Expectations for the Climate Change Panel
By BlackJkPat Comments (27) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Later today, the International Panel on Climate Change is expected to release a supposedly comprehensive study on global climate change. Naturally, everyone already knows what this study is going to say: the Earth is getting warmer, ice caps will melt, sea levels rise, people die, and so forth. For some, this will be a vindication of decades of environmental activism. For others, the study will only be more propaganda from an anti-capitalist, anti-American crowd.
Personally, I am weary of this report. For one thing, I hold the source as suspect. Whenever an international group of intellectuals gets together, it is usually to bash the United States. Not only do these sorts of meetings and studies typically have the same villain, they usually have the same solution: to tear down U.S. political and economic influence in the world and replace it with some hyper-regulatory body. Besides, based on what I have heard about this report, it seems to have the tone of a used-car salesman: time is too short to think or discuss, we must rush to action.
Nevertheless, I intend to read the report and hope that I am wrong about the authors’ intentions. If the report does place the primary blame on the United States and/or suggests policy which is outside the scope of scientific inquiry, any other findings will lose credibility with me.
Furthermore, several key elements of the global climate change story need to be fleshed out in this report in order for its conclusions to be accepted. Here is an outline of those elements:
1) That man-made greenhouse gases (CO2, for example) have actually led to an increase in atmospheric CO2
It has already been shown that levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased over the past few centuries. Coincident with at least some of this increase was the Industrial Revolution, when human beings started artificially pumping gases (including CO2) into the air. Nevertheless, any good scientist knows that correlation does not imply causation.
A very common assumption that the public makes about the world is that it is static. People believe that the Earth was exactly the same for millions and millions of years until man came along and started changing it. This is patently false. For example, the current composition of our atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 22% oxygen, and a bunch of other gases (including CO2) in such small portions they cannot be easily expressed as percentages. For the first billion or so years of the Earth’s existence, however, CO2 was the primary component of our air. Oxygen first made a meaningful appearance about a billion years ago. Its atmospheric concentration peaked at about 30% during the time of the dinosaurs (about 100 million years ago), and has been in decline ever since. The current fluctuations of CO2 levels we measure still keep them in that “almost immeasurable” range.
I understand that in science, it is difficult (if not impossible) to demonstrate causation. What could be done, though, is to show how much man-made CO2 is produced relative to the amount already in the air. This is difficult to do, however, because reports on CO2 always express emissions in absolute amounts (generally in tons). At the same time, atmospheric CO2 is always measured as a proportion of the air (i.e., parts per million [ppm]). Comparing these two figures is impossible for obvious reasons. This new report should give a meaningful frame of reference for how much CO2 humans actually add to the atmosphere.
2) That “greenhouse gases” actually cause a “greenhouse effect”
As I have heard for as long as I have been alive, I have heard how the greenhouse effect works. The Earth is heated by the Sun. Much of that heat is reflected back out into space. Greenhouse gases, however, trap some heat within the Earth’s atmosphere, in the same way that glass of a greenhouse traps heat. Hence, global warming.
The problem is that this system is fantastically more complicated than that. Some even suggest that “greenhouse gases” might work the reverse of this: that they actually reflect heat away from the Earth before it even reaches the surface. Indeed, this was the assertion of most celebrants of the first Earth Day in 1970, who warned that human action was causing global cooling and would lead to a new ice age.
Once again, the Earth is constantly in flux. During the last major ice age, which ended about 11,000 years ago, glaciers covered half of North America and Europe, and Alaska and Australia were connected to Asia by land. As recently as 1,200 years ago Greenland was farmable (hence the name), grapes grew in Scotland, and palm trees shaded northern France. Then temperatures dropped. Some scientists suggest that this most recent cooling pattern ended about 100 years ago, but others suggest that we may still be at the tail end of it. Thus, today’s report must show that any warming has a link to our involvement.
3) That global climate change is actually harmful to the Earth.
