Thanks for filling a great need and doing a fantastic job filling it!
“How about more subfield-specific blogs for improving communication within the scientific community itself?” There’s the brand-new http://www.cryoblog.org/ , which while allowing public access seems to be designed to fill the bill with respect to all matters icy.
It is a beautifully put together blog in terms of layout, but the content is sometimes thin (depth of discussion and frequency of posts). More importantly the biased censorship (against skeptics), the several hour (at laeast for skeptics) previewing wait and the cessation of commenting in old threadss inhibits vigorous technical discussion. Also, I think you should allow negative pertinent comments (as this one is). In addition, I find it strange that you don’t mention the climateaudit site among your sword clashers or even link to it. (They have the grace to unilaterally link to you.) To your (limited) credit, the wall of exclusion from skeptic arguments and the deletion of any post that linked to climate audit seems to have lessened. Still not fair though. (My assessment…based on participation here.)
P.s. Please allow this post even if you disagree with it. You can make a blue in the post voice of God reply. Just because you disagree with an assertion or argument is no reason to stop the post.
I seriously challenge the validity of that piece of data. But first I am not questioning the hardwork of the researchers or their honesty in recordingh the data faithfully. I do believe their instruments recorded the correct readings. BUT, the interpretation of the data is very questionable.
If you look at the graph, you see a nice general trend that the CO2 concentration is going up, but you also notice a strong seasonable oscillation.
That seasonal oscillation is rather suspicious. The reseachers claim, because of the geological location of the observatory, they are measuring a CO2 concentration FREE from any bias caused by any local effects. Since the global atmosphere gets pretty good mixing at a time scale much shorter than a year, they are measuring the true global average of the CO2 concentration.
Is that so? Are they truely measuring the global average? How can the seasonable oscillation be explained? If it is a true global average, there should be no seasonal oscillation. We know, globally, when the northern hemisphere is winter time, it is summer time in the southern hemisphere. So it should all average out and there should never be such a dramatic seasonable modulation in the curve.
The seasonal modulations clearly must have a local explanation. Are they related to the seasonable plantation and biomass growth? Hardly! The geographical location of Mauna Loa has a pretty low lattitude, and the weather is oceanic, meaning it is virtually the same comfortable temperature good for plantation growth year around. There should not be a very strong seasonal effect. Also, if you look at the Data List, you notice that the CO2 peaks around May and reaches the lowest point around October. Why? You would expect that in late spring, due to strong plantation growth and photo synthesis, lots of CO2 are absorbed and so you should see the lowest concentration of CO2, not highest.
The answer may lie in the tourism. You see more tourists in the spring time leading to May, so all the extra automobile activities releases more CO2 into the local atmosphere. And in the fall and winter, much less tourists. And the gradual build up of CO2 over the years may not be a global effect, but simply a local effect that more and more visitors vist Hawaii each year.
And that certainly bring a question to the legitimacy of regarding the Mauna Loa reading as that reflecting the global trend. You need data from a different location, one that is far away from local human influence, to draw conclusions. Unfortunately I do not see any data other than the Mauna Loa one.
RE: #6 I had to chuckle a little when I read this post. RC’s website is not what I would call ‘beautiful’. It is spartan and utilitarian which serves its purpose well. As to content, I find it ‘thick’ with informed opinion and analysis as well as courteous to its (reasonable) critics.
With respect to including a link to ClimateAudit, I’m not sure they are deserving. ClimateAudit’s authors, McIntyre and McKitrick, have pretty short resumes in terms of climate science and they seem to expend most of their climate-related efforts critiquing the work of others (not with very great accuracy it would appear: False Claims) and conducting ad hominem attacks (I won’t provide a link but posts making light of an individual’s language skills can be found on the ClimateAudit site).
RC appears to try to stay above the personal and stick with facts although posts such as the one referenced above must make it tough…
Happy Birthday, and Happy New Year also. May the coming year bring much greater enlightenment to the sceptics, doubters, deniers, contrarians and pig-headed %*!!$#s who still have so much learning to do, and who’s required reading should include Real Climate. As for the comment that your site is biased and censored, well ….. how far do you have to go? Does an astronomical site have to link to an astrological article or a medical site to a herbalists convention?
Thanks so much for all the work you put in. Your resource is invaluable.
Re 8 I feel Gavin’s reply to to the trumped up charge that the Manua Loa CO2 data are seen as the definitive global values should have included a reference to this web page: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel-flask/sio-keel-flask.html I think it shows pretty clearly that tourists in Hawaii are not the only cause of globally rising CO2 levels.
NOAA CMDL has has merged into NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Division
“As of October 1, 2005, the Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory has merged into the Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) as part of its Global Monitoring Division (GMD)”. http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/index.php
At first glance the argument seems OK. And it could be argued that I ought to do my own homework so to speak. But better heads than mine know more about what Nelson claims there and about important facts or strong counterarguments he omitted, if any. Hence my question.
[Response: Nelson appears to base his entire argument on the ‘fact’ that CO2 contributes 4 to 8% of the total greenhouse effect (of 33 deg C), and therefore a doubling of CO2 can only increase the total greenhouse effect proportionatly. Apart from being wrong about the effect of CO2 (around 9 to 25% of the longwave absorbtion depending on how you calculate the overlaps (see our previous post), this is way too linear a calculation to be applicable. In particular, he assumes that water vapour amounts are independent of the temperature (they are not). There are a number of other obvious bloopers (ie. “In fact, the effect of carbon dioxide is roughly logarithmic. Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is less than the previous increase”. No. Logarithmic means that the effects of doubling are constant). So in toto, it’s not too impressive a thesis. See our posts on climate sensitivity (or here) for more considered information. – gavin]
RC is an extremely useful site. The gap that it partially fills is to act as a source for scientific information on climate science from climate scientists. This is a particularly crucial role as the lead-up for the next IPCC assessment report accelerates. I predict that the IPCC AR4 will be the most contentious and difficult to assemble report to date, because many of the vested skeptical interests must realize that their list of tried-and-true (“tired and false” is more accurate) arguments are being addressed and refuted. They will therefore have to increase their efforts to discredit the research and the researchers. However… the political and social “climate” is still being strongly influenced by the op-ed media and high-visibility attacks on climate science veracity, with Crichton’s “State of Fear” the prime example, and Lomborg’s still oft-quoted manifesto and the Cato, Marshall, TCS (not to be confused with TCO) propaganda efforts still churning out chaff.
