Is it Unstoppable?
A new study from the University of Utah, which is published in the journal Climatic Change, states that rising carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions cannot be stabilized unless the world's economy collapses. One way to avoid this is to build the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day, which of course is not possible.
Tim Garrett, who is an associate Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and author of this study, says that it looks unlikely that there will be any near-term departure from the recent observed acceleration of CO2 emission rates, according to the EurekAlert article.
A couple of key points made by Garrett........
1. Energy conservation or efficiency doesn't really save energy, but instead spurs economic growth and accelerated energy consumption.
"Making civilization more energy efficient simply allows it to grow faster and consume more energy," says Garrett.
He says the idea that resource conservation accelerates resource consumption - known as Jevons paradox – was proposed in the 1865 book "The Coal Question" by William Stanley Jevons, who noted that coal prices fell and coal consumption soared after improvements in steam engine efficiency.
2. "Stabilization of carbon dioxide emissions at current rates will require approximately 300 gigawatts of new non-carbon-dioxide-emitting power production capacity annually - approximately one new nuclear power plant (or equivalent) per day," Garrett says. "Physically, there are no other options without killing the economy."
In closing.....
Garrett says colleagues generally support his theory, while some economists are critical. One economist, who reviewed the study, wrote: "I am afraid the author will need to study harder before he can contribute."
"Fundamentally, I believe the system is deterministic," says Garrett. "Changes in population and standard of living are only a function of the current energy efficiency. That leaves only switching to a non-carbon-dioxide-emitting power source as an available option."
------------------
Update
My colleague from Accuweather.com, Ken Clark, who is the western weather expert has posted a solid commentary on the climate scientist email hacking story.
Comments (55)
HoHum!!! Brett, don't know if you have noticed, but the CO2 (alarmist) theory is falsified.
Reply: Just relaying the study. It does not mean that I agree with it.
Posted by CoRev | November 24, 2009 11:47 AM
More alarmism. How tiresome!!
Posted by Anonymous | November 24, 2009 11:49 AM
The goal of the US government and the UN is an 80% reduction in carbon emission by 2050. The only way this can happen is to replace virtually all carbon producing energy production. In addition, the growth in demand over that time period, especially from China, India and the rest of the developing world will require an equivalent amount of non carbon producing energy production in addition. For many countries, we would have to provide the means of production, since those countries lack the capacity to do it themselves. This is why so many people are raging against the Global Warming crowd. Even if they are right, there is much more sense in investment to mitigate the consequences of warming while working toward a carbon free world at a rate which doesn't consign the planet to scarcity and stagnation. This way, we will also know with much greater certainty what is really happening before we throw the baby out with the washwater.
Posted by Elliott Althouse | November 24, 2009 12:10 PM
I can see his point.
There is a set of data that do support some of what he is saying - auto fuel efficiency. MPG is just now going back up after dropping a little since 1987. Technology in iffeciency just made us produce/buy cars that were more powerful at a stable MPG rather than increasing MPG and keeping power stable. I believe from this you can derive that energy needs to be expensive for us to cut back.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/epa-new-car-fuel-economy-continues-to-improve-back-to-early-1980s-level/#more-336416
Posted by Bill V | November 24, 2009 12:17 PM
Why are we still discussing Climate Change (global warming - the science community has been using both interchangeably) like it is still a proven fact? And why are we still assuming CO2 is the primary factor for warming? With the recent news of climategate, i would figure climate change/global warming is mere speculation at this point.
Posted by tmizzle | November 24, 2009 12:58 PM
"Making civilization more energy efficient simply allows it to grow faster and consume more energy"
That's true, but I don't think such increased consumption and growth results in more energy usage than without the efficiency improvements. To take a simple example, if you upgrade your vehicle from a 25 mpg fuel efficiency to 50 mpg, you might tend to drive more. But it's unlikely you'll double your miles driven.
