· The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is high and steadily increasing.
· Basic science tells us that increasing CO2 levels tend to make the planet retain more heat. We are seeing this happen.
· We are experiencing global warming.
· Decade by decade since 1950 temperatures have risen.
· The climate is changing. Glaciers and Arctic sea ice are in retreat.
· Our species, homo sapiens, has never before experienced such high CO2 levels
· The warming caused by high CO2 levels could initiate other climate processes which would then cause far more warming.
· We need to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere and cool the Earth now.
· People are spreading misinformation concerning climate change
· This is stopping essential action to limit climate change
· Most of these people are retaining their credibility
· This is one of the major scandals of our age
This web page:
· Presents the basic facts of global warming
· Draws together fragmented information from science based web sites
· Supports most statements with links to authoritative web sites.
· Identifies science based web sites. (There’s lots of misinformation around)
· Relies for its authority on these science based sources
· Discusses the views of several climate change deniers
· Discusses the views of some Australian politicians. Most government funded agencies avoid such political comment.
· Offers a glimpse into the politics of a nation that is reluctant to recognise the risks of burning coal.
· 36 A4 pages of text. No frills. No pictures.
· Comprehensive Page map with hyper-links to each section. Read what interests you.
This document is still evolving. Your comments would be welcome.
Version: 30 December 2010
1 Humans are initiating dangerous climate change
4 Overwhelming scientific agreement
5 Already too much CO2 in our atmosphere
6 The planet is accumulating heat
9 Warming causing more warming: Vicious loops
10 Some dangers of global warming
14 Australian politics & global warming
15 Global warming confusionists & the Australian debate
17 Information sources used by this site
18 More information on climate change
As the warming of the globe and research into the warming continues, there are often new developments. Here are several sites which present these developments:
Latest developments (New Scientist)
Latest articles on global warming (Scientific American)
Research News (NASA: US National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
Climate Watch (NOAA: US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration)
Press Releases (WMO: The World Meteorological Organisation)
Latest News from “Australian Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency”
The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes:
· “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal [certain], as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.” (IPCC Summary for Policy Makers, 2007, p 8)
· “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [over 90% chance] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouses gas concentrations.” (p 10)
Also see The IPCC Report 2007 (Wikipedia)
There is overwhelming support from national and international scientific academies and societies, support for the IPCC conclusion that human activities have increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere and this has probably led to global warming.
These organizations include:
· The Royal Society of London: Its past members include numerous famous scientists, e.g. Sir Isaac Newton. Climate Change (Royal Society). The Royal Society (Wikipedia)
· The National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) which put a man on the moon. Climate Change (NASA)
· Australia’s national science agency, the CSIRO. Climate Change (CSIRO)l
“No ... scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change”
Scientific opinion on climate change (Wikipedia)
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (AAAS)
There is overwhelming agreement between scientists that humans are causing global warming. Almost all climatologists (97.4%) believe this.
Global Warming Scientific Consensus (Skeptical Science)
It’s NOT true that many leading scientists question climate change (New Scientist)
So 2.6% of climatologists hold a different view.
“In a way, climate-change scepticism is unsurprising. A denialist [contrarian] fringe operates at the margins of almost any important field of science that gets discussed widely in the public domain. The most egregious example in my field is the faction that [still] claims the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does not cause AIDS.” Sceptical thinking (Peter Doherty)
Recently there has been criticism of the IPCC.
· IPCC Criticism Roundup (AAAS)
· IPCC Errors: Facts and Spin (Real Science, 14 Feb 2010)
“In more than 2 years of fierce scrutiny of the IPCC report, only two paragraphs [out of almost 3,000 pages] have been found to contain errors – and [no errors have been found] that challenge its central conclusions”
Climate science must stick to the facts (Professor Pitman, Age newspaper, 26 Jan 2010)
Reputable scientific organisations and scientists speak with almost one voice, “It is very, very likely that humans are causing global warming.”
“Why is it harder to get people to believe in climate change than in God?”
(The Age Newspaper: Reader’s Comment: 19 Mar 2010)
What we are witnessing is not a scientific debate about global warming; it is political and psychological resistance to changes in:
· the wealth of nations rich in fossil fuels
· the wealth of oil and coal companies
· habits like driving a petrol car and land-clearing, and
· people’s sense of security..
In the future, I may add a section on the “political and psychological resistance to change”. For now, I consider the basic science of global warming and the pseudo-scientific debate we read in the press. I start by considering carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The main greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere are: carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapour, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone.
The basic science of greenhouse gases was established long ago.
John Tyndall published a paper on greenhouse gases in 1863.
A time line of climate change events (New Scientist)
A glass greenhouse keeps plants warmer in cold weather. It heats by allowing energy from the sun to enter the greenhouse and by limiting the amount of heat that escapes from the greenhouse. (A glass greenhouse limits the amount of heat that escapes by stopping wind)
Our whole planet becomes more of a greenhouse as the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase. This is because the greenhouse gases:
· Allow the energy from the sun to warm the Earth, and
· Reduce the escape into outer space of heat radiation emitted by the Earth. These gases absorb heat radiation and then radiate some of the heat back to the Earth’s surface. This warms the surface of the planet.
Greenhouse gases have a large impact on the temperature of the Earth; without them, the Earth's surface would be on average about 33 degrees C colder than at present.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased over the last 150 years due to humans cutting forests and burning fossil fuels like oil and coal. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rapidly escalating to way above the levels that our species has ever known.
A history of climate change science (American Institute of Physics)
Here is a graph showing, for the last 600,000 years, the changes in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. It is measured in parts per million by volume (ppm or ppmv).
The graph is from an Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) web page. The data comes from two ices cores taken in the Antarctic: the EPICA and Vostok ice cores.
Graph: CO2 over 600,000 years. (It's the last graph on this IPCC page)
Hints for viewing this web site
The graph shows that in the 600,000-year period before our industrial era, CO2 levels swung several times between:
· Lows near 180 ppm, and
· Highs near 300 ppm.
We return to this graph when discussing future CO2 levels.
We know how “carbon dioxide concentration” and “temperature” have moved over the last 400,000 years. Here is a graph based on the Vostok Ice Core (Wikipedia):
· Temperature (shown in blue), and
· CO2 concentration in the atmosphere ppm (shown in green)
Hints for viewing this web site
The graph shows:
· Four periods of low temperatures. These were four ice ages: 350, 250, 150 and 50 thousand years ago.
· During each ice age, the CO2 levels were low: 180 – 210 ppm.
· Higher levels of CO2 during periods of higher temperatures.
· Global temperatures tend to move up and down with CO2 concentration. The changes of temperature do not always follow the movement of CO2 concentration as other factors also influence temperatures, e.g. volcanic eruptions and variations in the energy coming from the sun.
The ice core evidence suggests higher CO2 levels go together with higher temperatures. Our knowledge of how greenhouse gases work also suggests that higher CO2 levels would go with higher temperatures.
CO2 in the Earth's Atmosphere (Wikipedia)
Ice cores, CO2 and temperature (New Scientist May 2007)
Ice Ages & Climate Change before the Industrial Age (IPCC)
CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been directly measured since 1958. The average concentrations have increased steadily from 315 ppm in 1958 to 385 ppm in 2009. Note there are seasonal variations of about 5 ppm.
Look at a Graph of CO2 levels since 1950: The Keeling Curve (Wikipedia)
Hints for viewing this web site
“The annual increase … has now exceeded 2 ppm for three of the past four years - an unprecedented rate. Half a century ago, the annual increase was less than 1 ppm.”
Atmospheric CO2 accumulating faster than ever (New Scientist)
The CO2 concentration in December 2009 was 384 ppm.
Trends in Atmospheric CO2 (NOAA)
This is way above the 180 to 300 ppm range of the past 400,000 years.
This 384 ppm is 84 ppm above the maximum of 300 ppm. This 84 ppm is significant. It is 70% of the 120 ppm range between the depth of ice ages at 180ppm and the old maximum of 300 ppm.
Recent CO2 increases are due to human activities (Real Climate)
In 2007, the global CO2 emitted from the burning of fossil fuel and cement manufacture was 29,300 million tonnes for the year. This excludes the emissions from land use such as deforestation.
CO2 emitted from each country (Wikipedia)
Here is a very rough way of estimating future CO2 levels. The current CO2 concentration is 385 ppm. Assuming CO2 keeps on increasing at 2.2 ppm each year; CO2 will reach 450 ppm in 30 years. It will reach 550 ppm in 75 years.
The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) graphs the movement of CO2 concentrations over a 600,000-year period together with forecasts of future CO2 concentrations under different circumstances.
CO2 over 600,000 years. (see the last graph on this IPCC site)
Hints for viewing this web site
The range of the forecasts for 2100 is between about 550 and 950 ppm.
Even the lowest forecast of 550 ppm is alarmingly in excess of the 180 to 300 ppm range of the past 400,000 years.
Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis first evolved about 400,000 years ago.
Homo sapiens first evolved about 250,000 years ago.
Our species, and the species from which we evolved, emerged and flourished within the 600,000 years covered by the ice core records. This clearly shows that our species, and the environment in which we have thrived, have never before experienced CO2 concentrations at the current level, let alone the forecast levels. Individual humans could breathe in these high CO2 levels, but we do not know whether the safe environment that has nurtured our species will survive.
In 2009 at Copenhagen, climate negotiators were not able to reach agreement on how to keep CO2 levels below 450 or even 550 ppm.
“The emissions cuts currently being pledged by developed countries, including the United States and European nations, are aimed at having CO2 levels peak at around 450, not 350, in coming decades. And even that may not be possible. Some economists say the world should plan to stop at 550.”
The push for 350 ppm CO2 (Newspaper article)
|
CO2 ppm
|
|
|
|
1000 |
….. |
|
|
|
….. |
950 ppm: High forecast for 2100 |
|
900 |
….. |
|
|
|
….. |
|
|
800 |
….. |
|
|
|
….. |
|
|
700 |
….. |
|
|
|
….. |
|
|
600 |
….. |
|
|
|
….. |
550 ppm: Low forecast for 2100 |
|
500 |
….. |
|
|
|
….. |
450 ppm: A target considered at Copenhagen |
|
400 |
….. |
|
|
|
….. |
385 ppm: CO2 level December 2009 |
|
300 |
….. |
300 ppm: Highest level experienced by Homo Sapiens before now |
|
|
….. |
|
|
200 |
….. |
|
|
|
….. |
180 ppm: Occurred during the depths of ice ages |
|
100 |
….. |
|
|
|
….. |
|
|
0 |
….. |
|
CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing. There is no debate about this. This increasing CO2 is dangerous for two reasons:
· The danger of global warming
· The danger of more acidic oceans.
CO2 forms carbonic acid when it dissolves in water. As the CO2 levels have increased in the atmosphere, the ocean surface has soaked up more CO2 and become more acidic. This is a threat to sea creatures like plankton and corals that make their shells or skeletons from calcium carbonate. The acidification makes it harder for these creatures to build their shells or skeletons. At higher levels of acidification, their shells and skeletons dissolve. This has the potential to disrupt food chains and could lead to radical changes in marine ecosystems and damage fishing and tourist industries.
Climate change seeps into the Sea (NASA, Oct 2008)
Ocean acidification progressing at unprecedented rate (NASA, Apr 2010)
Ocean acidification today and in the future (NOAA, Nov 2010)
An increase in greenhouse gases does not change the “heat that the planet absorbs from the sun”. It reduces “the heat escaping from the Earth into outer space” and so increases “the amount of heat stored or accumulated by the planet”.
Now temperature is not always a good measure of this accumulation of heat. It’s because when you apply the same amount of heat to one gram of different substances, their temperature increases by different amounts.
Warming water takes more heat than warming air. The amount of heat required to warm one gram of water by one degree is four times the heat required to warm one gram of air by one degree.
Iced water can absorb heat without increasing in temperature. As you hold an iced drink, stirring it occasionally, the temperature will stay around zero centigrade, even though it is absorbing warmth from your hand. This is because the heat is breaking down the ice crystals, turning solid ice into liquid water. It takes a lot of heat to melt ice, that is, to change ice at 0 degrees to water at 0 degrees. It takes as much heat to melt ice as it does to boil water, i.e. heat water from room temperature of 20 degrees to 100 degrees.
Temperature is not always a good measure of accumulation of heat.
When considering the impact of greenhouse gases, the key factor is the “global accumulation of heat” rather than “global temperature”.
The Earth’s accumulation of heat each year since 1950 is plotted in figure 1 of this “Sceptical Science” article. Note that:
· The accumulation of heat is increasing as the Earth is absorbing more heat from the sun than it is losing.
· The heat absorbed by the oceans is enormous compared to the heat absorbed by the land and atmosphere.
· The accumulation of heat (global warming) continued past 1998. (Some global warming deniers claim that global warming ceased in1998. This is discussed below.)
· Events like El Nino lead to transfers of heat between the ocean and the atmosphere. Atmospheric temperatures can vary due to this.
This is based on a 2009 article in the Journal of Geophysical Research. The authors come from reputable institutions including Earth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
See also Global warming did not stop in 1998 (New Scientist, Aug 2008)
“Yearly global average temperatures” for the years 1850 to the present can be calculated in different ways. Three are considered here.
One set of temperatures comes from the “Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction” in England.
Graph: Global average temperatures: 1850 – 2009 (Hadley Centre)
Hints for viewing this web site
The graph shows:
· Since about 1910, temperatures have been rising. If you get a clear ruler and place it over the graph from 1910 to 2009, you can see a long-term warming trend that concerns scientists.
· The last 15 years has been the hottest period in the 159 years of data.
· In the 12 years between 1995 and 2006, 11 of these years rank among the 12 warmest years in the 157 years of data from 1850. (IPCC report 2007)
The maximum Hadley temperature was in 1998. This means that the temperatures in subsequent years have been lower, but, as shown by the plot, they are still high.
Some global warming deniers argue from this that the globe is no longer warming.
There are different ways of calculating an average global temperature and these can lead to different results. Warming of the oceans is an important part of global warming and there are different ways of using the limited ocean temperature data. The recent warming of the Arctic is also important and again there are different ways of assessing this. As there are no permanent weather stations in the Arctic, the Hadley temperatures do not reflect recent Arctic warming
UK Met Office web site UK Met Office: Hadley Centre Site
NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) also generate “Global annual surface temperatures”.
· 2009 was tied for the second warmest year since record keeping began along with 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007.
· 2005 was the warmest year
· 2009 was the warmest year ever in the southern hemisphere
· The decade 2000 – 2009 was the hottest decade on record
From NASA GISS Research News 2009
The USA “National Climate Data Centre” (NCDC) also generates “Global annual temperatures”.
NCDC State of the Climate: Global Analysis 2009
· Table of “Global top 10 warm years” in 130 years: 1880 - 2009
· 2005 the warmest year
· 1998 second warmest
· 2003: third warmest
· 2002: 4
· 2009: 5
· 2006: 6
· 2007: 7
· 2004: 8
· 2001: 9
· 2008: 10
· Decade 2000 – 2009 was the warmest on record
Here is a plot of the NCDC temperatures
USA "National Climate Data Centre" NCDC Web Site
USA “National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration” NOAA Web Site
Global temperatures levels should not always be expected to follow CO2 levels as there are many other influences on global temperature:
· Other greenhouse gases, e.g. methane and water vapour
· Sulphur dioxide which has a cooling effect
· Black carbon
· Atmospheric lead from leaded petrol
· The strength of the sun
· The Earth’s orbit round the sun
· Volcanic activity
“Though people have had the largest impact on our climate since 1950, natural changes to Earth’s climate have also occurred in recent times. For example, two major volcanic eruptions, El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991, pumped sulfur dioxide gas high into the atmosphere. The gas was converted into tiny particles that lingered for more than a year, reflecting sunlight and shading Earth’s surface. Temperatures across the globe dipped for two to three years.”
Is current warming natural (NASA Earth Observatory)
Did lead from petrol slow warming 1940 - 1980 (New Scientist Apr 2009)
The decade 2000 – 2009 was the hottest decade on record
2000 - 2009: The hottest decade (World Meteorological Organisation WMO)
The WMO global temperature analysis is based on data from the Hadley Centre, the Goddard Institute and NCDC.
The average global temperature of the 1950’s was lower than that of the 1960’s which was lower than that of the 1970’s, which was lower than that of the 1980’s, which was lower than that of the 1990’s which was lower than that of the 2000’s. Since the 1950’s, each decade has been warmer than the one before it.
Decade Global Temperatures Plotted (NCDC)
“In total, average global temperatures have increased by about 0.8°C (1.5°F) since 1880.” NASA GISS Research News 2009
After analysing October 2010 data, 2010 is certain to continue the warming trend. It looks like it will rank in the top 3 warmest years since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850, along with 1998 and 2005.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_904_en.html
The highest Hadley global average temperature was in 1998. Based on this, some global warming deniers assert that the globe is no longer warming.
The Earth did not stop warming in 1998 (Skeptical Science)
Interpreting these global temperatures. (You Tube: an excellent video)
Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998 (New Scientist)
The Temperature of Science (James Hansen, GISS)
The highest Hadley temperature was in 1998, a strong El Nino year. The high 1998 temperature reflects in part the large amount of heat that the El Nino moved from the ocean into the atmosphere. Scientists need to overlook such short-term variability in temperatures and identify the long-term trend.
The Earth did not stop warming in 1998 (Skeptical Science)
Climate scientists examine the underlying long-term trend in global temperature and deliberately overlook short-term variations. To do this they commonly examine the movement of the average temperature over eleven-year periods.
The 11-year moving average for Hadley, GISS and NCDC temperatures do NOT show a cooling trend.
