Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years

[wayang]

Accordingly, I hereby apologize to the Kansas Board of Education and all the Popes.

(I don't know what gets into me sometimes...)

[incubus2432]

While the environment is certainly an issue I am more concerned about over population and the fact that religious wackos (I'll leave that topic at that so as to not offend those who think I'm talking about another religion) have so many sheep. Society in general is a freakin' mess and humans have destroyed just about everything we have been involved with. I actually have a pretty positive outlook on things but if I had kids I'd be miserable thinking of their future. We really do need to be wiped out by an asteroid or a visit from a super race of zombie clowns.

BTW.....I'm well armed and have a little surprise for "the last of the v8's".

[paologregorio]

Cool car!

[nukebass]

I'm not sure about the NOAA report, but the recent UN report (the panel name escapes me at the moment, but shouldn't...IPCC??) has more scientific detractors than supporters. After NASA's major mistake claiming October was the warmest in recorded history (which really is a meager 100 or so years) because they couldn't qualify obviously false data (the reported data from Russia and other parts of the world was "stuck" on summer numbers) brings into question all of their other conclusions. If they can't qualify the data, why are they using it in scientific reports? The CO2 argument also does nothing to explain the medieval warming period (that resulted in unprecedented population growth) or the mini-iceage around the time of the American Revolution. Give it ten or twenty years and trillions of dollars in funding and there will be another crisis.

Trust me, I know all about reading into data what you want to read. My Master's project did that. I didn't hide it or anything. I just wanted to be done with school!!

[paologregorio]

Good points.

One shouldn't need a doctorate to be a skeptic either.

[antipodean]

The main reason the term changed from 'global warming' to 'climate change' is because the phenomenon covers so much more than simply raising the Earth's mean temperature. I guarantee non of the forumites making a joke of this have any kind of qualification (or even basic understaning of the concepts) in geography, geology, meteorology, environmental science or environmental engineering.*

There is not a single prominent member in these industries who have stuck their noses up at the idea of climate change, though there appears myriad armchair experts who are willing to do so.

G'day Bails,

Sorry if I caused any offence, but I found the release really amusing. Where is the upside in stating that even if we cut all emissions, there will be no impact for 1000 years. Didn't they stop to think about the implications? This is so counterproductive that it should win an award.

I confess I have no specialist expertise in climate science, but I have some experience in modelling complex systems, and the fact that model forecasts are bandied around as scientific "fact" is absurd. Models help us understand how different parts of a system interact and behave, but they are based on a series of assumptions and initial parameters that are to an extent arbitrary (no matter how well-informed), and small changes in these assumptions or parameters can cause huge differences in outcomes, particularly as models become more complex and the time horizons to be examined are extended. A well-specified model may be able to make good predictions in the very short term, but for the time frames we are dealing with, their predictive power is close to zero, even with the most perfect data set.

This doesn't mean I believe that pumping various pollutants in the air is a great thing, nor does it mean that I reject the hypothesis that such actions have an impact on our climate that is detrimental. I just don't accept the forecasts at face value. For the general public, a big problem is that the media coverage of climate science does little else than spout out ever-more apocalyptic predictions - this helps sell papers, gain ratings and generate web-site hits, but the chicken-little approach does nothing to educate. Worse, climate science has become hijacked by environmental orthodoxy, where any questioning is shouted down or met with the classic retort: "you wouldn't understand". This generates cynicism and suspicion, not trust. Maybe someone should start looking at how information is released and presented, and how the great unwashed public (like me) should be engaged.

[wayang]

It's an interesting dillema, this 'how to report your findings' business. Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater may be a bad idea, but it doesn't serve much purpose to say 'I think I smell smoke', especially when the typical response is 'Bah, that's probably just dust burning on the projector bulb...want some more popcorn?'...

It doesn't take a master's degree to be a skeptic...just an abiding belief that everything's gonna be just fine, and nothing could possibly be wrong with 'business as usual'...

[winston]

Thanks Evan,

That was a well convceived, balanced and thoughtful post.

[ram]

I’m thinking they have the name correct – climate change,,, been happening for -always. I don’t doubt that humans do have an effect on our environment (all living things do) and I really do think we could clean up our act quite a bit. But the real scare is perpetuating a thought that we can do something to change the outcome. The climate is changing and there is little to nothing we can do about it. I fear if we don’t adapt we will go the way of the dinosaur. Ok I’m done with the soap box – thanks!