Those in the media who consider global warming “the end of the world” should understand that the world is made of sterner stuff. This is not the warmest the Earth has ever been. In fact, more mild winters may be a boon to humanity and nature alike. Warmer tropics may help proliferate tropic rain forests, which thrive in higher temperatures and increased precipitation.
Of course, the real threat of global warming (we are told) is melting ice caps, which would raise sea levels and drown most of humanity. A meaningful discussion on changing sea levels must be made in this report. That discussion should address the point that sea ice cannot raise sea level, in the same way that a melting ice cube cannot cause a glass of water to overflow.
Also, as I mentioned above, we need to understand that sea levels are also in constant flux throughout history. As recently as two hundred years ago, my shore property in Cape May County, New Jersey was a submerged part of the Atlantic Shelf.
4) That some human action can be taken to stop the warming
If this study can convincingly show (1) that humans have a meaningful role increase the concentration of greenhouse gases, (2) that those gases are causing the Earth to warm, and (3) that such a warming trend indeed threatens humanity, then the final question must be asked: can we stop it?
I am not asking for practical solutions from this study. In fact, actual policy suggestions would only undermine the scientific credibility of the study. I want to see conclusions like “if total CO2 output were decreased X percent over T years, the warming will be minimized to Y degrees, or stopped altogether.
Again, some actual science put forth by people smarter than I would be necessary to sell this. Nevertheless, if the study concluded that humanity has already damaged the planet beyond a point of return, we should all give up on reducing gas emissions and start building levies.
Even if this study is the most convincing piece of scientific literature ever written, the debate should not end. The next question must be how best to implement the necessary changes. The primary reason that accusations of global climate change have been so vigorously contested is that they always come with the same set of solutions: less economic growth, more governmental interference. An alternate solution (one that is consistent with freedom) must be proposed. President Bush may be the pioneer in this area by arguing that technology is the solution: that we need more growth so we may advance beyond the need to produce greenhouse gases.
Of course, the wholesale rejection of these suggestions by the advocates of change only add to my skepticism. Personally, I am weary of any “science” that shouts down the opposition, and calls them “heretics” if they do not join the “consensus.” I don’t expect any great revelations from this report, only louder shouts of “it’s all America’s fault” and “the U.S. must pay, or else.”
I don't agree with your statements about North America being a net sink - I don't think it was even true in the 1980's. But it is certainly true that we can try to get the land biosphere to absorb more carbon. That is partly what carbon emissions trading is about. You remarked in another thread that the world should be paying the US for absorbing CO2 - well if it really was a net sink, CET would make that happen.
The authors you cite have a newer (2000) paper here.
From their opening statement:
Recent time-series measurements of atmospheric O2 show that the land biosphere and world oceans annually sequestered 1.4 ± 0.8 and 2.0 ± 0.6 gigatons of carbon, respectively, between mid-1991 and mid-1997.
...
Between 1991 and 1997, combustion of fossil fuels added roughly 6.2 gigatons of carbon per year (GtC/year) (1, 2) to the atmosphere in the form of CO2. During this same period, the atmospheric burden of CO2 increased by only 2.8 GtC/year. The balance of the CO2 was taken up by the oceans and the land biosphere.
(free registration needed to see the second bit).
So total land sequestration, measured by this technique, has the land absorbing about a quarter of global C emission. The US emits also about a quarter of the world total, about equal, on these figures, to absorption by the total biosphere.
From a 2001 paper
For the period 1980-89, we estimate a carbon sink in the coterminous United States between 0.30 and 0.58 petagrams of carbon per year (petagram=gigaton).
which compares with a current US emission of about 1.5 Gt/year.
On measurement technique. Which would bring us back to the original debate about causes of warming. And a great dispute about those carbon fluxes political scientists like to pontificate about.