Therefore, a couple of suggestions:
— More illustrations (whenever copyright considerations are moot). The right picture makes the point.
— A parallel blog for commentaries, similar to the Panda’s Thumb “After the Bar Closes”. Shunt the back-and-forth of political sidetalk to a more appropriate place for debate. This would allow you to address the difficulty of moderating negative off-topic commentary (and would allow some of the knowledgeable RC readers to fully address the skeptic’s concerns).
I only just discovered RC and am glad I did. Thanks for answering all of my questions. And yet another: After reading Ruddiman’s hopothesis it strikes me that there may be a sweet spot for atmospheric carbon concentrations between 250 ppm and 270 ppm. At 280 ppm, the Sahara is an uninhabitable desert and at 240 ppm, Europe is covered in ice. Have we missed a golden opportunity to control our climate by wasting all of our fossil fuels? Had we doled our gift out a little more carfully, we may have been able to supplement or counter the solar energy variabilities as required to maintain a relatively constant and balmy 260 ppm. And one note on Lindzen’s precautionary tale. If we were using up the fossil carbon to benefit all mankind and for necessary quality of life improvements, he might have a case, abeit even then a weak one. But the fact is we have used the bulk of this fuel in purely discretionary and wasteful life style choices. It would not have been much of a sacrifice to drive a Prius over a Hummer. We are still flaring natural gas in Nigeria in the middle of poverty, pain and suffering.
Implicit in the running out of fossil fuels (and in comments like 17) is the potetntial that Co2 raises may be diminished in the future by constraint. You have to strain a bit to both beleive in the danger of glowbal warming (of devestating effect) and in the 200$/barrel peak oil soon fears.
My take: we will continue to find and exploit (economically feasible) sources of oil and keep driving CO2 up. I think the shortage of oil has much more to do with effective cartel actions and the unrest in the middle east than with running out worldwide.
re. 18. TCO, the peak oil price last year was $58 in early fall and the minimum was $40 over the holidays. This year, same time, the max was $70 and the price today is $57. That’s a 40% increase in price over one year and nobody is modifying their behavior just yet, except in places like Eretrea and Nicaragua, where they can no longer afford the stuff. The impact of technology on oil production seems to be to increase the rate of depletion rather than making more oil available (See Gowdy and Julia, RPI working paper 0512, Dec 2005). Geologist, like Campbell, Ivanhoe, and Deffeyes keep reminding us, it isn’t about money and economics. As soon as it takes more energy to extract the stuff than the stuff contains, the show is over. While Yergin is sanguine about oil today, it is worth noting, he advised Congress in 2002 that natural gas prices were on their way down. You can certainly, think what you like about cartels but Matt Simmons in Twilight in the Desert tells a very different story. Saudi Aramco has been nothing if not cooperative in pumping out all we wanted and the same is true for Qatar and the UAE. Bergan, Ghawar, Cantarell, Prudhoe Bay, the Forties, Yates are all in depletion and some quite steep. It is a plausible scenario that we will be in denial on both accounts right up until the plunge at the end and nobody will notice who cut down the last tree. Also, there are two very good reasons why oil could hit $200. The first of course is the shortage and the second is the total indebtedness of the US causing hyper inflation. I hate to be such a curmudgeon, but melting glaciers and more violent hurricanes are only some of the obvious evidence of which we are in denial.
RC has been a big venture, and I think the dedicated readership alone should make you guys pretty happy.
My advice for the next year(s) would be:
–Try to figure out who your audience really is. It seems very diverse to me. Then shoot for the middle. That leaves some room for technical clarification, but I think you leave fewer in the dust when you do that.
–More op-ed or press release type material. I know this consumes even more of your research time, but it seems someone (who is quite in the know) needs to be constantly monitoring and responding to issues raised in the popular media. And those responses should be executed in the popular media too, not just here.
–Why not go at it with McIntyre now and then? He may not have a climate science background, but he has a large and growing audience and will probably be around for a while. He provides a rhetort to many RC threads. It would nice if you guys would occasionally peek in there and give him a little back. Same with Pielke Sr., who has surprisingly few responding visitors considering the frequency of his posts.
Thank you all for doing this. May it continue well into the future.
Comment by Kenneth Blumenfeld — 29 Dec 2005 @ 7:42 PM
Tony, great post. Some reactions:
1. My basic point remains. If you are really worried about incepient peak oil (that we will have a hard crash in the next few years), then that will impact CO2 production after the crash. Remember the time scales too. Peak oil disaster scenarios are in near future. GW is much further off and assumes large-scale CO2 production for several generations. At a minimum, you have to consider the issue that your disasters have at least a TENDANCY to contradict. That’s all I’m asking for. The sooner the oil runs out, the sooner we stop burning it.
2. I will read your working paper on depletion technology. Assuming that you are right, to me the major implication to me is not a jump to assumption that this means depletion will accelerate (depletion will remain a function of the futures market in that case), but rather the point that exploration will not be advancing.
3. Regarding the energy cost of extraction–agreed (unless alternative sources advance to the point that oil is useful just as a feedstock…which I find unlikely…no alternative energies on the horizon breaking through). However if this is indeed incipient, the futures markets aren’t showing it.
4. That’s great about Twilight in the Desert…but there are also plenty of articles on how the cartel is more effective nowadays and how they try to reduce investment in infrastructure to make it so.
5. WRT “fields in depletion and the crash may be steep plausibly”…well the futures markets don’t agree with you…they could be wrong…but they have an economic incentive to try to be right! And the information that you cite is PUBLIC! What they show instead is a plateu.
6. Agreed that hyperinflation might cause 200 dollar oil. but that could happen with no shortage. you’re just firing from the sidelines and mixing in side issues with comments like that (and do you really think this will happen? why didn’t it happen in the 80s or the 40s then?)
7. the hurricanes? what the hell does that have to do with peak oil? you’re just throwing different things at the wall with comments like that. And even in GW, hurricane numeracy is not at all demonstrated as a proxy. That smacks of jumping on individual events.
8. General criticism. While you have a very content filled post, there is a tendancy in it to appeal to authority and to name drop sources vice thinking through issues.
Thanks for providing additional data on CO2 measurement. I reckon that the global CO2 is indeed increasing. But it is also clear it is increasing at much slower pace than the speed we burn fossil fuels. There is a negative feedback mechanism in nature that absorbed the bulk of the CO2 we release from fossil fuels.
Regarding the rule water vapour plays. Some think it’s a positive feedback, i.e., warmer climate causes more water evaporated into the atmosphere. And more water vapour leads to more GH gas and more warming.