[cjj]

I've always wondered about the notion of "natural" changes. If elephants knock down trees, that's natural. If locusts devastate vegetation in some area, that's natural. Now, humans supposedly evolved on this planet and are a natural part of it's environment, but if humans do something, it's not natural. Not that I'm advocating we humans keep doing stupid things that hurt the environment, mind you, just wondering why we're classified an unnatural...

[longboard_ric]

Over the last twenty years or so “Spin Doctoring” has become a fine art, some of it extremely subtle. We have all been subject to it and making any decision on that basis of so-called expert opinion, can be fraught with danger.

If any organization needed an academic opinion to counter a particular theory or point of view, then that can be easily arranged. A generous donation or the promise of funding has led many to publish an opposing point of view.

I would gladly go to a meeting of “human induced” climate change skeptics, but I doubt I could believe anything they say.

There is no doubt the earth’s climate has, and will continue to change. These changes have generally occurred over hundreds of years, this time ‘round however, its all happened in the last fifty years. This just happens to coincide with a population and technology boom as we all pursue a higher standard of living.

Australia is the world’s worst polluter on a per capita basis, so we have nothing to be proud of here. But when you look around and see our river systems drying up, arable land becoming desert, and our water reserves declining every year, the implications here are serious. We have had 0.8mm of rain so far this year and none forecast in the immediate future, while Cairns, in Far North Queensland, had an unprecedented 833mm in 24 days. And last April in Melbourne we experienced cyclone force winds for the first time.

For many people if it doesn’t happen in their backyard then it’s not happening. I’d rather err on the side of caution and do something to lessen our impact on the environment, than die wondering.

[johnallg]

I have a firm belief that no matter what mankind does to this earth, the earth will win out in the end. We may not (and probably won't) be here then, but the earth will slowly obliterate the fact we were even here.

Another factor in all this discussion of climactic change is our great furnace, Sol. Right now we are in a lull of the 11 year sunspot cycle, but even given that, the incidence of sunspot activity is at a lot lower occurrence than normal. Predictions are that the lower activity will prevail for a while. Last time that happened, 1645 to 1715, there was a period called the Little Ice Age. http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

All I'm saying is it is a LOT more involved and complex than most portray. Now about the humongous floating island of plastic garbage out in the middle of the Pacific....

[bails]

Where is the upside in stating that even if we cut all emissions, there will be no impact for 1000 years

I think it's important for everyone to understand that the results don't say that our predicament will stay the same regardless of whether or not we cut all emissions. This is a simple misunderstading of the findings.
The report actually says our predicament won't improve either way. It can certainly get much, much worse, if we continue as we have, just not better!

[antipodean]

Where is the upside in stating that even if we cut all emissions, there will be no impact for 1000 years

I think it's important for everyone to understand that the results don't say that our predicament will stay the same regardless of whether or not we cut all emissions. This is a simple misunderstading of the findings.
The report actually says our predicament won't improve either way. It can certainly get much, much worse, if we continue as we have, just not better!

No Bails, you misunderstand me - I'm amused by total ignorance of psychology that is implicit in the statement. You can't tell people that there is no upside. It's like telling an alcoholic that he will die of liver failure in the next twelve months regardless of whether he stops drinking, whereas the truth is he will die in three if he doesn't quit.

The report should have emphasised the benefits of cutting emissions vs not cutting emissions. Instead, we get a media beat up of a no-hope scenario. This is the sort of thing people ignore. I'm not sure if the fault lays with how the findings are presented or how they have been interpreted by the media.

BTW My skepticism on modeling is extreme in this case. One thousand years is a huge time horizon, given our hard data.

[bails]

I'm amused by total ignorance of psychology that is implicit in the statement

I see what you mean, and totally agree.

Additionally, my point about 'what the results actually say' is almost irrelevant, because the article intends that readers will misinterpret them. The actual paper refered to in the article [Solomon, S. et al, 'Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions'. PNAS, Vol 106, No 6, 2009] concludes that climate change is not as reversible as once thought. This doesn't mean things will stay the same if we keep doing what we've always done, it simply means whatever we do (or don't do!)now will still be effecting generations in 1,000 years time. Even more reason for change I think...

Poor journalism but highly effective.