Lets take it again. For the sake of argument we are absorbing only as much as we emit. You expect the same nations that crafted Kyoto to give us credit for the fact that we are not a net emitter and on balance one of the lowest emitters in the world ? That seems somewhat contradicted by past actions.
Theres many reasons to promote alternate sources of energy and many ways to do it. This bit of demagoguery is only going to result in bad policy made from false assumptions.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
US emissions are large, about 1.5 Gt C, or about a quarter of the world total, and the US biosphere may take back 0.3-0.6 Gt per year. That still leaves the US as a very large nett emitter.
I don't see where you find "demagoguery", or a "great dispute" there.
Its particularly amazing when in your prior post you site two papers that have a greater than 100 percent discrepancy between their findings.
I particularly like this number for the land sequestration.
1.4 ± 0.8 gigatons of carbon. Thats an over 300% difference between the low estimate and the high estimate.
There is also the matter of the apple to apples comparison, The paper you cite as being by the same authors is not.
So what we have are three papers by three different sets of lead authors that say three different incompatible things. If that is not a great dispute it does come pretty close.
But back to my original point. The first paper did show a net carbon sink for North America, There is further confirming evidence.
Even an eyeball integration of the graph will show its pretty much in balance. Please note the downward peaks have nearly double the amplitude of the upward.
As to the demagoguery what else would you call whipping up fear over a problem to force people into policy decisions that will not be beneficial for them.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
without error ranges, in environmental science are hard to come by, and I don't think I claimed any. One definitive figure, though, is the number of authors in common between the first papers I cited and yours. It is three - the senior guys Tans, White and Francey. The lead authors are probably grad students or post-grads.
Your graph is from the talk Wouter Peters gave at the NOAA CMDL 2005 meeting. I looked through the slides to find a clear definition of flux, without success. But I believe it refers to surface flux - ie atmosphere to biosphere - they are trying to resolve it seasonally. The blue curve can hardly be fossil fuel burning, since it goes negative. Incidentally Peters, at the 2006 conference, gave a figure for biosphere uptake very similar to the ones I cited: "Our analysis shows a
terrestrial carbon uptake in North America of 0.49±0.57 PgC/yr over this period, partitioned 70/30%
between the temperate and Boreal regions." (Note that this is about .35 Gt/year (mean) for the temperate region, which is basically US).
Definitive figures without error ranges are hard to come by
You have now extended the range of possibility form -.06 to +3 I won't even bother considering that there isn't even one significant figure in that range. But you are claiming a figure for the net carbon flux.
As you examine the figures from studies not only do they fail to converge they positively diverge.
Concerning the papers
M. Battle,M. L. Bender,P. P. Tans,J. W. C. White,J. T. Ellis,T. Conway,R. J. Francey
VS
P. Ciais ,P. P. Tans , M. Trolier , J. W. C. White,R. J. Francey
Seeing as you have two different lead authors and the people you mention weren't senior on either I can't see how you can consider them as being the same.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
this is becoming a bit of a pattern. You make some assertion, I dig out some of the original data which might be relevant, and then you say there is too much uncertainty to know anything. Would you like to produce the definitive figures on which you base your assertion that the US is a net carbon sink?
Your complaints about percentage errors on the net flows are not apposite. If you look at the graph you showed, the fluxes vary seasonally between about 5 and -7 Gt/year, with significant error shown by the shading. If you try to integrate that, by eyeball or otherwise, something like .49±0.57 is about as good as you'll get. So does that mean the results should be thrown out? No, in your words "its pretty much in balance". Probably a net uptake, but not approaching the 1.5 Gt/yr or more that are burnt. I haven't looked up a recent version of that last figure, but it is an economic figure (Gt C cost giga$) rather than scientific, and there is a lot of data.
Were the us targets based on our output of carbon or our net carbon output ?
I fail to see how the points you are trying to make help your case or do anything to mine.
My point has always been that there is insufficient evidence to justify undertaking any of the international plans put forth to "DEAL WITH GLOBAL WARMING".
