2. Sounds great.
But, unfortunately, the European Emissions Trading Scheme has fixed the amount of CO2 that can be released between now and 2012.
This means that if the UK population reduces its power use and so reduces its carbon footprint, the carbon permits we didn't use up will get sold on to other parts of Europe.
The total amount of CO2 Europe produces will still be the same, a bit less from the UK but a bit more from wherever the carbon permits ended up being sold to.
So what can we do?
Actually, we can still do our bit by cutting our power usage. There are charities, like Sandbag in the UK, which effectively "buy up" carbon permits, but without producing the carbon those permits allow them to.
So if you cut down your power usage, your energy bills will come down. Give some of the money you save to a charity like Sandbag and you'll be saving money and the environment.... win-win!
This Article has been viewed 2,072 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (9 total)Great article, Ben.
Along the same lines, they recently suspended pickup of the recycling containers in my neighborhood after it was determined that the diesel truck used for pickup was costing more and polluting more than the recycling was saving. We now have a drop off point to take things to instead of a truck driving up and down every street.Great reminder to be smart consumers!Thanks for reading Jean! When it comes to saving the environment, most courses of action have more consequences (good and bad) than we might first think, so we need to be quite savvy if we want to turn our good intentions into good results!
Very well done, especially the part about the European version of the Cap and Trade (or Bait and Switch) the Americans are trying to push through Congress. Good job.Thanks for reading!I think it's good that upper limits are set on carbon emissions, but it's not good that the system seems to be set up to encourage overall emissions to hit that specified limit, rather than encourage them to be as low as possible.However, having an upper limit set, even with the flaws of a cap and trade system, is far better than allowing unrestricted emissions with no incentive for any individual company to reduce its CO2 output.
Hi Ben.My husband and I actually had considered the amount of co2 produced in the production of a new car to outweigh the benefits of it's more fuel efficient engine. We've opted (for financial reasons also) to repair and maintain our older (l992 and l995) cars and just drive them as little as possible. We try to be very efficient whenever we leave the house; planning out routes and errands most efficiently.Thanks for the interesting look at the other issues, too.DianneThanks for reading! Its great that you took the time to think about the full CO2 implications of getting a new car - unfortunately a lot of us just rush in with the best of intentions and inadvertently cause a net increase in CO2 output!
Very informative article. Due to the cost factor for a new car or having two cars that are paid for the old cars will win out. However we keep up the maintinance and keep them in top running condition. We drive so little anymore we actually could almost get by with one car. We recycle and we shop at the local farmers market when they are open.Thanks for sharing.Linda DThanks for reading! Keeping existing cars working at their best is probably the best bet both environmentally and economically for most people at the moment I think
It's great that minds such as yours are willing to do the leg work and give us the facts on the issue of global warming, as well as what we can do to offset it.In your studied opinion, Ben, is global warming inevitable?Another consumable that contributes a big carbon footprint is bottled water. Not only is the container made from a petroleum product, but it is essentially transported in non-eco friendly ways, when you can get the same product out of your kitchen tap.- GI'm no expert on global warming, and haven't studied it in great detail.From what I have read though, I think the consensus is that warming of at least a couple of degrees, as a result of human activity, is now pretty much inevitable.Long term, we need to develop the ability to regulate the temperate of the planet, to keep it where we need it to be, regardless of our farming and industry, and regardless of the long cycles of nature.