But energy efficiency is only one wedge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilization_Wedge_Game
Posted by MarkB | November 24, 2009 1:12 PM
After what we have learned this past week. Shouln't your next headline read
DOES IT EXIST?
Posted by alan k | November 24, 2009 1:46 PM
Well, the esteemed right-wingers tried their hardest to sink the world economy, with their trickle-down ponzi schemes, deregulation, and support of "financial engineering" rather than actual engineering. Perhaps it was their plan all along to reduce CO2 emissions this way.
It will be interesting to see what Deniers and their anti-government brethren say about the conclusion that energy efficiency results in more economic growth. After all, nearly all energy efficiency gains over the past 40 years are due to government regulations and mandates, along with litigation. So what this paper is saying is that government regulations and mandates on energy efficiency grow the economy. This runs contrary to the Deniers' manifesto stating that the only way to grow the economy is "market" anarchy.
Posted by Mark | November 24, 2009 2:04 PM
DUH???
Atmospheric CO2 is NOT accelerating!
Posted by Wisconsinite | November 24, 2009 2:16 PM
I find Garrett's suppositions questionable. As stated previously on this blog, 64% of anthropogenic CO2 comes from burning wells in the Middle East...these wells could be extinguished and capped.
The marriage of solar electricity with electric and plug in hybrid electric vehicles could cut CO2 from transportation in half.
Utilizing efficient architecture could cut CO2 from fossil combusting power plants in half or better.
Improvements in economies do not neccessarily mean increased energy consumption.
Posted by RP | November 24, 2009 2:57 PM
Tim Garrett is making unsubstantiated claims. Saying that energy efficiency only accelerates energy use is the same argument that says that mandating higher MPG for cars will only promote more driving. Easy to say, but little proof. When gas prices rose; gas consumption dropped and did not rise as fuel efficient cars became available, but only as gas prices dropped. Higher energy costs will force people to become more efficient not use more energy. He is assuming efficiency is mandated without any market based incentives to conserve.
And his conjectures on energy sources is likely based on worst case scenarios where losses of fossil fuel energy sources result in job and economic losses with no new jobs or companies resulting from new energy sources. Conservation coupled with increases in solar, wind and nuclear could relatively easily reduce our carbon output and boost (not hurt) the economy. In our community we are already seeing new jobs installing geothermal heating systems, residential PV systems and wind turbines.
Posted by Richard Bloom | November 24, 2009 3:11 PM
Hi Brett,
Any thoughts yet on how 2009 will rate on the annual global temperatures list? I think it's going to be a clunker (i.e. below recent years, BRRRR) in the NE US and SE Canada but am more curious about the global numbers. Thanks, and don't let all those wolf crying warmers and hairy knuckle coolers get to you!
Reply: I will check it out. No answer yet.
Posted by NJ Tom | November 24, 2009 3:29 PM
Climategate!!!!!!
Posted by Chris | November 24, 2009 3:55 PM
How much evidence will it take before the climate-religionists realize it's all BS?
Here is the climate problem in 20 seconds or less:
1) Earth
2) HUGE ball of energy called the SUN
3) Earth is near said SUN
4) Sunspot activity, coronal mass ejections, amount of energy bombarding earth from the SUN varies.
5) Earth's climate varies
All historical geological evidence supports this. This earth has mass extinctions when things need to be adjusted/cleaned up. So the answer to the question is "NO" climate change cannot be stopped.
Posted by Larry Loucks | November 24, 2009 3:59 PM
Why are you even bringing this up? Based upon the most recent information (conveniently ignored by the MSM) it would seem that AGW is, just as I knew long ago, a bald faced lie.
And gee BT, cause I know you're still out there, it seems the peer review process is fatally flawed just as I said it was two years ago.
Nice thing about the article though, it simply proves the real intent of the AGWers. That to save the planet, they have to essentially crash human development.