The Earth did not stop warming in 1998 (Skeptical Science)
The graphs are in figure 2 of this “Sceptical Science” article.
The Hadley temperatures are the solid blue line. The GISS temperatures are the solid red line. The NCDC temperatures are the solid green line
Hints for viewing this web site
Despite global warming, the globe is still experiencing record low temperatures.
However, record high temperatures are occurring about twice as often as record low temperatures. Global warming and cold weather (Skeptical Science)
In Australia, we often read articles about high temperatures.
Here is an example (Melbourne Age newspaper)
The Annual Climate Statement 2009 (Australian Bureau of Meteorology) states:
For Australia, “2009 will be remembered for extreme bushfires, dust-storms, lingering rainfall deficiencies, areas of flooding and record-breaking heatwaves.”
· 2009 was the second warmest year.
· 2005 was the warmest year.
The “average Australian temperature for each decade” is plotted on the first graph in the document with a grey block for each decade.
Hints for viewing this web site
· 2000 - 2009 was the warmest decade on record.
· The decade temperatures have increased each decade since 1940.
Global average temperatures have so far have risen about 0.8 °C above pre-industrial levels. This is already causing alarming damage.
Even if CO2 levels could be maintained at the current level of 384 ppm, this CO2 would tend to increase temperatures further, because the greenhouse warming process takes time. The current CO2 concentrations are expected to warm the globe by an extra 0.6 °C.
Political negotiations in Copenhagen were considering attempts to limit warming to less than 2 degrees C. The negotiations seem to have failed. Few climate scientists believe it is possible to keep temperature rises under 2 degrees.
World starts to act on climate change (New Scientist)
(Only first 2 paragraphs of this article are available for free: zzr)
Observations paint a consistent picture of the warming of our planet. For example:
· The planet is steadily accumulating heat
· Twice as many record hot days than record cold days
· Arctic sea-ice loss is accelerating greatly exceeding forecast change
· Antarctic ice loss is accelerating
· Greenland ice loss is accelerating
· Arctic permafrost is degrading
· Global sea rise is accelerating
· Animals and plants are responding to changing seasons
· Jet streams are moving towards the poles
· The tropical belt is widening
The evidence for man made global warming (Skeptical Science)
Skeptical science provides journal articles to support each claim.
“There is mounting evidence that climate change is triggering a shrinking and thinning of many glaciers world-wide which may eventually put at risk water supplies for hundreds of millions — if not billions — of people. Data gaps exist in some vulnerable parts of the globe ... It is possible that glaciers may completely disappear from many mountain ranges in the 21st century.”
Global Glacier Changes (United Nations Environment Program)
Photos of the retreat of glaciers
The area covered by Arctic sea ice increases during winter and decreases in summer.
The summer minimum reached new record lows in the years 2002, 2005, and 2007.
In 2007 the minimum ice area was 39 percent below the 1979-2000 average. This massive retreat of Arctic ice surprised and concerned scientists. It suggested that the late-summer sea-ice might disappear by 2030.
This is far worse than the worst-case scenarios considered by the IPCC 2007 report. Their worst case scenario had the late-summer sea ice disappearing by 2090. Suddenly scientists were bringing this disappearance forward by 60 years to 2030.
Arctic shifts to a new climate pattern (Scientific American, 2010)
Arctic meltdown is a threat to humanity (New Scientist)
(Only first 2 paragraphs of this article are available for free: zzr)
Graph of the “Average monthly Arctic Sea Ice Extent” (NSIDC)
US National Snow & Ice Data Centre (NSIDC)
Hints for viewing this web site
Video of the Arctic sea ice retreat (You Tube)
Coral reefs can bleach when they are stressed, and rising temperature is one stress.
Most corals unable to adapt to warming oceans (New Scientist)
Warming climate threatens coral reef destruction (Scientific American July 2008)
Rainfall patterns are changing.
In some areas such as southern Australia, there has been an alarming and continuing decline in rainfall. The regular rains that used to fall there now increasingly fall over the ocean to the south of Australia. The Murray Darling River is suffering because of it.
In the 174 years since white settlement in the Australian state of Victoria, we have had seven terrible fire seasons: 1851, 1898, 1939, 1983, 2003, 2006-7 and 2009. The shock is that 3 of these 7 terrible fire seasons fires have been in the last 7 years. We are experiencing more extreme and frequent dry spells and fires.
The BIG danger is that the man made warming will initiate other climate processes that will cause more warming, which will in turn cause more warming, which will cause more warming. Temperature increases could spiral out of control. Such vicious loops could radically change our climate.
Here is one such vicious loop that could destabilise the Earth’s climate.
This dynamic occurs where, in the past, vegetation has rotted, producing methane that has become trapped, frozen in ice. There are vast amounts of this frozen methane in areas of permafrost and beneath the seabed. This trapped methane contains more carbon than all the known fossil fuel reserves of coal, oil and gas.
Ice on fire: The next fossil fuel (New Scientist)
(Only first 2 paragraphs of this article are available for free: zzr)
As Arctic Ocean warms: Mega tonnes of methane bubble up (New Scientist)
Methane bubbling out of Arctic Ocean. Is this new (New Scientist)
Arctic soil thaw may unleash runaway warming (Scientific American 2008)
Surface permafrost could disappear by 2100 (Scientific American, 2005)
|
Increased temperature
|
→ → → (1) |
Increased melting of ice
|
|
↑ (4)
|
|
↓ (2) |
|
Increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
|
← ← ← (3) |
Increased release of methane that was trapped in the ice
|
(Please let me know if your computer does not show arrows suggesting a clockwise loop round this diagram.)
There are four causal links in this vicious loop:
(1) An increase in temperature tends to melt more permafrost. This melting is happening in some places, e.g. tundra regions of north Sweden. See photos 5 and 6 (World View of Global Warming)
(2) This melting releases the methane that was trapped in the ice.
(3) This methane release tends to increase the methane in the atmosphere and so increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
(4) This tends to increase the temperature, amplifying the original increase in temperature mentioned in link 1.
If this feedback loop became dominant, the warmer the Earth got, the warmer it would get: There would be a run away escalation of melting ice, methane release and temperature increase. Man made carbon dioxide emissions are increasing temperatures and could start this out of control release of methane.
See also
Arctic meltdown is a threat to humanity (New Scientist, 2009)
(Only first 2 paragraphs of this article are available for free: zzr)
Global warming: Methane Spiked in 2007 (New Scientist, 2008)
Methane bubbling out of Arctic Ocean (New Scientist, 2010)
This climate dynamic occurs in the Arctic: an area of ocean partly covered by ice.
Similar dynamics occur in other areas of land or ocean partly covered by ice or snow such as the Antarctic, glaciers and snowfields.
|
Increased temperature of the Arctic
|
→ → → (1) |
Increased melting of ice reducing the area covered by ice
|
|
↑ (4)
|
|
↓ (2) |
|
Increased absorption of heat from the sunlight
|
← ← ← (3) |
Decreased reflection of the sunlight striking the Arctic
|
(Please let me know if your computer does not show arrows suggesting a clockwise loop round this diagram.)
There are four causal links is this feedback loop. While this dynamic dominates:
(1) An increase in temperature increases the melting of the sea ice. This leaves a reduced area of ice and an increased area of exposed ocean.
(2) This decreases the reflection of sunlight as ice is far more reflective than the newly exposed ocean.
(3) Reduced reflection increases the area’s absorption of heat from the sun.
(4) This increases the temperature of the area, amplifying the original increase in temperature mentioned in link 1.
Particularly in 2007, there was an enormous reduction of Arctic ice, so this climate dynamic is already at work.
Arctic sea-ice loss accelerates Arctic warming (Scientific American, 2010)
Arctic meltdown is a threat to humanity (New Scientist)
(Only first 2 paragraphs of this article are available for free: zzr)
One vicious loop that many people have experienced occurs when a musician or a speaker uses a microphone. A sound rapidly increases in volume from a little squeak to a painful shriek. The louder it gets, the louder it gets. People call it feedback. Vicious loops can rapidly increase something insignificant into something major.
The microphone screech occurs in about two seconds and fortunately, there is normally a sound technician to stop it. The vicious loops that organise our climate work far more slowly but, unfortunately, there is no technician with a simple control switch.
Vicious loops occur everywhere. Another example is the aging of paint on a building: the more the paint cracks, the faster it cracks.
Unfortunately, there are lots more of these climate vicious loops that respond to any warming by increasing that warming (James Lovelock, 2006, p 34)
Two of these follow
The ocean algae vicious loop
When this vicious loop dominates: An increase in ocean temperatures decreases the area of high nutrient water. This decreases the algae population. This decreases the use of CO2 in photosynthesis. This increases CO2 levels in the atmosphere. This increases global warming. This increases ocean temperatures.