You keep presenting numbers with ever more uncertainty to them. This justifies my assertion that there are consistent scenarios where the US not only need do nothing but is owed something for already implementing the solution.
BTW
The figures you are looking at are for net fluxes not uptakes. so when you say .49 ± 116% you are talking about total net. not absorption.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
I too will read the report (to be released here, I assume), though the news is already abuzz with the dire conclusions.
One of the things I will be looking for is to see if there is anyone in the membership of the IPCC who could reasonably be called a skeptic of AGW and if so whether said skeptic has signed-on to the conclusions.
Otherwise I'm going to be hard-pressed to conclude that this gathering is little more than a convention of people armed with nothing but hammers.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
Found the time to read the working group report. Here are a couple of notes.
**The report states that CO2 is the largest contributor to climate change, and it is the gas about which they have the least data. Ice core drillings have given us about 650,000 years of data, yet they only give us CO2 levels since 1750. I wonder what the other 649,744 years' worth of CO2 data reveal.
**Warming of last 100 years is "unusual" for the past 1,300 years. Coincidentially, the recent mini ice age began 1,300 years ago.
**It appears that there's little we can do to affect climate change for the next millenium or so. See my argument above.
**Their conclusion: worst-case scenario is a 125,000-year high in average temperature over the next few hundred years. This sounds bad, but remember that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Even if EVERYTHING this study says is true, and their worse fears are realized, we're talking about the warmest spell in the most recent 0.002 percent of world history. (Coincidentally, 125,000 years ago was when the last major ice age began.)
Is there a link to the report (probably a PDF)? Every link I try is broken.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
Here is the url for Working Group document. From what I understand, the final report is not due until autumn.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_PlenaryApproved.pdf
**Their conclusion: worst-case scenario is a 125,000-year high in average temperature over the next few hundred years. This sounds bad, but remember that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Even if EVERYTHING this study says is true, and their worse fears are realized, we're talking about the warmest spell in the most recent 0.002 percent of world history. (Coincidentally, 125,000 years ago was when the last major ice age began.)
You know the other interesting event that has occurred in the past 125,000?
Humans showed up.
I'd imagine most of us would find Earth in its first 4.4 billion years to be a pretty inhospitable place. Unless we learned how to breathe methane gas.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
1) In a manner of speaking, humans showed up 125,000 years ago, depending on how you define "human." That number can range from 4 million years ago to 10,000 years ago, depending on what evidence you accept and how you define your cut-off.
2) You're final figure is off, too, and it shows you're missing the point.
The point is that the Earth is in a state of constant change. Those who are alarmed over the potential of climate change want to take the snapshot of the last couple hundred years and call that "normal." That is an extemely naive and egocentric position.
Not sure how my final figure is off. 100 million years ago the Earth was 20-30 degree centigrade warmer. Probably not an ideal environment for human beings.
Of course the Earth changes. The atmosphere is a constantly changing thing. But it changes for its own reasons, not because it wants to help out the human species.
So lets say that the earth is warming and it is warming without regard to human acts. Does that make it less relevant?
And what if human actions are accelerating changes beyond the biosphere's ability to adapt?
What we are pretty sure about in the past is that cataclysmic events on the planet often led to VERY bad things for the species on the planet. Big volcanic events or extra-terrestrial collisions have caused immediate and very bad climate changes that basically killed off all large animal species. What if our acceleration of a global warming trend outpaces the biosphere's ability to adjust?
What if this were to cause hypercanes or massive shifts in ice or land causing really bad things like tsuanmis or perennial winters in some areas?
I'm not suggesting that these will happen. But certainly this is a pretty important problem to focus on. And if the IPCC is correct and there is a 90% change of global mean temperatures rising by 1 to 5 degree centigrade, what then?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
If it were we would need to nail down the specific cause and then try to find the lowest cost solution to the problem.