Say Brett, since you keep an eye on Canada, can youdo us a favor and let us know when the glaciers are coming down so we can stock up on soup? Thanks
Reply: Sure, no problem Darren.
Posted by Darren | November 24, 2009 5:01 PM
It's a good thing that CO2 concentration has little impact on the Earth's temperature and is an essential trace gas important for plant growth.
Posted by Gary McMillian | November 24, 2009 6:00 PM
Could easily build one new NPP per day, world-wide.
Posted by David B. Benson | November 24, 2009 6:41 PM
"It's a good thing that CO2 concentration has little impact on the Earth's temperature and is an essential trace gas important for plant growth."
"Based upon the most recent information (conveniently ignored by the MSM) it would seem that AGW is, just as I knew long ago, a bald faced lie"
"How much evidence will it take before the climate-religionists realize it's all BS?"
"HoHum!!! Brett, don't know if you have noticed, but the CO2 (alarmist) theory is falsified."
Bla bla bla can you be any less imaginative?
Elliott Althouse:
"The goal of the US government and the UN is an 80% reduction in carbon emission by 2050. The only way this can happen is to replace virtually all carbon producing energy production. In addition, the growth in demand over that time period, especially from China, India and the rest of the developing world will require an equivalent amount of non carbon producing energy production in addition. For many countries, we would have to provide the means of production, since those countries lack the capacity to do it themselves. This is why so many people are raging against the Global Warming crowd. Even if they are right, there is much more sense in investment to mitigate the consequences of warming while working toward a carbon free world at a rate which doesn't consign the planet to scarcity and stagnation. This way, we will also know with much greater certainty what is really happening before we throw the baby out with the washwater."
Now there is an argument. Why don't you try that for a change. He is obviously thinking about what he is saying. He has a pragmatic and logical approach to the subject.
As for the the article itself I think its clear that the only way more energy will be used is if the energy is cheaper. It takes energy to run the economy so there is an element of truth. If the energy comes from renewable resources though, then that would negate the issue.
Posted by Ryan | November 24, 2009 7:00 PM
Yes, human beings actively produce CO2 in their industrial quests. This article is provocative because it traces the problem to overpopulation of the biosphere by our species. Although the alarmism of the mid-sixties may be a thing of the past, global warming is not. Extraction of resources from the planet may not be viewed as a wonderful thing in the not-so-distant future.
Posted by rob g | November 24, 2009 7:04 PM
Dear Larry Loucks :
If it's all about the sun , sun's spot... Then how can you explain that while we're at the lowest activity (since 2006-7), it's still warming, ice caps are still shrinking.
There's a lot more than just the sun, CO2 or whatever. It's all of the above and add the human at the top of that list.
On the study itself - typical old way of understanding how to create electricity - or to say the least, a very narrow view. Some should understand that there are more ways to produce electric power than nuclear power plant. I think Texas understood that with all the wind mills being at work successfully in that state. China understood that by building the largest dam in the world. European and some Arabs understood the sun was free to use and are building the biggest sun power plant ring in the world.
Sadly, the guy is saying ''it's too late, we're doomed''. C'mon , if we act now - down the road things can and will improve. Before the 70/80's oil crisis, a normal car would run about 10-15 mpg. Today we got cars (and not the slowest) doing 60 mpg - things can improve if we act on them (if we do something about it).
Too bad we need laws to do smart thing like limiting the car millage - but it worked. At the end we got cars running more efficiently, faster while consuming less of the ressource. Maybe we're too dum to act freely and do something about it after all. Stupid as we are, it takes a law on our face to act.
It's not a question of shutting down the economics from fossil fuel all at once - it's a question of what else can be done/use/create to limit our consumption of it. The fossil fuel economy could benefit if we can stop/slow the depletion of that ressource by using alternative sources. However for that, you have to look further than your noze and further than the next financial year end - which is in total opposite of long term views.