The tropical forest vicious loop
When this vicious loop dominates: An increase in global temperature increases the drying out and burning of tropical forests. This decreases the area covered by tropical forests. This increases the area of land that lacks forest cooling mechanisms. This increases the temperature of these areas that once were forest. This increases global temperatures.
Lovelock (2006, p 35) identifies a couple of climate dynamics that might be able to limit temperature increase, stating that we don’t know enough about these processes. He is concerned because the observed rate of global warming suggests that there is NO global climate dynamic that will limit temperature increases to a level that is safe for life as we know it.
He writes that the current levels of methane and CO2 in the atmosphere are comparable to that caused by natural releases of these gases fifty-five million yeas ago. At this time, temperatures rose between 5 and 8 degrees C, with consequences lasting 200,000 years. (Keep in mind that the current concerning climate change is the result of a temperature increase of 0.8 degrees C.)
Probably the greatest uncertainly in climate science concerns the climate feedback loops and their tipping points (Uncertainties in Climate Science, NASA). We do not know whether a climate dynamic will emerge to limit temperature increases to a safe level. It’s under debate. Lovelock’s concerns may be right.
Some authors write about the dangers of the global climate reaching a “tipping point”.
What is a tipping point? Consider a wine glass standing upright on a table and consider pushing the top of the glass with your finger so the glass leans more and more, like the learning tower of Pisa. At first gravity assists the stability of the glass. As you tilt the glass further, the weight of the glass resists your push less and less. Then, exactly at the tipping point, the glass is perfectly balanced and offers you no resistance. Any further pushing and the rules of the game change radically. Gravity starts to increase the tipping rather than opposing the tipping. Before the tipping point, you might save the glass by stopping your pushing. Past the tipping point, stopping your pushing becomes irrelevant. To save the glass you have to do something very different. You could save the glass by catching it.
The vicious loop involving methane release offers an example of a climate tipping point. The amount of frozen methane is vast, so the release of methane could become so large that even complete stopping of human carbon dioxide emissions would not be enough to break the vicious loop of: melting ice, increasing methane release and consequent warming. This tipping point would be when this vicious loop started to dominate the planet’s climate.
The easiest way to prevent the Earth from reaching such a tipping point is to anticipate the tipping point and to act early to reverse the approach to the tipping point. The longer you wait, the more dangerous and difficult it becomes.
See also: Tipping point in climatology (Wikipedia)
Vicious loops are part of systems theory and chaos theory.
Here is a little information about these theories.
Please jump this section if it is too technical.
In general systems theory, “vicious loops” are commonly called “positive feedback loops” and sometimes “deviation amplifying mutual causal processes” or “amplifying feedback loops”
Magorah Maruyama (1968) “The Second Cybernetics: Deviation amplifying mutual causal processes” (The full text of this influential article)
Fritjof Capra “The Web of Life”
In “systems dynamics” vicious loops are called “reinforcing loops”
What is system dynamics (System Dynamics Society)
Peter Senge: The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization
When you tilt a drinking glass ever so slightly past its tipping point, a vicious loop is activated: the more the glass tips, the more the glass’s weight accelerates the tipping, and the more it tends to tip. When the glass is very finely balanced at its tipping point, even the slightest wind from the flap of a butterfly’s wing could send the glass crashing. This heightened sensitivity is called the “butterfly effect” and this is the domain of “chaos theory” or “nonlinear dynamical systems theory”.
Chaos theory recognises that:
· Little things can have enormous impact. This is also recognised in the English language by sayings like: it was the straw that broke the camel’s back, and
· Nearly identical systems can produce very different outcomes, e.g. the camel with the extra straw breaks its back, whereas the camel without the extra straw continues work.
Chaos theory is relevant to our climate as climate is organised by dynamics like the vicious methane loop and so has tipping points with regions of high sensitivity to slight deviations.
It is fairly easy to describe where the tipping point is for a tilted drinking glass. However, we cannot do this for more complex situations like the heavily loaded camel or our warming climate.
Science suggests that human emissions of CO2 are pushing our climate towards various tipping points, and at some point, the addition of an extra tonne of CO2 will tip our planet into a different climate regime in which just stopping CO2 emissions will not be sufficient to retain a safe climate. We may have passed some of these tipping points already.
Chaos Theory: A Brief Introduction (IMHO web site)
James Gleick (1988) Chaos: Making a new science.
Edward N Lorenz (1993) The Essence of Chaos, UCL Press.
(Lorenz is a meteorologist who played a key role in the early development of chaos theory. The book includes a reprint of his talk: "Predictability: Does the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?")
Global warming poses many dangers.
Effects of global warming (Wikipedia)
By 2060, the globe could warm by 4 degrees C with serious consequences:
The Royal Society paints a picture of a world 4 degrees C warmer (New Scientist)
Warming could lead to wars. “An unstable climate will exacerbate some of the core drivers of conflict [war], such as migratory pressures and competition for resources.”
Effects of global warming (Wikipedia)
Warming is causing sea levels to rise.
Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought (New Scientist)
(Only first 2 paragraphs of this article are available for free: zzr)
It will increase the average intensity of storms. “The consensus among experts is that global warming will not lead more hurricanes overall, but will increase the average intensity of storms.”
Hurricane Katrina was not caused by global warming (New Scientist)
Most of the discussion about global warming has been about the 21st century, but the warming will not necessarily stop in 2100. It is plausible that over the next two hundred years, parts of the tropics will become so hot and humid that humans will not be able to survive ... even a person standing naked, in the shade, in front of a fan would die. Humans will be at risk because, in the humid heat, they will not be able to cool their bodies by sweating. Within two hundred years, huge parts of the planet could become uninhabitable. Scientists have only recently identified this important impact of large but plausible increases in global temperatures.
Earth too hot for humans by year 2300 (New Scientist)
Australia’s top intelligence agency is the Office of National Assessments. The ONA assesses and analyses international political, strategic and economic developments for the Prime Minister ... The Director-General of ONA is an independent statutory officer who is not subject to external direction on the content of ONA assessments.
The deputy director of ONA discussed the security implications of climate change with US embassy officials. The deputy director raised concerns about global warming including:
· By 2030: decreased flows of water from the Himalayan glaciers triggering a cascade of economic, social and political consequences in south-east Asia.
· By 2050: a global temperature rise of 2 degrees C
· By 2100: a global temperature rise of 4 degrees C
This is based on a newspaper report about a cable released by Wikileaks
(The Age: 17 Dec 2010: Climate change warning over south-east Asia)
It would seem that Australia’s top intelligence agency believes that the globe is warming.
And that global warming will bring serious dangers including:
· political turmoil,
· increased inter and intra-national conflict,
· rising sea levels impacting coastal cities in SE Asia, and
· migration problems
The Arctic is a critical part of the planet’s air conditioner - and it’s starting to break down. The loss of Arctic Sea ice and snow cover is already costing the world about $61 billion to $371 billion annually from costs associated with heat waves, flooding and other factors.
This is the conclusion of Eban Goodstein, a resource economist at Bard College in New York State, who co-authored the report, called “Arctic Treasure, Global Assets Melting Away”.
Web article on "Arctic Treasure, Global Assets Melting Away" Report
Sea levels are expected to rise due to two factors: (1) Water from melting ice in Greenland and Antarctica is flowing into the oceans, and (2) The existing ocean water is expanding in volume as its temperature rises.
Current sea level rise (Wikipedia)
Sea level rise: After the ice melted and today (NASA Jan 2007)
In Australia, about 85 per cent of the population lives in the coastal region. And important infrastructure lies within 200 meters of the coastline. Australia wide they include: 258 police, fire and ambulance stations, five power stations/sub stations, 75 hospitals and health services, 41 landfill sites, three water treatment plants, and 11 emergency services facilities.
Sea level rise maps (Australian Dept of Climate Change & Energy Efficiency)
Rising sea a billion dollar threat (The Age 16 Dec 2010 p 7)
In Australia, climate change threatens coastal settlements, infrastructure, industries and eco-systems. Up to 247,000 residential buildings worth $ 63 billion may be at risk by 2100.
http://www.ozcoasts.org.au/climate/risks.jsp
Storms were predicted to become stronger as part of global warming.
Big storms can bring low temperatures and heavy snow falls, but this cold does NOT show that global warming is a fantasy.
Extreme weather, hot and cold, expected from global warming (Scientific American Feb 2010)
Harsh winter storms were a predicted part of global warming (On Earth)
Hurricane Katrina was not caused by global warming (New Scientist)
Cold snaps will occur as the globe warms (NASA)
· Humans are increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.
· Our species emerged and thrived while CO2 levels have ranged from ice age levels of 180 ppm to 300 ppm. At the end of 2009, CO2 levels were 385 ppm. Current CO2 levels are way above what our species has ever previously experienced.
· Basic science tells us that increasing CO2 levels tend to make the planet retain more heat. We are seeing this happen.
· The Earth is accumulating heat. Global temperatures have increased by 0.8 degrees C above pre-industrial levels. Decade by decade since 1950 temperatures have risen. The decade 2000 – 2009 was the warmest decade on record.