Punishing America isn't going to solve the problem.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
How is America being punished?
If the worldwide community decides they are going to do something about it, they will try to create a new Kyoto agreement.
The Europeans will do what they can to minimize the impact on their countries. The 3rd world nations will try to impact on their countries. And we will try and minimize the impact on our country. Such is the way of treaties.
However if we simply decide to take our ball and go home, then this merry-go-round will keep going round and round.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
You will see that we are a net CO2 sink. Not because we are great environmentalists but because we have large managed forests where we farm trees. There are follow on papers that show we will keep on absorbing considerably more CO2 than we put out. This can be increased.
So by the standards of Kyoto we are already negative and doing better than just about anyone else. By any reasonable standard if carbon credits were put in place the rest of the world would owe us a bunch
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/johnrichardson/2007/feb/02/chirac_threaten...
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
Ice core drillings have given us about 650,000 years of data, yet they only give us CO2 levels since 1750. I wonder what the other 649,744 years' worth of CO2 data reveal.
Much like we all had to learn to interpret Clinton-speak in the 90s, we need to start being just as skeptical of what the Global Warming Alarmists don’t show as we are about the “data” they do show.
Scales and timeframes used are NEVER coincidental. Just like releasing a propaganda film at the start of what was supposed to be the worst hurricane season EVER or releasing a purely political Executive Summary to great fanfare months before the actual scientific papers are quietly made public – there is always an agenda and it should be obvious to everyone by now.
- - - - -
"Everybody has an agenda. Except for me." - Michael Crichton, State of Fear.
The results were well publicised when they were announced. The key fact is that current levels are by far the highest for 650,000 years.
My point here was the way in which this issue is presented to the “uninformed” public – those who will not dig any deeper than the graphs borrowed from this report for use is alarmist articles in papers and magazines. Like "Policy Makers" and there staffs.
The plot that you present here clearly shows that there have been many rather large “natural” fluctuations in CO2 concentration over the last 650,000 years. The plot on page 15 of the Summary for Policymakers shows a rather flat level (~275 PPM) for 10,000 years and then a huge spike in the last 50-150 years. Today’s 379 PPM levels (~26% increase over “historical maximums”) “may” be significant, then again maybe not. It may be caused by “industrialization” or it may be a result of populating the world (>400% increase over the same time frame). Or both. Or these and a whole host of unmentioned other issues in this extremely complex system.
Showing this current increase in relation to the full 650,000 years of data would add some perspective…but that isn’t the “shock value” this group in angling for now is it.
- - - - -
"Everybody has an agenda. Except for me." - Michael Crichton, State of Fear.
then a couple billion people starve to death in a hundred years or so. Another couple of billion or so will probably drown or die from lack of water.
And for this they expect me to give my two Hummers and my Lear? Don't think so. I'm supposed to probably downsize my 9,500 sf house that Mrs. 908, Franz the Prince of Dogness and I scrape by with? Not likely.
What the heck, all those people who starve or whatever are just going to be those nuisance poor people, and probably "people of color" who never have been able to take care of themselves anyway. It's just Darwinism at work. What's the problem, anyway?
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
I want to thank you for your post. Your seething, couched in the basest of humor, demonstrates the true motivations of the global climate change activists. This is not actually about science or nature; it’s about some neo-Marxist battle between rich and poor. This is all about PUNISHING the rich, be it the rich in this country (as demonstrated by your remarks), or the rich countries of the world.
Thanks for showing what really motivates the climate change crowd!
An excellent piece. I would like to point out the range of solutions, if they are indeed required involves more than just the reduction of CO2 output. Increasing the amount of CO2 consumption by the biosphere has the same net effect.
North America is currently a net carbon sink and can theoretically consume half the worlds CO2 output. reference here
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/269/5227/1098. This is not new, news, its old news, and further serves to make your point that AGW isn't so much about the environment as it is an attack on American industry.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.