I disagree! Water don’t just evaporate, it also come down in the form of rain and snow and other forms precipitations. Overtime the net water entering the atmosphere and leaving it is balanced. But the ret result is when water is evaporated it absorbed large amount of heat from the ground, and when rain or snow comes down, it further reduces ground temperature even more. So if more water is evaporated, the end result is the ground is cooler, not warmer. The water plays a role of NEGATIVE FEEDBACK, NOT POSITIVE ONE.
In fact I feel that water evaporation is a MAJOR contributor how the ground cools from the heat of the sun. Heat is given off by all three means, evaporation, air convection, radiation. Radiation is probably only a minor contributor. Clearly, greenhouse gases only matter for radiation, not for evaporation and air convection. Existing computer models probably ignored that fact and do not account for evaporation and convection adequately.
I did some calculations. The average solar radiation, if absorbed totally and do nothing else other than evaporation of water, you expect to be able to evaporate a layer of water of about 4 meters thick each year. Consider that some area on the earth do experience heavy precipitations of 4000 milimeter or above, the water evaporation must be a major portion of the heat loss of the ground.
I am still puzzled on how you reconcile the fact that on Venus you have 3×10^5 times thicker CO2 than earth’s and the GH temperature raise effect is less than 200C. Inferencing from that number the effect on earth must be very insignificant.
OK, but let me restate my original question. Ruddiman’s hypothesis is that human deforestation and agriculture may have caused atmospheric CO2 and methane to increase enough to moderate the climate over the last 10,000 years or so, when both should have been trending downward. This moderation may have been instrumental in the development of our civilization. If true, it suggests to me that there may be a sweet spot for CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere which may be most favorable to human life. There is a great article on the rediscovery of the Garamantes settlements in the Sahara in the American Scientist, vol 94 by White and Mattingly which shows a humid phase for the Sahara’s climate between 12,000 and 5,000 years ago which roughly corresponds to the period when the CO2 concentrations were between 260 and 270 ppm. I have no problem accepting that the Earth’s climate is vastly more complicated than my limited understanding and that there is the issue of cause and effect thus I’m asking if it is possible that a sweet spot exists, how sensitive might it be and could we control it artificially by judicious release of CO2?
21. TCO wrote: … Peak oil disaster scenarios are in near future. GW is much further off and assumes large-scale CO2 production for several generations.
Global warming is happening already… and is expected to worsen greatly in years to come. Global warming does not assume large-scale CO2 production for several generations. Global warming feedbacks will prolong and worsen global warming on Earth for decades and centuries to come.
Even if we could control climate artificially by judicious release of CO2 (which I doubt we could due to timing on feedbacks), it’s too late to try that anyway, CO2 will not be coming back down below 300 ppm for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, or more.
re 21 the rest. TCO, in regards to the rest of your generous post, I’m embarrassed that we may have gotten off topic. But I’d like to suggest that it is plausible that we could use our technological prowess to extract the oil from the ground faster than older technologies would have allowed yet not actually create any new oil. This is the gist of the RPI working paper, which I referenced by example. So we may first run out of oil and only subsequent to that event, experience the catastrophic consequences of global warming as a delayed result of the rapid release of CO2. Thus, and I’m just guessing here, we may find ourselves suffering the indignity of having to pay over $200 a barrel for oil while our climate will have been damaged beyond our ability to repair it and we will have set in motion lots of nasty positive feedback loops. I don’t see these as contradictory or mutually exclusive events. :+)
I’m aware that global warming models and predictions include large-scale CO2 production as a forcing. However, due to the large amount of warming already underway, the feedbacks alone will continue the rapid warming. From Mark Bowen’s book Thin Ice (2005), I think I read that 1/3 of the global warming is forced by GHGs emissions and 2/3 is due to global warming feedbacks.
Re 25, Pat how could you deny the fact that there is negative feedback! We use about 200 million barrel oil equivalent of fossil fuel per day. That number we know quite accurately so we can calculate quite accurately the amount of CO2 we release into the atmosphere. The calculation is straight forward. Assuming all the CO2 we release remains in the atmosphere it should result in 6-7 ppm increase of CO2 (ppm by volume) per year. But we measure only 1.5 ppm per year. Clearly the nature absorbed the bulk of the CO2 we released. [….]
Some suggest another feedback that warming caused the polar icea to melt, releasing tremendous amount of methane which causes more warming. If that is the case you should observe considerable increase of methane in the atmosphere. [….]
[Response: We welcome reasoned discussion here, but please note that a certain modicum of respect for the other commenters is required. I mildly edited your comment to remove statements that are more likely to inflame than inform. Please stick to the issue and do not resort to over the top rhetoric. Thanks. -gavin]
Post #22 has it all wrong about water vapor. For one thing, the poster confuses the role of water in surface cooling through evaporation with its radiative effect. Yes, water evaporation cools the Earth’s surface at about a level of 80 watts per square meter. But water vapor is still a greenhouse gas and so are clouds, though their high reflectivity makes them cool a bit on balance.
The figure for Venus (200 K greenhouse effect) is also way off. It’s more like 500 K. The effective temperature of Venus (given its known orbit, Solar illumination, and Taylor’s 0.76 figure for the bolometric Bond albedo) is about 230 K. The surface temperature from the Venus standard atmosphere (Seiff et al. 1986) is 735 K. That’s a 505 K greenhouse effect from where I’m sitting.
Lead researcher Dr Inez Fung of the University of California, Berkeley, told the Sunday Herald the model debunks one argument put forward by global-warming sceptics that plants will flourish and the oceans bloom in a warmer environment.
“Our work shows that if we keep going on our current course of fossil fuel emissions, the land and oceans will not be able to slow the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the way they are doing now. Land and oceans absorb about half of the carbon dioxide produced by human activity at the moment. If we accelerate our emissions, the saturation rate will increase,” she said.
Fung’s model suggests that as heat and droughts increase, plants cut back their intake of carbon dioxide to save water. Ultimately, they stop absorbing it at all. Similarly, as the oceans heat up they struggle to absorb carbon dioxide which then collects near the surface, further preventing absorption and accelerating global warming. …
Let me join enthusiastically in the birthday plaudits for RC!
A couple of points, raised by the peak oil conversation, and that I think seem to be understressed in general.