· The climate is changing. Glaciers and Arctic sea ice are in retreat. There are more extreme weather events. In some regions, there has been a dramatic drop in rainfall together with record temperatures, contributing to horrific bush fires.
· Even if we could hold CO2 levels at the current high levels, this CO2 will tend to warm the planet by an extra 0.6 degrees C.
· CO2 levels between 450 and 950 ppm are predicted for year 2100.
· The current warming could initiate other climate processes which cause far more warming. For example, warming causing methane release, causing more warming, causing more methane release, and so on.
· We need to cool the Earth now. We need to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
“Cutting greenhouse gases is as optional as breathing. Is there a point in negotiating how far to build a bridge across a canyon? The mistake made by the United States and the industrialised countries ... is to treat scientific advice on targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions as options.” (The Guardian: 6 Aug 2001: Andrew Simms)
Scientists and even conservative politicians have been concerned about global warming for at least 25 years.
In 1985, there was an international conference to consider greenhouse gases and climate change. Villach Conference in Austria: 1985
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced its first report in 1990. IPCC (Wikipedia)
Over twenty years ago in 1989 and 1990, Margaret Thatcher was urging precautionary action to reduce human emissions of CO2 and limit global warming. She was concerned that “man’s activities and numbers threaten to upset the biological balance … on which human life depends”. She gave two examples of the collapse of previous societies due to environmental damage. She spoke as the British Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party. She was PM for about 11 years.
Thatcher Speech: United Nations General Assembly: 8 Nov 1989
Thatcher Speech: Second World Climate Conference: 6 Nov 1990
Climate scientists have made many predictions regarding global warming that have been born out. Here are several examples:
In 1977, Kellogg gave as a best estimate for year 2000, a 25% increase in atmospheric CO2 and a warming of about 1 degree C. At this time, the World Meteorological Organisation “Panel of Experts on Climate Change” endorsed this estimate as a useful statement of the current knowledge (Kellogg 1977 cited in Enting 2007). In 2000, 23 years later, these were the sorts of increases that had occurred.
“Global surface temperature has increased about 0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s”
James Hansen et al, 2006 (Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences USA)
Some key predictions made by people warning of climate change have been conservative as climate change has been progressing more rapidly than expected. Flannery writes that, in 2007, scientists re-examined the IPCC’s 2001 climate projections. They examined temperature increases, sea-level rises, CO2 concentrations and Arctic ice extent. They found that these key indicators of global warming had progressed as rapidly as, or more rapidly than, the worst-case scenarios of 2001. (Flannery 2008 p xi)
Senator Penny Wong, Australian “minister for climate change and water”, maintains that the scientists’ predictions have been borne out. Speaking at the National Press Club on 10 Feb 2010, she said:
“We are faced with an overwhelming weight of credible scientific evidence that demonstrates that climate change is happening, and that natural causes do not explain it.
Scientists told us climate change would mean higher temperatures. 2009 was the second hottest year in Australia on record and ended our hottest decade. Since the 1940s, each decade in Australia has been warmer than the one before it.
Scientists told us climate change would mean less rainfall in southern Australia, more droughts and problems facing our water supplies. Over the last four years, the average amount of water flowing into the River Murray was less than one-quarter of the long-term annual average (23 per cent). If climate change continues unabated, we could see irrigated agricultural production in the Murray Darling Basin drop by over 90 percent by 2100.
Scientists told us climate change would mean more frequent and more extreme weather including heatwaves, storms, and bushfires. In 2009 Australia experienced three major heatwaves all of which saw widespread record-breaking temperatures. The number of successive hot days and nights set new records.
But it is not all doom and gloom. We know we can reduce the risk of climate change for our children and grandchildren by reducing the carbon pollution that is causing climate change.”
Transcript of Wong’s National Press Club speech
The principles of risk management are relevant to climate change. As part of managing risks, organisations identify events that could cause damage and take steps to avoid these events. When the potential damage is great, organisations often act to avoid events that are unlikely. For example, they might rebuild chemical loading equipment to eliminate the small chance of a very damaging chemical spill.
The risk management process (Monash University)
Following this principle, we need to take action on climate change as the potential damage is enormous and the chances of it occurring are large.
Very few people would choose to fly in an aeroplane when technicians were prevented from working on severe mechanical problems that could deteriorate rapidly. Climate change deniers are pushing all of us onto such an aeroplane.
Under risk management, we would still need to take action to limit global warming even if the chances of it occurring were VERY small. This is because the potential damage from climate change is so great.
Malcolm Turnbull, former leader of the Australian Liberal Party, put it this way in Nov 2009.
“ … the fact is we should approach this issue from a risk management basis. Conservative leaders, centre-right leaders from around the world do that. I am not aware of any major political party in the world that has a do nothing approach to climate change, that has a policy of climate change denial. Margaret Thatcher herself, back in 1990, nearly 20 years ago, said we should take action to cut greenhouse gas emissions as a matter of “risk management”, and of course, as Rupert Murdoch so famously said, “we should give the planet the benefit of the doubt. Because what we are talking about here is not just an issue of today, this is an issue for today, tomorrow and the years to come. It is about protecting our planet, protecting the future of our children and their children.”
This Turnbull interview was on Turnbull’s web site. I think it has been removed.
Following risk management principles, sceptics who argue against taking any action to reduce CO2 emissions need to assert that there is NO risk of global warming and that the scientists are 100% wrong. Even if there is a 1 in 100 chance of the scientists being right, we need to act fully to prevent global warming, because the potential damage is vast.
Scientists and green politicians do not stand alone on this issue. They are joined by many conservative politicians and leaders of major international businesses. Here is one example.
BHP Billiton describes itself as “the world’s leading resources company”.
Its chief Marius Kloppers states that:
· BHP Billiton is concerned about the potential impacts of climate change
· Mainstream science is correct
· We need to eventually reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
· We will get binding international agreements to reduce greenhouse gases
· To remain competitive, Australia needs to act before these agreements become binding
· The world is going through a process of rapid change, and it is only by anticipating and responding to this change, rather than resisting, that Australian businesses and the country as a whole can succeed.
Kloppers’ speech to the Australian British Chamber of Commerce on 15/9/2010
www.bhpbilliton.com/bbContentRepository/docs/100915AbccBhpBillitonCeoSpeech.pdf
Spratt and Sutton (2008) write:
It is too late to be considering how much more carbon dioxide we can safely put into the atmosphere. There is already too much there.
The only realistic way of recovering a safe climate is to:
· Restore the Arctic ice
· Act now with urgency
· Set targets that we are sure will solve the problem
· Reduce global temperature by at least 0.3 degrees from 2008 levels
· Reduce CO2 levels from 384 to between 300 and 325 ppm
· Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero
· Remove 200 billion tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere
· Take extra measures to cool the Earth
· Avoid building new infrastructure that would emit CO2
· Avoid half baked solutions.
· Not allow failure to be an option
(Spratt and Sutton, 2008, p 135, 136,171-176, 260-261)
“Solving the climate crisis cannot be treated like any other issue, with the demands of each side balanced somewhere in the middle. It is not possible to negotiate with the laws of physics and chemistry. The planet cannot be bought off. There are absolute limits that should not be crossed, and doing something, but not enough, will still lead to disaster.”
Illusions on the edge of a precipice (Spratt: The Age 18 Oct 2009
Climate scientist James Hansen writes,
“The truth is that the climate problem cannot be solved without taking on special interests, specifically the coal industry. That is possible. The coal industry is but a fraction of what it once was; alternative industries will be far more beneficial to the nation and provide better jobs.”
Climate Tipping Points & Political Leadership (James Hansen's Blog)
Pearse (2009) argues that the coal Australia uses and exports generates about one billion tonnes of CO2 a year. This is one thirtieth of the CO2 from fossil fuel worldwide. This is a significant, especially when considering that Australians make up only 1 of every 313 people in the world (p 78). Coal contributes 10 to 20 percent of Australia’s export income (p 11). Despite this Pearse argues that Australia should treat coal like it treated asbestos and phase out the industry (p 93). He argues that we can afford to do this.
As well as the global warming crisis, another crisis involving fossil fuels is threatening.
World demand for oil continues to climb. And the world oil supply is about to reach a peak and then decline dramatically. This is referred to as “peak oil”. As the demand for oil becomes larger than the supply, the oil price will increase dramatically, leading to enormous economic, social, and political risks.
A strategy for tackling both global warming and peak oil is to move towards a low carbon economy by reducing the burning of oil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicting_the_timing_of_peak_oil
http://www.carbonequity.info/PDFs/Peak%20oil%20Dunlop.pdf
Australia is fortunate. We have various ways of moving towards a low carbon economy, including phasing out the burning of fossil fuels to produce electricity.
The Zero Carbon Australia Report (Feb 2010) details how Australia could produce all of its energy requirements from renewable sources by 2020.