Well written Ben. The only problem with AGW is that for the past 11 years, the planet has actually been cooling. There is a growing body of evidence that climate is actually control by the big glowing thing up in the sky. Additionally, NASA GISS has recently revised it's global temperatures downward (again) and now shows that the hottest year on record was in 1934, and that 6 of the 10 hottest years on record occured before 1950. Additionally, when you take into consideration that CRU at the University of East Anglia has admitted that it no longer has the original data. All the data that they retain, they admitted ealier this week, has been manipulated or massaged. Thus, under scientific terms, pretty much all of the papers that originated with those scientists, as well as EVERY SINGLE PAPER that used their contaminated data must now be thrown out and all of the research much be done again.So, the science of "climate change" is far from settled. One additional fact...in the past, during periods of "climate change" also known as ice ages, CO2 occured in much higher amounts that it is at present. Nor has CO2 been proven to drive higher temperatures.Still, all in all you've done a good job in writing this article. Good luck. I fyou'd like to read some more, google my blog,thevailspotand you'll find links to a large number of sites that can provide additional information.Thanks for reading!NASA's data revision has no relevance to global warming - they made an error, which they corrected. The "1934 was the hottest year on record" applies only to the United States (which covers less than 2% of the Earth's surface). The hottest year GLOBALLY is given by NASA as 2005 (with 1998 in second place I think).The result of NASA's revision was a change of less than 1/1000th of a degree.That is to say, NASA's GISS data still clearly shows that the mean global surface temperature is increasing.The question of human-drive climate change may not be settled totally, but the scientific consensus is clear.To quote from SkepticalScience dot com:"That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organisations that study climate science. More specifically, 97% of climate scientists actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position."Atmospheric CO2 was around 200 parts per million during most ice ages in the last 800,000 years, and around 300 parts per million in between them (the "interglacials")...and is now over 375ppm.The evidence strongly favours the conclusion that human activity is contributing to an increase in global temperature."The only problem with AGW is that for the past 11 years, the planet has actually been cooling. "Tell that to the polar ice caps and glaciers, like the one on Kilimanjaro, which will have all completely melted in our children's lifetimes.As for the hacked email messages, isn't it curious how everybody who reports "emails admit global warming hoax" never actually read those emails? It's like some mass hypnotism that just because some emails were stolen, they must necessarily reveal massaged or fudged data. The trouble is, people making those claims don't have anything to back it up with. Emails were stolen, but nobody has actually read them before spreading misinformation! ;-)- GAl Gore has been found wanting once again. The former Vice President, and "global warming expert", who once claimed to have founded the internet has been disprooved yet again. A Dutch climatologist who has undertaken a decade long study of Mount Killiminjaro in Kenya has concluded that the mountain's melting ice cap was a natural occurence and not as Mr. Gore has famoussly claimed due to "global warming".In the Netherlands today newspapers and websites are reporting the findings of Professor Jaap Sinninghe Damste - a leading molecular paleontologist at Utrecht University and winner of the prestigious Spinoza Prize - and his findings on the recently disappeared icecap of Mount Kilimanjaro, the iconic African mountain that has been adopted as the most popular symbol of "anthropogenic global warming" (AGW). Professor Sinninghe Damste's research, was released and extensively discussed on the website of the Dutch Organization of Scientific Research (DOSR) - an official organization of the Dutch government- "shows that the icecap of Kilimanjaro was not the result of cold air but of large amounts of precipitation which fell at the beginning of the Holocene period, about 11,000 years ago."The melting and freezing of moisture on top of Kilimanjaro appears to be part of "a natural process of dry and wet periods." The present melting is not the result of "environmental damage caused by man."The Dutch professor studied a number of different markers including a biomolecular markers in the sediment found at Lake Challa, at the foot of the mountain. He and his team reconstructed the variations as well as the intensity of rain fall in that portion of Africa over a 25,000 year period. They concluded that a cycle with a period of roughly 11,500 years of wet and dry periods occured in central east Africa. In the last dry period which occurred approximately 12,800 and 11,500 years ago the mountain peak did not have and ice cap. Sometime during the end of that dry period a serious change in the climate took place as a result in solar radiation. The resulting increased rainfall made the formation of the famous ice cap possible. The start of a new dry period resulted in the disappearance of the ice cap recently. ."DOSR calls Al Gore's "iconic use of the melting cap of Kilimanjaro 'unfortunate' - since it now seems to be mainly the result of 'natural climate variations.'" The magazine Nature published the English version of the highly technical article by Professor Sinninghe Damste's research team.On a lighter note, the website of Elsevier magazine, the Netherlands' most popular political weekly, used the headline: " Dutchman discredits Al Gore's climate evidence" DOH!(emphasis mine)So, wait a sec, in your previous post you said the earth was actually cooling down over the last 10 years, but in this one you acknowledge that the Kilimanjaro snow is melting? I guess it's possible, but when taken with all the other markers, including a shrinking polar ice cap and evidence of low altitude plants creeping up the sides of the Alps, one would think those demonstrate the reverse.The point is that the snow melt in Mt. K. isn't tied to "warming" it tied to local weather patterns which run on a 11,500 year wet/dry cycle NOT "global warming." Read for content, not what your preconceived notions. that's the trap that the CRU of Univ of East Anglia has fallen into. On theirs if far more egregious...they have appparently altered data to fit what they wanted conclusions to be...It is curious that the scientists who are trying to unlink the ice melt on Kilimanjaro to global warming are making some contradictory assertions. One is that the vertical shape of the mountain allows ice to melt, but not to grow. My question is, if that is so, then how did the ice get there to begin with? Another bit of their evidence is declining snow fall. But, that only brings us back to the original concern of global warming. So, it looks like global warming is the reason, after all.google the scientists name...he actually supports "AGW", but was surprised that the data shows that the melting ice has nothing to do with AGW, but rather is locally driven. Read the study it's availabe in English...excerpt from an article on pajamasmedia dot comJust as the Goddard Institute continues to abide by its errors, so does the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado. This despite the fact that a faulty satellite sensor reading led it to estimate that the Arctic ice cap was receding dramatically — 500,000 square kilometers of lost ice covering an area considerably larger than California. While admitting its mistake, the NSIDC did not alter its view until April 2009, when it released a graph showing, in the words of Steven Goddard, that the Arctic ice cap had “actually increased by more than the size of Texas.” From the purported loss of California to the substantive acquisition of Texas represents a significant gain for the United Ice Fields of America.I'm not convinced. There are so many data points for global warming it's tragic:- NASA satellites show that the area of permanent ice cover is contracting at a rate of 9 percent each decade. If this trend continues, summers in the Arctic could become ice-free by the end of the century.