IT’S THE COAL, SILLY
Peak oil and greenhouse gases, (re #18) are far less closely linked than seems to be believed in some quarters. Increases in oil prices may have a lot of effects, but a first-order change to anthropogenic CO2 accumulation is not among them. Worst-case future emissions scenarios are dominated by coal. There is plenty of coal to be had.
Medium-term economic disruptions due to poor planning may or may not be in the cards as a result of oil depletion; I don’t have the expertise to say. If so, the impact on greenhouse gases will be mixed. A declining economy and increased prices may slow emissions down, but a conversion to coal would speed them up!
IT’S THE LONG RUN THAT MATTERS
I agree with #21 that the relevant time scale for global climate change is sufficiently long that running out of oil will show up as a glitch rather than a major change.
YOU AIN’T SEEN NOTHIN’ YET
I disagree with #24 in emphasis. The anthropogenic climate change we have seen to date is not a major issue except perhaps in the high Arctic. The global warming we have already committed to may be a major issue over centuries, but is probably not beyond our ability to cope with in near term or the long run. It is the huge forcing that we seem hell-bent on adding to the system over the coming century that is the cause for the greatest alarm.
IT’S THE TOTAL, NOT THE RATE
A point I wish were more widely understood is that the forcing is cumulative. While it is the rate of carbon release that matters to economists, it is (to a good first approximation) the total release that matters to the planet. Even if emissions remained clamped at 1990 levels per Kyoto, the long term picture looks riskier and riskier. The only safety is in eventually reducing net emissions (emissions – absorbtion/sequestration), to approximately zero, and the sooner this happens, the less risk we bequeath to our descendants.
EVENTUALLY CARBON EMISSION CONTROLS WILL HAPPEN
Eventually net carbon emissions will stop: either we will restrain ourselves, or we will use it all up and be forced to stop. In the latter case we will surely make a FAR more terrible mess than the one we see now or even in the year 2100 IPCC scenarios. Either way we will eventually have to cope with stopping net carbon emissions. Why not do it now, and save what we can of the natural state of the planet?
I agree that GW is already occurring (although certainly not to the catostrophic extent that it may in the future). your point about the feedbacks is a side issue. I accept that the direct effect of the GHGs is magnified by water vapor. No argument there. But they’re not independant. If we don’t add extra CO2, we won’t get the associated H2O.
Sure GW is happening already. Sure, there might even be some lag and we are going to face worse as time goes by. But are you seriously saying that future warming will not be affected by future CO2 production? That it’s irrelevant if we have some geological limits (peak oil) which shut us down in terms of putting CO2 into the air much faster than expected?
I’m not saying that future warming will not be effected by future CO2 production. The warming will come sooner and reach higher levels due to the addition of more GHG emissions to the atmosphere. The sooner the warmth becomes extreme is very important for species survival and for young people here now.
CO2 and methane global warming feedbacks are important too, not just water vapor. I view global warming feedbacks to include thawing perafrost (releasing methane, CO2 and water), less absorption of CO2 by oceans, greater demands for power (fossil fuel burning for increased A/C needs) and many others.
How fast did the global climate warm during the eemian? Are there any approximations for the global thermal maximum in the eemian? There’s more than 6 billion people here now, which obviously changes things for species survival. My paleo studies focused on the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum, a much warmer period than the eemian. Photos that I took while visiting the Museum of Natural History in Denver, Colorado can be viewed by joining my yahoo group at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate/
“We didn’t have mass extinctions in the eemian, although temperatures were much higher than present.”
That is only because the rate of change that brought temperatures that high were nowhere near what we see today. The danger of climate change today is in how fast it is happening, not in whatever the climate will ultimately stabilize at. The glacial cycle upswing that topped out in the Emian saw the temperature rise ~12oC over ~12K yrs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
That is a rise of .01oC per decade. Temperatures are now rising at about .2oC per decade. That is a difference of 20 times, there is no comparison to today’s climate change.
“The extreme emission scenario’s have one major flaw: they don’t contain economic recessions.”
Well, in general, recessions are temporary but I won’t argue that predicting economic growth is a no brainer. But this is not a valid criticism, this was as you say yourself “the extreme emission scenario”. There are others that make other equally speculative assumptions. They are there as a guide because the fact is, it is in our control, we must assess the risks and choose a course of action, not wonder and hope how fossil fuel consumption will eventually play out.
re 37 Hans, how rapidly did temperatures rise during the Eemian? Did species have a chance to adapt?
From Wikipedia “Kaspar et al. (GRL, 2005) perform a comparison of a coupled GCM with reconstructed Eemian temperatures for Europe. Central Europe (north of the alps) is found to be 1-2 oC warmer than present; south of the alps conditions are 1-2 oC cooler than today. The model (forced with observed GHG concentrations and Eemian orbital parameters) generally reproduces these observations, and hence they conclude that these factors are enough to explain the Eemian temperatures.”
If these temperature differences are representative of the global situation then characterizing temperatures as much higher than today may not be entirely accurate. During the Eemian it looks like atmospheric CO2 was around 280 ppm for the duration between 131,000 and 114,000 years ago. The problem with drawing comparisons, I would suggest is first, the rate of the change and second, we are already at 380 ppm and climbing very rapidly beyond that.
I don’t think that ignoring recessions is a particularly major flaw. The recession during the 1980’s did cause a modest reduction in CO2 emissions but not for very long. It may have only delayed Hubbert’s predicted world peak by 10 years. Of course, I’ll grant you that Paul Volcker has said we have a 75% chance of total economic collapse within a few years, only taking into account our massive debts and imbalances, budget, current accounts and total credit market, so the next recession may be the mother of them all.
Still, I would submit that total emission is what is important, as per #34, unless we are talking about a recession which lasts on the order of a hundred thousand years. A couple of delays of a decade or two, isn’t going to make any difference in the final outcome.
By the way, I think Michael #34, is spot on that future emissions will be dominated by coal. And anyone who has seen mountain top removal mining will readily agree that coal hurts us in two ways, emissions and gross environmental insults like deforestation. From a global warming perspective, possibly the worst thing I can imagine is an efficient way to liquify coal. As Michael says, “Either way we will eventually have to cope with stopping net carbon emissions. Why not do it now, and save what we can of the natural state of the planet?” Personally, I would like to see an immediate moratorium on surface mining of coal at the very least. It was on my christmas list. :+)
Others have talked about the Peak Oil problem on this thread. I agree that it is tied to any debate about reducing fossil fuel usage. Below is an excerpt from a peak oil site that is certainly as provocative as any AGW warning I have read. The problem with it is that no one knows for sure when Peak Oil will arrive. Many knowledgeable geologists believe it is 15 years away, but others believe it has arrived.
Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon. This is not the wacky proclamation of a doomsday cult, apocalypse bible prophecy sect, or conspiracy theory society. Rather, it is the scientific conclusion of the best paid, most widely-respected geologists, physicists, and investment bankers in the world. These are rational, professional, conservative individuals who are absolutely terrified by a phenomenon known as global Peak Oil.”
Yes, peak oil is coming and may already be here. It is a much more immediate problem than GW. Yes, some people believe we can and will fall back on coal.(500 year supply in the U.S.) However, it seems to me that now is the time to begin moving to new, clean energy sources. If this country decided to do it, in 25 years we could be well on our way to widespread use of
clean energy and slowing use of fossil fuels.
IMO it is easier to sell the idea of cutting fossil fuel usage based on national energy and economic security than it is to keep proclaiming GW disaster scenarios that will happen 100 years from now.
It would certainly be a happy circumstance if we could solve our evolving energy problem and slow CO2 emissions all in the bargain.
Comment by Jim Glendenning — 31 Dec 2005 @ 2:41 AM
Thank you so much to everyone at RC for all your diligent work – you truly are making a difference! My New Year’s resolution is to tell at least FIVE people a MONTH about RC and I **HOPE** that everyone visiting does the same!
Hi, i see you’ve got some stuff on your site about climate change. I’ve come up with an idea to help stop climate change. Head over to “Mr. Luna’s Bright Idea” at http://thebrightidea.blogspot.com. See if you would like to help!!!! thanks so much- ken
RC is a wonderful sight. I’ve enjoyed reading the many insightful discussions and excellent presentations on these important issues. It’s refreshing to find a clear presentation of the science unencumbered from the divisive rhetoric and partisan politics that are all too common in the standard media. Excellent job RC.
Re posts 19, 21, 41 (and others) regarding “Peak Oil”. In fact, the Peak Oil discussion IS all about economics.
The issue is that it is the reserves of sweet, easily recoverable oil that can be economically produced at US$20 per barrel that are being depleted, and apparently not replaced. An interesting question is to ask what the reserves of sweet, easily recoverable oil would be if a long term price of US$40 per barrel could be relied on. The higher price would make it economically attractive to develop more marginal fields and to invest in secondary and tertiary recovery technologies to recover a greater proportion of the in-site oil that is not recovered in primary extraction. It appears that the potential reserves of sweet, easily recoverable oil in Russia are very large.
And of course, there is no doubt that there are huge resources of hydrocarbons that can be converted into petroleum products if the economics work out. I am referring to the Athabasca Tar Sands, the Orinoco bitumen deposits in Venezuela, the many large oil shale deposits, and the lignite, brown coal and black coal deposits that can be converted to petroleum products using technologies that are available today.
A characteristic of each of these alternative sources is that they are capital intensive, requiring massive investment of capital to enable production, especially if that is to be done in an environmentally responsible fashion, as of course it should be. I suggest that availability of capital is actually the main constraint in assuring continued supply of petroleum products at a reasonable price in the long term. The issue with availability of capital is not the economics of production per se. It is very likely that many of the resources cited above could be economically produced at prices of say US$40 per barrel. The real issue with availability of capital is the historic volatility of the oil price. For example, it was only 7 years ago (December 1998) that crude oil bottomed out at US$10.73 per barrel. The patient capital required to develop the alternative projects requires certainty as to outcomes. The key issue is the volatility of the oil price. I suggest that if a way could be found to guarantee an oil price of US$40 per barrel for a 20 year project life, that abundant capital would become available to ensure the development of alternative sources that could keep us all supplied with ample reserves of petroleum products for hundreds of years. The issue of course is that setting a price of US$40 per barrel in the fashion that I suggest is likely to result in substantial over-supply, thus causing the spot prices to fall back to lower levels. The issue then becomes, how do you sustain the guaranteed US$40 per barrel when the spot prices are US$25 per barrel or less.
You’re doing a great job. Please don’t waste time taking on any contrarians here, at ClimateHaHa.com, or anywhere else. That’s their most recent strategy, I guess. Get climate scientists to waste their time. Plus, you’ve already addressed whatever legitimate skeptical criticisms (& even wacko ones) they may have had re the hockey stick, etc.
RE #6 & RC being unfair to skeptics: My impression is there aren’t many skeptics left, only contrarians, as least as far as GW in general goes. There are, of course, still skeptics on side issues and details, such as whether GW has started contributing to hurricane intensity yet, just as there’s a lot of debate among evolution scientists on the particulars. Such debate in no way detracts from the basic facts of GW.
I don’t think RC scientists should take one minute off their research & teaching time to bother with contrarians. It’s just their latest tactic to derail climate science by wasting time, and it shows how very fast the ice is melting underneath their arguments.
BTW, I have also been censored, so I think RC is very fair in dealing with both extremes.
Comment by Lynn Vincentnathan — 2 Jan 2006 @ 5:19 PM
Lynn, I agree with you, in principle anyway. And obviously, the choice is up to the primary RC contributors and moderators.
I should relay, however, that undergraduate meteorology, geography, and geology students (to name only few disciplines) are now taking time out to investigate these issues, and they are doing it online, rather than in the literature, as wacko as that may seem. Despite the overwhelming majority of consensus-side scientists out there, it is much easier to get contrarian/skeptical/psuedo skeptical information. The consensus folks are getting their you-know-whats kicked in this regard, and all I can offer as evidence are my 90 or so students this past semester who I think very badly wanted to get behind RC but felt they were side-stepping direct confrontation. They felt that by appearing to ignore skeptics (except for on its own forum) RC was in some sort of denial. You and I may not believe this is true, but to the future climate scientists I think it is an important point. They want to see their people step up to the plate, not just take practice swings, so to speak.