The plan includes use of solar generated electricity from proven technology that is already operating commercially. It can provide electricity 24 hour a day. It would require capital spending of less than 3.5% of gross domestic product over ten years.
Geothermal heat could be used to generate electricity in several parts of Australia.
This is true in the Latrobe Valley where we currently generate power using coal. Geothermal heat has been trapped under the blanket of coal. It could be used to generate electricity which could then be distributed using the existing power lines. The coal fired generators could then be phased out.
Melbourne University has proposed a pilot plant to test the resource – but to date has received little funding.
www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2883582.htm
A little knowledge about Australian political parties might help here.
There are three main political groupings:
· The Liberal Party & The National Party (They are often in coalition)
The Australian parliament consists of:
· a lower house, the House of Representative and
· an upper house, the Senate.
In the House of Representatives, the Labor Party has a narrow majority only because of the support of several independents. The Liberal National coalition is the opposition party.
In the Senate, neither Liberal National Coalition nor Labor have a majority of seats. After July 2010, the Greens will hold the balance of power.
Australian House of Representatives (Wikipedia)
The Liberal party is saying that in government they would:
· Take direct action to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by 5% by 2020.
· Provide incentives to industry and farmers to reduce CO2 emissions
· Not put a cost on CO2 emissions.
Greg Hunt: Speech to National Press Club: 10 Feb 2010
Greg Hunt: Shadow minister for environment: Web page
The Liberal’s Emissions Trading Scheme page
The Liberal's Climate Change page
As described below, influential Liberals, including the Liberal leader Tony Abbott, seem to deny that the globe is warming and deny the role of CO2 in influencing the temperature. Given this position it is strange that the Liberals are prepared to spend any money on reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
The Labor government proposes to
· Reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by 5% by 2020.
· Start an emissions trading scheme which will place a cost on CO2 emissions
Elements within the Labor Party support action on climate change.
For example: a former Labor parliamentarian Barry Jones.
Barry Jones’ Perspective Dec 2010
The Australian Greens propose to:
· Cut Australian CO2 emissions to at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2020.
· Target 350 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere
· Transform Australia into a carbon neutral economy
· Maintain a safe climate
The Greens: Safe Climate Bills
The Greens see the Labor Emissions Trading scheme as flawed as it would:
· lock in the current polluting economy for years to come
· involve paying enormous compensation to polluters if the initial CO2 targets were lifted. Greens position on Emissions Trading
I use “confusionist” to mean a person who promotes confusion about global warming often with the aim of preventing action to reduce global warming. Barry Jones uses this word. Other similar terms are: “contrarian”, “sceptic”, and “denier”.
A cartoon: A climate change confusionist (Mike Luckovich)
Ian Plimer is an Australian geologist, businessman and global warming confusionist.
Plimer's Adelaide University web page
Plimer wrote a book
Heaven and Earth: Global Warming: The Missing Science
There was a television debate between the journalist George Monbiot and Ian Plimer on 15 December 2009.
Monbiot asked Plimer to discuss claims that Plimer has made concerning global warming. It seems that Plimer had received Monbiot’s questions in writing well before this debate.
For example, Plimer’s book quotes a scientist, Keller, as saying, "satellites and radio sondes show that there is no global warming", whereas Keller’s article says the opposite, that the satellite and radio sonde observations now show that the planet is warming. Plimer was asked several times whether he stood by his quote. A simple question. Each time Plimer digressed. Plimer avoided answering similar questions many times.
Here is the full transcript of the debate between Plimer and Monbiot. 15 Dec 2009
Here is George Monbiot's blog
Here are Monbiot’s conclusions after the debate with Plimer
Ian Enting is a climate scientist now at Melbourne University. He has identified many flaws in “Heaven and Earth” Ian Enting's Critique
Barry Brook heads Adelaide University's Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability. Brook's review (Brave New Climate) of “Heaven and Earth” states:
“[Plimer’s] assertions about man’s role in climate change were naive, reflected a poor understanding of climate science, and relied on recycled and distorted arguments that had been repeatedly refuted.” (Barry Brook)
Tony Abbott is the leader of the Liberal Party, which is now in opposition in Australia.
Here, I include one complete and unbroken section of a speech by Abbott that is on his web site. I have inserted my comments.
Abbott: “The scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have concluded that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are probably responsible for climate change which, they think, is likely to result in up to one metre rises in sea levels over the next century, up to six degrees increases in temperatures and more extreme weather.”
Abbott: “A difficulty for this thesis is that man-made carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing substantially for at least a hundred years but significant global warming only seems to have occurred in the last quarter of the last century.”
Comment: The warming impact of CO2 is not challenged by the fact that temperature and CO2 concentration do not always move up and down together. CO2 concentration is the not only factor behind temperature change.
Abbott: “There may even have been a slight decrease in global temperatures (the measurement data differs on this point) over the past decade despite continued large increases in emissions associated with the rapid economic growth of China and India.”
Comment: Abbott alludes to the Hadley Centre temperature movement since 1998, which he misuses to suit his purpose. He over looks the longer-term trend which is predicted by the science of greenhouse gases. He ignores other evidence that does not suit his purpose. See:
Global warming did not stop in 1998 (Skeptical science)
Interpreting the temperature data: (Peter Sinclair video)
Comment: Abbott overlooks the build up of green house gases which will continue to have a warming influence on the planet. Some cooling does not disprove global warming (New Scientist)
Abbott: “While many scientists, perhaps even a strong numerical majority, think that carbon dioxide is the principal factor in variations in global climate, others question the significance of the role of a naturally occurring trace gas and attribute climate change mainly to variations in solar activity.”
Comment: Abbott correctly identifies CO2 as “a naturally occurring trace gas”. However, this presents CO2 as harmless. He overlooks its role as a greenhouse gas and its high current levels.
Comment re solar activity, see
· Solar activity, sun spots and global warming (Skeptical Science)
· It's not the sun (Brave New World)
Abbott, “Obviously, what is a scientific fact should not be determined by a majority vote, even of scientists. That just leads to experts shouting at each other.”
Comment: Abbott partly recognises and fully dismisses the overwhelming agreement between scientists on this matter.
A Myth: Many leading scientists question climate change (New Scientist)
Abbott: “As the ABC’s Chris Uhlmann has instructively remarked, if we can’t predict the weather a week in advance and can’t accurately forecast next year’s budget deficit, how can we be so sure about climate and its economic consequences in 100 years time? ”
Comment: Abbott ridicules climate prediction. He ignores the enormous difference between (a) the forecasting of highly variable phenomena, like the daily weather, and (b) long term prediction of the movement of “average annual temperature” given: (a) large increases in greenhouse gases, (b) the fact that greenhouse gases retain heat, and (c) the relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration shown in the ice-cores. You can make some predictions about chaotic systems (New Scientist)
Abbott: “We can’t conclusively say whether man-made carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to climate change.”
Comment: Abbott overlooks the overwhelming agreement between climate scientists, resting his case on discredited argument. He also overlooks the fact that most political decisions are made without the support of conclusive evidence, e.g. the government spending policies made to minimise the impact of the global financial crisis in 2008.
In an interview with Tony Jones 19 Nov 2009, Abbott said,
“No. [I have not read the IPCC report.] I don't claim to have immersed myself deeply in all of these documents. I'm a politician. I have to rely on briefings - I have to rely on what I pick up through the secondary sources. But look, I think I am as well versed on these matters as your average politician needs to be. … I haven't yet finished Ian Plimer's book. I have started Ian Plimer's book. … I've quoted a couple of passages, and I confess I'm probably more familiar with the book through people who've written about it, than I am through having read it myself.”
www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2748161.htm
Abbott goes beyond being informed by Plimer. He champions Plimer. Wilkinson quotes Abbott as saying, ''I think that in response to the IPCC alarmist … view, there've been quite a lot of other reputable scientific voices. Now not everyone agrees with Ian Plimer's position, but he is a highly credible scientist and he has written what seems like a very well-argued book refuting most of the claims of the climate catastrophists” Sydney Morning Herald: 2 Dec 2009: by Marian Wilkinson
So, Abbott has read neither the IPCC report nor Plimer’s book. He has chosen to attack the IPCC by calling them “alarmist” and he has chosen to be informed by Plimer, a scientist who Barry Brook says relies on “distorted arguments that have been repeatedly refuted.” Also, he had discussions with Lord Monckton when Monckton visited Australia in 2010.
Abbott asks us to be satisfied that “he is as well versed on these matters as your average politician needs to be”. This is not good enough - even for an average politician, which Abbott is not. He is leader of one of the two biggest political parties in Australian. His position as leader means many Liberal Party voters follow him and leads many others to respect his statements. They trust that he is well informed.
However, concerning climate change, it seems he chooses to be informed by Ian Plimer, Monckton and other climate change deniers. Abbott is an influential person spreading misinformation.