- the largest single block of ice in the Arctic, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, had been around for 3,000 years before it started cracking in 2000. Within two years it had split all the way through and is now breaking into pieces.
- the contraction of the Arctic ice cap is accelerating global warming. Snow and ice usually form a protective, cooling layer over the Arctic. When that covering melts, the earth absorbs more sunlight and gets hotter.
- Rising temperatures are already affecting Alaska, where the spruce bark beetle is breeding faster in the warmer weather. These pests now sneak in an extra generation each year. From 1993 to 2003, they chewed up 3.4 million acres of Alaskan forest.
- Low altitude plants are creeping higher up mountains.
I don't see how these indicators would show the earth as actually "cooling over the last 10 years". Healthy skepticism should be encouraged. Indifference to the obvious is sad.
No, actually the artic ice cap has expanded by an area roughly the size of Texas over the past 2 year, while the Antartic ice cap has grown far larger and icebergs have been sighted as far north as New Zealand this month (the southernn hemispheric summer season)...something that has been conveniently ignored.You are making assertions but have not yet provided any reputable source to back them up.NASA (and other reputable organisations) has data and satellite images demonstrating that the arctic ice is not only less expansive but also thinner.
The errors NASA admitted to had a negligible impact on the overall conclusions.NASA:"The latest Arctic sea ice data from NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center show that the decade-long trend of shrinking sea ice cover is continuing. New evidence from satellite observations also shows that the ice cap is thinning as well."What evidence do you have that NASA, and over 97% of climatologists globally, are wrong about global warming?Yeah! Ice bergs have been spotted as far north as New Zealand...because they are breaking off from Antarctica!!! Antarctica isn't making more ice, it's losing ice.No Greg, that's not it at all...do you understand the concept of a lever? This is pretty basic geometry and physics...as the ice shelf grows...it puts more and more pressure on the lever point (i.e. in this case point at which the ice last touches the bottom) eventually the tensil strength point is reached and calving of the ice shelf occurs, creating an iceberg...Evidence from multiple independent sources shows the ice shelves are thinning and shrinking.Rising sea levels due to warming move floating ice upwards; a level of sorts, pushing upwards though, not downwards... but like your lever model that would be an inaccurate over simplification.I understand the concept of the lever, and what you are trying to convey. But the amount of ice that is breaking off exceeds the amounts that the southern ice cap is able to reform. In other words, those big ice floes floating in the southern Pacific are ancient pieces of Antarctica.East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades."Australia Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica."Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Allison said.Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Center shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years.A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.Earlier you said "the Antartic ice cap has grown far larger" now you quote a source disagreeing with your statement, saying "Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally" (with growth in certain areas roughly equalling loss in others).