[Response: Interesting point. I think one needs to differentiate dealing with ‘sceptic’ issues from going head-to-head with some particular site or person. We have tackled many of the issues (i.e. the role of water vapour feedback, the so-called 70’s global cooling scare, Martian ‘warming’, satellite records etc.), but we don’t tend to get involved in debates across the blogsphere. This is because these ‘debates’ very rarely provide enlightenment and frequently just confuse the issue, giving the (misleading) impression that there is indeed scientific controversy about whether the current CO2 rise is anthropogenic for instance. How then does one best avoid this lose-lose situation? I think it is do what we are doing – provide solid discussions of the real scientific issues which can then be used by others in different forums. If you have any specific ideas to make that work better, let us know. – gavin]
Comment by Kenneth Blumenfeld — 2 Jan 2006 @ 7:36 PM
My take on the peak oil question (I’m an editor at http://www.theoildrum.com) is that it’s probably bad for GW, with the possible exception of raising political awareness of the general issue of exponential growth on a finite planet. The Hubbert theory applied to the global oil production profile suggests that decline rates in oil production will be, on average, relatively slow – rising over the course of several decades to a maximum of around 5% p.a. That suggests ample time to convert to coal-based technologies and other low-on-the-pyramid hydrocarbons such as tar sands and Orinoco extra-heavy oils. That is probably the path of least resistance economically. Absent sequestration, the use of these low EROEI hydrocarbons with low hydrogen content is likely to significantly increase the carbon intensity of delivered physical work in the economy (this may be partially offset by improving economic efficiency in the use of that physical work).
Re 53: My three favorite sites: TOD, RC and energy bulletin. Great job. Peak oil and AGW are intrinsically linked. As Stuart points out, we can “solve” our acute energy problems by making our climate problems all the worse. Coal, tar sands and extra-heavy oils have lower energy content and pollute more. Nuclear power is not a clean solution.
I suspect conservation is the only one solution to both problems. We should try to get our energy consumption down to the level where renewables make sense. We also have to do something about our population growth, hopefully, something other than disease and war.
Cuba (I’m not recommending a totalitarian dictatorship) has the same life expectancy as the US and a lower infant mortality rate, proof that we can cut energy consumption at least 85% and maintain or even improve quality of life. Cuba does have a very high incarceration rate, so life is not perfect, and maybe not desirable. But point of fact, it is much lower than the incarceration rate of the US. And Cuba is exporting doctors and health care while we are exporting war. Cuba achieves these results while being very energy inefficient, running 1957 Cheveys instead of Priuses, for example.
I would propose, Gavin and Stuart, that you don’t need to change anything about what you are doing. Perfect as is. I suggest that it is the rest of us, your readers, who need to step up to the plate.
I’ve formed a local group called Loudoun County Committee for a Sustainable Society (LCCSS) one of more than 50 affiliates of Post Carbon. I have been inspired by Mae Wan Ho and many others and your sites. The purpose is to educate people locally about AGW and peak oil as well as the solution space. We are trying to sell sustainability and stewardship.
I have no idea if my group will accomplish anything worthwhile and certainly don’t propose folks do what I’m doing exactly, but we are part of a true grass roots activity and somebody somewhere will hit a home run.
To oppose something is to maintain it. – Ursula K. LeGuin
I agree with Lynn that RC shouldn’t waste it’s time responding to tactics designed to waste scientist’s time, but IMHO Kenneth has a good point in 52.
At least acknowledging the contrascientist “argument” in some way may address Kenneth’s concerns and obviate the perception of denial. It may not be in the purview [or best interest] of front-line scientists to aggressively engage the contrascience “debate”. And how best to inform decision-making in such an environment hasn’t been worked out yet, but expanding the scope of the writing on this site to acknowledge a tactic – perhaps objectively without naming names – likely will also help tie loose ends together for the casual reader who doesn’t have 6 hours a week to keep up with both the literature and the contrascientist mendacity.
A couple of points regarding Tony Noerpel’s post in #54:
Sorry, this is getting quite far off topic but I wanted to correct the record. According to the Justice Policy Institute, the United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/25/1341259
I don’t know about Cuba, though it is certainly easy to find lots of disinformation about that country.
As Tony acknowledges, life expectancy and infant mortality are not the whole picture. I think it is pretty unavoidable that life styles will have to change in order to ultimately address emissions problems. However I think people will be quite shocked to find out just how wasteful and extravagent we have become in the developed world and consequently how much we can improve with very little sacrifice. Much of this extravagent behaviour results in negative health consequences too eg. constantly turning escalators instead of climbing the stairs, over-consumption of meat and other dietarily rich foods, things like that.
Too often this whole debate is framed in terms of what we will have to give up (it is of course not framed this way by accident!) but I believe there can be a large number of improvements in quality of life and general happiness as a consequence of conserving and living sustainably.
I agree as well that running out of oil will not by itself solve our emissions problems, though I used to have some hope there…too much coal etc around. Resulting conflicts for this resource as well as dwindling food and water may put a stop to the over-population problem and encourage renewable energy development, but that is one hell of a dark cloud, silver lining or not.
From a sincere perspective, some of us have questions but may be reluctant to ask them because we don’t want to waste the scientist’s time at RC.
In a comment I made to RC [Naturally Trendy #86 Jan 2], I requested others at RC to review and comment on a probabilistic product dealing with flood potential, used by the public in an operational time frame. I believe the product shows regional climate warming during winter and spring, beginning in the mid 1970s within the Upper Midwest.
I understand that my request on Jan 2 is only yesterday. I have made requests or suggestions before, without me seeing any responses from RC scientists or others at RC. Maybe my requests involved too much time. Checking back from time to time to see if others have replied to my requests is time consuming for me. Maybe there’s a better way of dealing with requests. Maybe not.
[Response: Pat, It’s important for you to keep posting the questions (and note that they often get addressed by other commenters). Reasons for not responding are often due to lack of time, but also, we might not know the answers. Even if there is no direct response, we do read these posts and the questions that come up inform the topics we end up covering in main posts. Thanks for your contributions. – gavin]
As a person educated in Physical Chemistry and related Physics, I am disappointed in every website that deals with climate change. All I ever read are pro and con opinions, flavored with insults. I read “Nature” and “Science”, but most of their articles are not very helpful.
GW sites should provide readers with relevant testable science. I have yet to see any testable hypotheses or explanations that would be acceptable in any other science.
One thing I am curious about is the light absorption spectrum of the most common greenhouse gas, water vapor, versus the absorption spectrum for the 0.037% of CO2 in the atmosphere.
It would be an easy experiment, in a properly equipped lab, to (i) vary H2O and CO2, and (ii) to determine the absorption and transmission of various infrared wavelengths.
This kind of information would be extremely useful to college educated laymen who wish to get some sort of intuitive feel for what is going on. Undoubtedly, these kinds of experiments have been published in the last hundred years.
I hope someone can provide me with references in the scientific literature!