The Melbourne “Sunday Age” editorial of 3 Jan 2010 says, “On the question of climate change, Mr Abbott has dismissed the Rudd Government’s emissions trading scheme as a “great big tax”. What nonsense. … Mr Abbott’s response is both irresponsible in terms of how to deal with a complex and important problem, and politically cynical.”
Cory Bernardi is a Liberal Partly senator for the state of South Australia.
He said in his Emissions Trading Scheme speech to parliament on 11 August 2009:
“ … The government will have you believe that climate change is being driven by carbon dioxide — or, more specifically, that man-made CO2, which comprises less than one per cent of atmospheric carbon mass, is the culprit. Despite the plethora of evidence to the contrary, those committed to the anthropogenic climate change industry have too much of themselves invested in this new religion to admit they actually might have it wrong. When I say there is a plethora of evidence refuting their claims, I mean there really is a tonne of the stuff. Firstly, we have the irrational claims made by the high priests of climate change themselves. Alarmist of the year Tim Flannery once stated that the seas were going to rise by 100 metres, not the one metre that Senator Bilyk just told us. He was wrong. Great video hoaxer Al Gore won a Nobel prize for producing a flawed and alarmist mockumentary that contained a litany of errors and that required a guidance note before it could be viewed by British children. For over two decades the shrill cry of the alarmists declared we only had five years to prevent a climate change catastrophe. I could go on and on. The extremist mumbo jumbo uttered by those who profit from fear, either financially or electorally—and one could call them the prophets of doom—gets louder and louder. They must raise their voices not because any of their predictions have been realised but simply because they have not. When confronted with the very inconvenient facts that they have been demonstrably wrong again and again they simply raise the decibel of their cry and the level of the hyperbole attached to their claims. Tonight I shall leave the rebuttal of their hysteria there. …”
I will limit myself to several points about this speech.
Bernardi asserts that predictions made by people warning of climate change have “been demonstrably wrong time and time again”. To support this he asserts that Tim Flannery predicted that “seas were going to rise by 100 metres” and that Flannery was wrong. To make a solid argument, Bernardi needs to tell us where Flannery made this prediction and by when Flannery said, the sea would rise by 100 meters. Bernardi says Flannery’s prediction was wrong, implying that Flannery made this prediction for 2009 or earlier. As “global average sea level rose [only] about 17 centimetres in the 20th century” (New Scientist), (Only first 2 paragraphs of this article are available for free: zzr) Flannery would not have predicted that seas were gong to rise by 100 meters by 2009.
Bernardi ignores the many correct predictions made by climate scientists, see section “What scientists predicted is happening”
Bernardi said, “Man-made carbon dioxide … comprises less than one per cent of atmospheric carbon mass” suggesting that such a small amount of carbon dioxide could not be important. He implies that this percentage weight figure is critical when the critical factor is the ability of this carbon dioxide to retain heat radiation. We know that some things are dangerous even in small quantities, e.g. cyanide pills. Also see: Human CO2 emissions are not too tiny to matter (New Scientist).
In the above quote from Bernardi’s speech, you see his full “rebuttal of their hysteria”. He claims that there is a plethora of evidence refuting claims that man-made CO2 is driving climate change, but in this speech he offers no credible evidence.
Christopher Monckton (Wikipedia)
Monckton interviewed by Alan Jones 11 Nov 2009. Monckton claims that the Copenhagen treaty is about creating a world government, a communist dictatorship with democracy taken away for ever.
Monckton was interviewed by radio host Alan Jones 25 Jan 2010.
This second interview was investigated by the television show Media Watch of 8 Feb 2010. Media Watch presented evidence suggesting that several of Monckton’s claims are not true.
· One of Monkton’s claims was that “The Barrier Reef Authority has established that sea temperatures in the region of the reef have not changed at all over the last 30 years.” Whereas the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority says it doesn't measure sea temperatures itself, doesn't know where his figures come from and that the science indicates increasing ocean temperatures that are detrimental to the Great Barrier Reef.
· Another such claim was that several members of the IPCC were under criminal investigation.
Also see: George Monbiot writing about Monckton
Andrew Bolt is an Australian journalist. Here is his blog
In an interview on an ABC news radio show on 27 November 2009, he said:
“I'm certainly seeing that it is insane that we are embarking on this massive tax [The proposed Australian emissions trading scheme] that will hurt everyone, be followed by no other country, won't achieve any cooling at all, and this after Tim Flannery himself, who's Australia's leading alarmist as you well know, Tim Flannery himself this week on ABC TV admitted that in fact the world was not warming, it was cooling.” (Andrew Bolt)
Full transcript of interview with Andrew Bolt (ABC radio)
Bolt twisted Flannery’s words to give the impression that Flannery thinks the globe is cooling.
In this short interview, Bolt did this four times. Bolt’s own words show that Bolt knows that Flannery is alarmed by global warming.
The interviewer did not challenge Bolt or contact Flannery for an immediate response.
One week later,
Tim Flannery rebutted Bolt in this article in the Melbourne Age newspaper
“Andrew Bolt twisted this complex story into what was for the sceptics a very convenient untruth – that I believed the Earth was cooling.” (Flannery)
People in senior positions in the media are urging journalists to present the views of climate change deniers. The chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC), Maurice Newman, urged this in a speech to his staff in March 2010. Newman claimed that group think within the ABC has suppressed the views of climate change deniers “despite the fact that a growing number of distinguished scientists were challenging the conventional wisdom with alternative theories and peer reviewed research.”
Maurice Newman speech: Full text: March 2010 (The Australian Newspaper)
Professor Michael Ashley from University of New South Wales responded to Newman’s speech on the University web site. Ashley challenged Newman saying: “I don't know of a single credible climate scientist who doubts human-induced climate change. … You can easily prove me wrong, all you have to do is name just one scientist who has published a viable alternative theory in a credible science journal, that hasn't since been debunked. I bet you can't do it.”
Professor Ashley's open letter to Newman
The Australian CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) produced a report on:
· the likely magnitude of climate change in Australia, and
· the possible impacts on Australia.
One part of their summary is “Australian surface temperatures have risen significantly over the past century. Warming since the middle of the 20th century is likely to be mostly due to anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases.”
CSIRO & BOM Report Summary ( 2 MB file)
Climate change in the world and in Australia
www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/index.php
Observed changes in Australian temperature, rainfall and ocean levels
www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/pastchange.php
Liberal Senator Julian McGauran has reacted to this report. While he asserts that Labor party politicians have pressured the CSIRO into endorsing global warming, his own press-release seems to threaten CSIRO staff. He writes, “A new broom must go through the CSIRO for it to restore its credibility amongst the scientific world and the Australian community.”
McGauran's press release: 16 Mar 2010
Here are some views on climate change confusionists
The UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown said:
"With only days to go before Copenhagen, we mustn't be distracted by behind the times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics ... We know the science. We know what we must do"
Ed Miliband, UK Environment secretary said:
"The approach of the climate saboteurs is to misuse data and mislead people. The sceptics are playing politics with science in a dangerous and deceitful manner. The evidence is clear and the time to act is short. To abandon this process now would lead to misery and catastrophe for millions."
Ed Markey, Co-author of the US Climate Change Bill, said:
"We can no longer allow our climate and energy policy to be hijacked by the government of Saudi Arabia, ExxonMobil, and the defenders of the fossil fuel status quo."
Sources: The Melbourne “Sunday Age” 6/12/09, p 20 and the Guardian
Gordon Brown attacks 'flat-earth' climate change sceptics (The Guardian 4 Dec 2009)
Gordon Brown's speech to the Copenhagen Summit 2009
“A small global network of “experts”, many of them with no relevant climate-science qualifications, have been funded directly and indirectly to ensure a constant stream of submissions to government enquiries, conference speeches, bogus petitions, documentaries and media commentary. This has created the impression of division in the scientific community where almost none exists.” (Pearse 2009 p 34)
The questionable behaviour of some climate sceptics (New Scientist, Dec 2009)
The media frequently presents items that cast doubt on global warming based on invented facts. Here is discussion of one example:
Why is the news media comfortable with lying about science?
When a prime minister or treasurer gets the bank interest rate wrong in an interview, there is a flurry of front-page news reporting this as an “outrageous error”. However, when politicians make gross errors concerning global warming, this seems to pass unnoticed. This is so even when the errors are obvious distortions of the truth made in parliamentary speeches that the politicians proudly put on their web pages.
People, in responsible positions like politicians, journalists and a few academics, are promoting misinformation concerning climate change and most are retaining their credibility. This is a substantial scandal of our age.
Here are some things that you can do in your everyday life to reduce climate change.
Top 50 Things To Do To Stop Global Warming
Look at politicians’ web sites. See what they think about global warming. Prepare a question for them - so that if they are being interviewed on a talk back show, you are ready to focus the show on an aspect of global warming.
Get involved with a group that is pushing for action on climate change.
In Australian consider:
· The Climate Emergency Network About Climate Emergency Network
· The Climate Action Centre is a resource centre for community climate action groups and climate activists in the Australian State of Victoria.