Hi Ben,You say that you're not an expert on climate change. Until recently I would have said that I'm not an expert on climate physics either. However, I've become tired of hearing everyone else, from pop stars to politicians, talk as if they are experts. So I've decided to change my mind and say that I am.I studied physics at University, including planetary physics and the physics of atmospheres. I worked (albeit briefly) as an atmospheric physicist at the South Pole and have some experience of computer models (although not with climate modelling). Therefore, I don't think that it's unreasonable of me to say, that compared to the average Joe in the street, I am an expert.If Al Gore, Phil Collins, and Madonna can be experts, then I can be too!There was a time, back in the early 90s, that I believed in the CO2 greenhouse effect. However, I soon came to realise that the claims made for climate change predictions went against everything I knew about computer models. It is simply not possible to make accurate long term predictions of chaotic systems, such as the climate, using computer models even if you understood all the physics involved, which we don't. This is why weather predictions are made for days in advance only, rather than months. Over the last decade, the previous dire predictions of warming have been shown to be wrong. What confidence can we have in them for the next 10-100 years?The scientific method is one where a "theory" is submitted so that others can review it with the specific aim of finding errors, testing for limitations, or disproving it entirely. All data and methodology must be made available so that others can repeat the experiment or study, for it must be repeatable by others--anything else is not science. You do not refuse to disclose, and then when backed into a corner, destroy your data--although this is exactly what the UEA has done recently.You also do not declare a "truth" and then set about "proving it", which is what the IPCC has been doing since its inception. The IPPC, whose very existence is based on climate change, is not going to report back that there isn't such a thing. If you send witch finder generals out to find witches--they are going to find witches.There is no global warming. The climate has always been in a state of natural change, although despite this, it would be fair to say that it hasn't actually changed much recently. If anything, the temperate has been failing, hence the need to "hide the decline". The ice caps are not melting, polar bears are not drowning, and the seas are not rising. There are no more hurricanes than there have been in the past, only more reporting of natural disasters by a climate obsessed media. And we are not all going to die, that is not unless certain climate politicians succeed in putting us back in the Dark Ages and we are reduced to subsistence agriculture for survival.Well said, sir! I too was on the fence until this past week when I actually has the opportunity to take a look at the CRU models. I tried to run some of the smaller models but the programs are so badly bugged that I couldn't make them run. They just don't work. But what disturbs me is the destruction of data, as well as scientists urging others to destroy information so as not to have it available for FOIA requests. You just don't do that.Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a position denying human-influenced global warming.Very few maintain even a non-commital stance, and the vast majority state that global warming resulting from human activities is happening.Problems with a few bits of data here and there pale into insignificance when there is such a wealth of data from many independent sources.Where is the evidence that climate change is not a reality?Where is the evidence that the vast majority of scientific bodies and climatologists are wrong? Claims like that require extraordinary evidence, yet nothing seems to be provided, other than a few attacks against particular experiments or specific institutions.I think the sources we tend to favor says something about ourselves. My main concern is that we are leaving the problem up to our descendants. After that, when and if it does hit the fan, the ones doing the denying today will conveniently disappear tomorrow.I always find it reassuring when people of an opposing view resort to vague implications of shadowy global conspiracy and attacking a few isolated pieces of data that contradicts their own view without providing compelling evidence supporting their position.I take that as a good sign that I've probably picked the correct position!Hi Ben,
> Where is the evidence that climate change is not a reality?
I'll answer that in a moment. But first, let me ask you, where is the evidence for climate change?
Here's one answer:
"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly. As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system." - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.
and here's another:
"So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming." - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.
and another:
"I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?" - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO.
In short, the only "evidence" for climate change are models.
You ask for evidence that the earth is not warming. I've put a few links at the bottom of this response - you will need to replace the [DOT]s with '.'.
Rather than just give links, I would urge anyone who is interested to read: "U. S. Senate Minority Report" where "More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk Consensus in 2008 & 2009"
You can get it here:
epw[DOT]senate[DOT]gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3
(Note - after downloading the file, I had to rename the extension from CFM to PDF to get it to open)
You can watch a rebutal of Al Gore's video here:
www[DOT]youtube[DOT]com/watch?v=hpWa7VW-OME
Here are some quotes from respected scientists who contributed to the Senate Report:
"Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC.The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’ - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.
"The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round... A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact, Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.
"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden
"I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science." - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.
"Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in the history. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
"Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another .Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so. Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot." - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
And here are the links I mentioned:
Report: Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
www[DOT]dailytech[DOT]com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
Arctic Sea Ice Sees 'Significant Increase' in Size Following 'Extreme Cold'
www[DOT]cbc[DOT]ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html
The ice between Canada and southwestern Greenland has reached its highest level in 15 years.