Fritz, you forgot emission (Applied Optics 35 1519 (1996) by Evans and Puckrin for example). This is one of the classic mistakes that physical and analytical chemists make when they start to think about atmospheric chemistry. As to overlaps and the absorption spectra of water vapor and CO2 the go to place is HITRAN where the results of numerous high resolution studies have been compiled in a way that lets you calculate spectra, http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/HITRAN/, or you could use something a bit simpler, MODTRAN http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/cgimodels/radiation.html, and do the experiment yourself at lower resolution.
Somewhat less subtle is your omission of the fact that about 99+% of the atmosphere is transparent to infrared and visible radiation (nitrogen, oxygen and argon), water vapor as the largest absorber of IR and CO2 as the second. For a nice explanation of why water vapor is more of a feedback than a forcing see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142.
Mo Udall, a witty congressman from Arizona once described the endless stage of a meeting as being the point where “everything has been said but not everyone has said it”. You, obviously, were not on the distribution list. If you are seriously interested there are good books to read and some good FAQs out there. An excellent book which should be within the reach of anyone who has studied Physical Chemistry and Physics is “Atmospheric Chemistry and Global Change” by Brasseur, Orlano and Tyndall
Back on topic. The latest Nature has an article by Bellouin et al. with an accompanying news and views by Coakley. Aerosol cooling is estimated to be 0.8 +/- 0.1 Wm-2 and it is pointed out that the warming effect of current GHG is 2.4 +/- 0.2 Wm-2. Thus forcing from AGW will increase because 1) we’ve been cleaning up our particulate pollution around the world, 2)we are increasing emissions of GHG, 3) oceans may become saturated, 4) positive feedback effects like albedo (I assume this is counted as a natural forcing), and 5) deforestation (I assume this is counted as natural, also) due to bark beetle infestation. Am I missing anything? I don’t see any good news here.
A couple of important possible feedbacks you are missing in #61 are carbon from soils (there was a recent study in Britain that found warmer soils lose carbon) and CH4 from thawing permafrost.
Melting CH4 clathrates in ocean sediment is another possible and rather dire feedback but I don’t believe enough is known about their stability or how ocean floor conditions will change to make any predictions.
A couple of points about the climate models that have come up.
#27: Since we don’t know what will happen to CO2 levels in the future with any certainty [because it depends on the choices we make, even if the oil runs out we can still burn coal for centuries], climate models are normally run with a range of scenario’s. One example is just a simple ‘commitment’ experiment, in which GHG levels are fixed at present day values [normally at the end of a transient historical reconstruction run] to find out how much warming we are already commited to even if we managed to stop all GHG emissions instantaneously.
I think the result is along the lines of us being commited to about the same amount of warming as already caused over the 20th Century – ie ~0.5 degrees. Whilst not neccesarily ‘dangerous’ in and of itself, it’s nothing to sniff at either, particularly for being the result from an unrealistic scenario that forms the extreme lower bound for global warming over the 21st Century.
#22: Although convection is generally one of the weaker areas of the models, it turns out that many models suffer from too strong a hydrological cycle. Basically there is too much evaporation and precipitation. Therefore, by your reasoning, this negative feedback on the surface temperature is *too strong* in the models, and consequently global warming may be even worse than the models generally predict!
RE #61, we could also add that as the world warms, more GHGs may be released, from thawing permafrost, ocean clathrates, from warming soils & increased microbal GHG production (I read the British increase in that has counterbalanced any human GHG reductions they’ve made). Maybe fires (due to GW enhanced droughts & winds). What am I leaving out?
They talk about sensitivity to a doubling of CO2, and such, but they don’t really say where that CO2 comes from, so some could come from us & some could come from nature’s response to a warming world. So maybe that is the wild card — not how much we are emitting (which we sort of know & can control, if we wish), but how much nature might emit in response to the warming & other GW factors.
Comment by Lynn Vincentnathan — 5 Jan 2006 @ 2:27 PM
re 65 asks: What am I leaving out?
Have you reviewed this new research on the PETM by scientists at Scripps?
Excerpt: New research produced by scientists at Scripps Institution
of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, helps
illustrate how global warming caused by greenhouse gases can quickly
disrupt ocean processes and lead to drastic climatological,
biological and other important changes around the world. Although
the events described in the research unfolded millions of years ago
and spanned thousands of years, the researchers say the findings
provide clues to help better understand the long-term impacts of
today’s human-influenced climate warming.
While we’ve aspired to being a reasonably authoritative resource, we have occasionally slipped and used more personal language than was really necessary. It is difficult at times to remember that although blogsphere conversations happen very quickly, they stay around forever, and so a sober style is most appropriate. However, moderation of comments on this site has been absolutely necessary to avoid the descent into the schoolyard behaviour all too often found in unmoderated forums. This task is not however an exact science, and there have errors of both overzealousness and undermoderation. For that, we apologise.
Bravo! It is incredibly hard to keep from responding to provocation with snark, and a little extra politeness is almost always worthwhile. I find that just waiting a little until the initial reaction to a provocative comment passes is very helpful. Keep moving in that direction.
Also, you really should link to Climate Audit generally and to specific posts of theirs when appropriate. Not doing so can give the appearance that you won’t face honest criticism. Don’t link to (or respond to) the snark though — it isn’t helpful.
I think that what you, and all at RC, are doing is fine as it is. With solid discussion of the science you are providing a resource that is invaluable. When you argue the science, and steer clear of becoming embroilled in rhetorical games, you are on firm ground. There will always be those who use various devices to avoid taking a global view of the state of the science. And there is nothing that can be done about that, i.e. you can lead a horse to water…
Whether or not people choose to respond to the threat of climate change in an intelligent way is something that you cannot control. What you can do is ensure that there is an evidence base from which individuals can make a reasoned judgment and respond appropriately.
This time last year I had been sceptical and decided to sort out my opinions, so 2005 was the year I crammed climate science. In short, after a year of cramming I cannot see any reasonable doubt that climate change due to human activities, primarily CO2 emissions, is well underway. It’s possible to sustain doubt by concentrating on tiny issues, but that doubt evaporates when faced with the breadth of observed changes, and the breadth of the theoretical underpinning.
Coincidentally I have found that as my opinions have changed so have those in the media. Here in the UK climate change is finally being presented by most of the media as a real and pressing issue, with little doubt about itâ??s reality. In short it is now an issue that finally is ‘on the radar’. Correlation does not imply causation, but I suspect that this site may well have played a significant part in that change. (Unless there really has been an evidential shift in the argument, which I donâ??t see as being specific to 2005.) I post with hope that the anti-democratic efforts of vested interest in distorting the facts are now crumbling in the mainstream media.