· The Global Warming Action Party (Australia)
· Stable Population Party of Australia The two major Australian political parties want to expand our population. This would tend to increase our CO2 emissions.
Science based sources support the information provided in this web site.
The authority of this document rests on the trustworthiness of these sources.
The main sources used are mentioned below.
This site has drawn on information from authoritative scientific organisations.
They present trustworthy information on global warming.
National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) USA
NASA: Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
UK Met Office: Hadley Centre Site
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) USA
NOAA: National Climate Data Centre (NCDC) USA
National Snow & Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) USA
Environmental Protection Agency USA (EPA)
World Meteorological Organisation (WMO)
Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
The national science agency of the Commonwealth of Australia
Bureau of Meteorology (Australia)
This site has drawn on information from authoritative science based web sites.
New Scientist is a reputable science magazine. New Scientist
Scientific American is a reputable science magazine. Scientific American
Skeptical Science web site: It presents information on global warming based on the peer reviewed scientific literature identified in each article. About Skeptical Science
Brave New Climate web site: It presents information on global warming organised by a working climate scientist, Professor Barry Brook. About Brave New Climate
Real Climate web site provides information on global warming by working climate scientists
American Institute of Physics: Spencer Weart About Spencer Weart
American Assoc for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) About AAAS
This site has drawn on information from The International Panel on Climate Change
The IPCC prepares a “Summary for Policy Makers”, based mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific literature. The content is determined by scientists, but the form is approved line by line by governments.
The IPCC also has a Technical Support Unit. Scientists associated with this unit publish according to normal scientific standards.
This site has drawn on information from other web sites including:
On Earth web site: An environmental magazine interested in protecting our planet.
World View of Global Warming web site offers photographic documentation of climate change. Created by a photographer and journalist from USA.
www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/index.html
Wikipedia
Peter Sinclair: Videos about global warming on you tube.
Australian Broadcasting Commission web site provides transcripts of interviews & videos of TV shows.
Politician’s web pages: For their views and speeches.
The publications referred to in this site follow:
Enting, Ian (2007) “Twisted: The Distorted Mathematics of Greenhouse Denial”, Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute
Flannery, Tim (2005), “The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change”, Text Publishing (New introduction 2008) www.theweathermakers.org/
Flannery, Tim (2008), The updated introduction to “The Weather Makers”
Gore, Al (2006) “An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It”, Bloomsbury, London
IPCC (2007) Report Summary for Policy Makers
Kellogg, William W (1977), “Effects of Human activities on Global Climate”, Technical Note 156, World Meteorological Organisation. Discussed in Enting (2007, p 63).
Lovelock, James (2006) “The revenge of Gaia”, Penguin
Pearse, Guy (2009), “Quarry Vision: Coal, Climate Change and the End of the Resources Boom”, Quarterly Essay, Issue 33, 2009 www.guypearse.com
Spratt & Sutton (2008) “Climate Code Red: The Case for Emergency Action”, Scribe Publications www.climatecodered.net/
Here is information about many of the arguments put forwards by climate change deniers.
New Scientist
www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
Skeptical Science
www.skepticalscience.com/resources.php
Brave New Climate
bravenewclimate.com/2009/05/18/climate-denial-crock/
Beginners guide to climate change (New Scientist)
Australia's changing climate: Bureau of Meteorology
Start here to understand climate change (Real Climate)
The Science of Climate Change: Frequently Asked Questions (IPCC)
Climate Questions: Science Facts (CSIRO)
Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation: Australia
Climate Change (Environmental Protection Agency USA)
Climate (British Broadcasting Commission BBC)
James Hansen (2009) “Storms of My Grandchildren: The truth about the coming climate catastrophe and our last chance to save humanity”, Bloomsbury
Clive Hamilton (2007) “Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change”, Black Inc
Guy Pearse (2007) “High and Dry: John Howard, Climate Change & the Selling of Australia’s Future”. Penguin Viking
G Morgan & J McCrystal (2009): “Poles Apart: Beyond the Shouting, Who's Right About Climate Change”, Scribe
Spencer Weart (2008) “The Discovery of Global Warming”, Harvard UP.
I constructed this web site after hearing confusionist politicians and journalists sow doubt about climate change, and seeing the fading likelihood of effective action on climate change.
My writing became focused after several friends were dismissive of global warming. I wanted to learn about global warming, gather evidence, and put together a solid response. I wanted to base it on readable authoritative material rather than journal articles, as journal articles are mostly written for a specialised audience. (I describe my sources in detail above.)
My study of maths at university qualified me to start a career as a climate scientist. My first job was a short stint in the Bureau of Meteorology, but then I moved in other directions. I am not a climate scientist.
I am considering joining a political party that will push strongly for action on climate change.
Home page: www.vicnet.net.au/~gunner
andrewgu52 [at] yahoo [dot] com [dot] au
It’s written as you say it, to discourage spam.
If you find this web page useful, please consider
· Letting other people know about it, and
· Putting a link to this site on your web page or face book
You can republish, adapt or translate the content of this site
as long as you acknowledge this by including a reference or link to this site.
Google finds this site with a search for:
. ”global warming” “vicious loops”
Added:
. Reference to recent article by Barry Jones
. Peak oil section
. Large areas becoming uninhabitable
. BHP pushing for action on global warming
Hints for viewing this web site
This page map has hyper-links to each section and subsection of this page:
1 Humans are initiating dangerous climate change
4 Overwhelming scientific agreement
4.1 “International Panel on Climate Change” Conclusions
4.2 No authoritative scientific organisations disagree
4.3 Nearly all climate scientists agree
4.4 Many areas of science have contrarians
4.6 We see resistance to change, not scientific debate
5 Already too much CO2 in our atmosphere
5.1 Science of greenhouse gases established 1859
5.2 CO2 levels from 600,000 years ago to 1900: 180 – 300 ppm
5.3 Temperature and CO2 movement over 400,000 years
5.4 CO2 levels since 1950: 315 to 385 ppm
5.5 Current CO2 concentration: 384 ppm
5.6 Recent CO2 increases are due to human activities
5.7 Forecast 2100 CO2 levels: 550 to 950 ppm
5.8 Our species has never before experienced over 300 ppm
5.9 Climate negotiations considering 450 – 550 ppm
5.10 Summary diagram of CO2 concentrations
5.11 The oceans are becoming more acidic
6 The planet is accumulating heat
6.1 Temperature is only a part measure of heat accumulation
6.2 Heat accumulated by the planet since 1950
7.1 Global average temperatures from 1850 to 2009
7.2 Decade 2000 – 2009: The hottest decade on record
7.3 Each decade warmer then previous decade since 1950
7.4 Global average temperature risen 0.8 degrees C
7.5 Year 2010 may be in the top 3 warmest years
7.6 The globe did not stop warming in 1998
7.7 El Nino moved heat from ocean to atmosphere in 1998
7.8 Eleven-year moving average temperatures
7.10 Temperatures to rise more due to current CO2
8.1 Observations supporting global warming
8.2 The retreat of the glaciers
8.3 Massive reductions in Arctic ice
8.4 Increases in the bleaching of coral reefs
9 Warming causing more warming: Vicious loops
9.1 Methane release: A vicious loop
9.2 Melting Arctic ice: A vicious loop
9.3 Most of you will have heard this vicious loop: Feedback
9.4 Other vicious loops that could escalate warming
9.5 There may be no adequate climate dynamic opposing the warming
9.6 Tipping points: Radical, sudden climate change
9.7 “Vicious loops” and “systems theories”
10 Some dangers of global warming
10.2 Australia’s top intelligence agency concerned
10.3 Climate change already costing too much
10.5 Harsher storms: A predicted part of global warming
11.2 Concern for over 25 years (Margaret Thatcher)
11.3 What scientists predicted is happening
11.4 Risk management (Malcolm Turnbull)
11.5 Major companies press for climate action
11.6 Safe CO2 concentrations: 300 – 325 ppm
11.7 Coal should be treated like asbestos
13.1 Solar electricity 24 hours a day
14 Australian politics & global warming
14.1 Australian political parties
14.2 The Liberal Party position
15 Global warming confusionists & the Australian debate
15.1 Confusionist, contrarian, denier, sceptic
15.3 Confusionist: Liberal Party Leader Tony Abbott
15.4 Confusionist: Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi
15.5 Confusionist: Lord Monckton
15.6 Confusionist: Journalist Andrew Bolt
15.7 Pressure on media to present confusionist views
15.8 Pressure on scientists to present confusionist views
15.9 Some views about climate change confusionists
15.10 A major scandal of our age
17 Information sources used by this site
17.1 The authority of this site
17.2 Major scientific organisations
17.4 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
17.6 Publications referred to in the text
18 More information on climate change
18.1 Articles on climate myths and misconceptions
18.3 Other useful publications
19.3 Distributing this document
19.4 Recent changes to this web page
19.5 Hints for viewing this web site
*** End of this page