www[DOT]sermitsiaq[DOT]gl/klima/article30834.ece?lang=EN
U.S. Senate Report Debunks Polar Bear Extinction Fears
epw[DOT]senate[DOT]gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=D6C6D346-802A-23AD-436F-40EB31233026There is nothing substantial there."More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming" - that's 700 scientists, of any scientific discipline, out of the total number of scientists in the world (which must number at least in the hundreds of thousands, and more likely in the millions).Not very impressive, even though they all have some of their (usually irrelevant) achievements listed along with their names - "authored 120 scientific publications and holds ten patents". It is nothing but an "argument from authority", and an extremely poor one at that!The 2009 Doran and Kendall Zimmerman poll, which had responses from over 3,000 scientists:'76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature.Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement.A summary from the survey states that:It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.'82% of the over 3,000 scientists who responded agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. That's over 2,500 scientists right there, just from one poll.Which puts the 700 figure of those taking your position into perspective.In fact, the 700 figure is remarkably similar to the 600+ scientists who have signed a statement expressing skepticism about evolution.In both cases the 600 / 700 figure represents a tiny tiny minority, and in both cases the consensus is clearly and overwhelmingly one of acceptance (of evolution and of climate change) rather than denial.The list of quotes you provided are merely anecdotes from some of the relatively tiny number of individual scientists who are climate change deniers.There's nothing from institutions, and none of the links are to scientific studies, only to news articles or "minority blogs".Also, giving a few examples of local cooling does not help your case - global warming doesn't imply the entire globe gets warmer in the short term, it is about the MEAN global surface temperature increasing. In some areas, it may become cooler, in some more variable (hotter and colder extremes), in others flat-out warmer.Your say that, "it is about the MEAN global surface temperature increasing". This is simply not true. Even the Phil Jones at the Hadley Centre accepts that for the last 10 years it has been decreasing.How much clear do you want things to be?
You cannot have global warming when the average global temperature is going down.Very selective cherry picking of one particular scientist and a very short time period there, and as far as I can tell you are misrepresenting Phil Jones - from what I have read he accepts the reality of global warming.Are you suggesting Phil Jones at the Hadley Centre takes your position and rejects global warming?To quote from the Met Office (Hadley Centre) website:'The last time annual mean global temperatures were below the 1961-1990 long-term average was in 1985. Since then, mean surface air temperatures have continued to demonstrate a warming trend around the world. 2007 has been no exception to this, even though there has been a La Niña event which usually reduces global temperatures.Professor Phil Jones, Director of UEA's Climatic Research Unit, said, "The year began with a weak El Niño — the warmer relation of La Niña — and global temperatures well above the long-term average. However, since the end of April the La Niña event has taken some of the heat out of what could have been an even warmer year."''Professor Jones said, "2007 was warmer in the Northern Hemisphere, where the year ranks second warmest, than the Southern Hemisphere, where it ranks ninth warmest."'And finally another quote from the Met Office Hadley Centre involving Phil Jones, where he explicitly states that global warming has not gone away:'These cyclical influences can mask underlying warming trends with Prof. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, saying: "The fact that 2008 is forecast to be cooler than any of the last seven years (and that 2007 did not break the record warmth set on 1998) does not mean that global warming has gone away. What matters is the underlying rate of warming - the period 2001-2007 with an average of 0.44 °C above the 1961-90 average was 0.21 °C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000."'How much clearer do YOU want things to be?The very people you quote to support your argument actually take the opposing view!>The very people you quote to support your argument actually take the opposing view!LOL! That's why he's been trying to "hide the decline".You've misunderstood the hacked emails then.New Scientist gives an explanation:'But what about that "trick" to "hide the decline"?One of the leaked emails refers the "trick" of adding the real temperatures, as recorded by thermometers, to reconstructions of past temperatures based on looking at things such as growth rings in trees.The problem is that some sets of tree-ring data suggest temperatures start falling towards the end of the 20th century, which direct temperature measurements show was not the case. So the researchers instead replaced the reconstructed temperature data for this period with the directly measured temperature data.'Phil Jones is not a climate change denier, and nothing in the hacked emails suggests that he is.
Apparently I wasn't logged in when I posted the above comment. My job doesn't depend on the climate change lobby, so I'm quite happy to put my name to it.Although I do worry slightly that I will be visited on over my "climate change denier" beliefs at some later date. :)
Here's the caption from a graph (which you can see on the Met Office website, in the Global Temperature Records section, explained by Dr Peter Stott) of the average global temperatures between 1850 and 2009:'A clear correlation can be seen between the three global-average temperature records, which were created independently.They all show a marked warming trend, particularly over the past three decades. Data provided courtesy of NCDC/NESDIS/NOAA and NASA GISS.'That's three centres, working independently and using different methods, all getting the same results, clearly indicating a warming trend.Dr Stott also says:'there is definite agreement on temperature trends from decade to decade (Figure 1). Most importantly, they all agree global-average temperature has increased over the past century and this warming has been particularly rapid since the 1970s.'
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.