I’m moving onto another area of study, but in the meantime I’ll be keeping an eye on this site. Thank you to all at RC, their employers ;) , guests, and those posting responses.
Slightly irrelevant, but since this thread originated as a celebration (and a solicitation for future) accomplishments, I’ll go for it.
Over on Roger Pielke Jr’s site, there has been an exciting and engaging exchange between Gavin, RPJ, and a few regular visitors to this site. Since many visitors here are interested in policy, here is the outrageously long URL:
Again, going back to my comments in #20, this sort of engagement is very helpful on many levels. Is there any chance RC will ever link to ongoing threads on other sites in which RC members are actively involved? I think it would help fill in a few gaps here, as well as avoid some overlap and redundancy issues, which are sure to arise–mostly from a comment making perspective.
Comment by Kenneth Blumenfeld — 9 Jan 2006 @ 5:43 PM
Is there a compilation (somewhere relatively apolitical) of all the IPCC predictions, with a followup over time? Here’s one belonging there:
Best wishes for 2006 I’ve found you site very valuable over the last year for staying up to date of glabal warming issues.
Like a couple of others posting here I have an interest in peak oil. I concur with comments by Tony and Stuart that oil is not the only fossil fuel and the lazy response to a peak will be a move to unconventional hydrocarbons (tar sands, coal-to-liquids) covered with the fig leaf of promised sequestration (which may never materialise).
Question: Currently Atmospheric CO2 concentration is 380 ppm. From ice core analysis we know that it has not been much higher than 280 ppm over the last 600,000 years. How far back in time do we have to go to find concentrations as high as 380 ppm? I’ve heard 40 million years. Is that true? Thanks.
The link below contains an image of a graph showing global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 from 545 million years ago to present. It’s hard to read for non members of the group. Members can click Photos (left side) and select large size. The first three groups (from the right side of the graph are Cenozoic Cretaxcious Jurassic. I’m not too confident about the accuracy of the data shown. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate_Articles/
More accurate data may be at the Hanson Presentation paper in Dec 2005.
Hansen, J. 2005. Is There Still Time to Avoid “Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference” with Global Climate? A Tribute to Charles David Keeling (5.5 MB PDF). Presentation given Dec. 6, 2005, at the American Geophysical Union, San Francisco. 50 p http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~jhansen/keeling/keeling_talk_and_slides.pdf
Re #73: I believe that the answer is that 380 ppm is now known from ice core data to be the highest CO2 concentration in the last ~650,000 years. It is also likely the highest concentration in the last 20 million years although this can’t be determined with the same degree of certainty as from the ice core data. Here is an IPCC figure showing the variations in CO2 concentrations on various different timescales: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figts-10.htm As you can see from it, if one goes back a little over 20 million years ago then the CO2 levels are believed to have been higher.
Re #75: Yes, and at which time we (broadly speaking) only had a smallish ice cap on the Antarctic plateau. No ice sheets in Greenland, West Antarctica, and even a chunk of East Antarctica, with sea level about 80 meters above present. This seems to be the big threat as far as Jim Hansen is concerned; see the talk Pat linked to above.
I think RC has been a great source of information. Even with a science degree I find it challenging, so a section that is labeled and linked to, either here on RC or on another website, that answers basic climate science questions and FAQs about global warming would be great.
Another recommendation is an annotated list of climate change science papers. Something like the NRDC’s page http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fgwscience2005.asp
but without the political spin.
A list of important papers with a paragraph describing them is very useful as a handy reference. When someone refers to a paper its a quick way to see what they are talking about without having to search for the paper.
When some of the standard skeptic arguments are brought up a quick comment or a link to RC post where the question has been addressed is IMO the best way do deal with them. Some of the people who bring up some of the standard skeptic talking points are not themselves skeptics or contrarians. They have honest questions about all of the claims in popular press and on websites. I have seen on enviro blogs environmentalists repeat skeptic arguments like natural cycles and sunspots. These questions should be addressed, but not too much time and space should be devoted to repeatedly answer the same questions. It creates a lot of noise but is not very informative, and it plays into contrarians attempts to delay and confuse.
I also support a requirement for civility and decorum. There is a lot of mud-slinging going around because of the political implications of global warming. Its easy to get caught up in it. I have done it here on RC and I have been subject to an ad hom (it was deleted but I am still curious about exactly what was written). Its not useful and is a distraction and its a good idea for RC not to link to sites where this type of argument is common.
The one subject I would like to see a post on is AGW and its effect on ecosystems. I know its not purely climate science, but its something I have a personal interest in. Maybe there could be a guest post from an ecologist.
Comment by Joseph O'Sullivan — 17 Jan 2006 @ 11:44 AM
I have found what appear to me to be illogical reasoning used in some of your discusions.Up to now you haven’t published any of my reasoning.You instead reply by email defending your reasoning by trying to blind me with science. hope you turn over a new leaf.
I hope you dont mind another idea about global warming,
To my thinking, when the atmosphere warms up to a certain peak, perhaps there is a possibility that the Earths gravity could not contain an atmosphere that has become a higher pressure. Perhaps the atmosphere could expand out further into space, reducing the affect of the gravity upon it, then it could burst, like a bubble, into space. Providing that is the case, it would manage to drain the atmosphere to a certain point and then once it collapses, the atmoshere would have contracted. Once the contraction takes place, it would expand, causing very cold weather, an ice age.
Duane Carpenter just a thought..
[Response: It might make a movie but no, in reality this won’t work – William]
Comment by Duane Carpenter — 25 Jan 2006 @ 11:58 PM
For those among the RC authors who are too young to remember the Usenet days — the Internet before the Web — I think it’s a good time to read a bit from history.
Why? Because you’ve had a successful year, and that attracts attention.
This means you attract trolls, and also that people with a political agenda will be directing trolls to this site.
My hunch is that’s what happened to the Washington Post weblog just recently — the WaPo editors believe that they were overwhelmed by a wave of nastiness from people the WaPo believed, from the content, were all left-liberal writers. I think they were fooled by trolls.
The FAQ suggests ways of looking at the attacks. There will have to be similar ways worked out for weblogs (I’ve tried a few, Google searches for common threads help find where ideas come from and how perhaps innocent new people are set up to ask old debunked questions).
[Response: Indeed. We are well aware of this phenomena, hence the comment moderation. It’s not perfect though…. -gavin]