Posted by Regg | November 24, 2009 7:10 PM
Some commenters on this site seem to (mistakenly) think there has been some sort of pause to global warming this decade. On the contrary,
http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/24/climate-science-statement-from-the-met-office-nerc-and-the-royal-society-its-the-hottest-decade-on-record-and-even-since-the-2007-ipcc-assessment-the-evidence-for-dangerous-long-term-and-poten/
Posted by David B. Benson | November 24, 2009 7:33 PM
Increasing the efficiency of steam engines was part of the general drive towards economic growth and innovation, so no surprise that this improvement in efficiency will lead to higher energy usage.
This doesn't mean that if we have other improvements in energy efficiency driven by the attempt to cut back instead of driven by the attempt to innovate and expand that this won't result in a reduction in energy usage.
Posted by Michael Hauber | November 24, 2009 8:12 PM
NJ Tom, you can check the world temp here: http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
2009 appears to me, when I draw the graphs, to be as warm as it has gotten. I don't trust the ground measurements but I do trust the satellites and Spencer's rendering of the data.
Having said all that: so what?
Even if 2009 becomes the warmest year on record, so what? How can you prove people have anything to do with it?
We're in a warming period coming out of the Little Ice Age and we've been under the influence of more El Ninos in recent decades. Not to mention numerous other processes I don't quite understand (and neither do the PhDs).
Can any alarmist show me the study that establishes the percentage of warming due to natural causes versus the percentage due to human activity?
But it's really not about that, is it comrades?
Posted by Journalista | November 24, 2009 9:43 PM
A study on CO2 emissions?
Surely, you're drunk or out of your mind.
Posted by Jon Wood | November 24, 2009 9:59 PM
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Excerpts:If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
When you read some of those files-including 1079 emails and 72 documents- you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be "the greatest in modern science". These alleged emails " supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory" suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:
"In an odd way this is cheering news."
But perhaps the most damaging revelations "the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph's MPs' expenses scandal " are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their
cause.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
"Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back" I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back".
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
"This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that-take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board"What do others think?"
"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor."It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !"
Man, it is very good to be vindicated! People calling me an ass all the time for being a skeptic.. '(denier)'......
Posted by Steve Rowland | November 24, 2009 10:09 PM
I continue to read comments that indicate lack of fair presentation of facts on AGW. The present case is such an example. The rate of increasing CO2 level has slightly slowed down, possibly due to the world recession. It still is climbing, but the slope has been fairly constant for quite a while except for the slight slowing for the last few months. See the Mauna Loa site. I then see a comment in the present case about the recent observed acceleration of CO2 emission rates. Get your facts straight. There is not too much point making an issue of this as the recent e-mail disclosures show that most of the critical experimental support for AGW is based on flawed data and claims.
Posted by Leonard Weinstein | November 24, 2009 10:16 PM
Are you kidding me...get real! Man made climate change is a joke. Ice Age or Ice Melting...which is it? As if we could cause it or make it.
Posted by Tom Weigand | November 24, 2009 10:44 PM
Were toast basically.
There is absolutely nothing anyone can do to stop an additional 2° rise in temp because of the lag effect of CO2 heating.
We have heated by 0.8C and the weather is crazy already; the ice sheets are melting away and food supplies are being affected by all this.
Guess whats going to happen when we heat another 0.8C. Nightmare. Utter nightmare. The collapse of global civilization.
And its not stopping there because it is going to keep on heating up.
(ps there is also peak oil too)
Posted by paulm | November 24, 2009 11:21 PM
Amazing, I just see continual comments by people congratulating each other on how any thing posted here prove that global climate change hypothesis are false; while the oceans keep warming, the glaciers keep melting, Greenland Ice Cap is losing ice, the East Antartic Ice Cap is losing ice, etc. Do you see a pattern here?
Read the research!! Scientists from many divergent fields keep reporting how global warming is effecting plants, animals, glaciers, sea ice, permafrost, etc. How many peer reviewed papers have you read lately that have mentioned anything close to global cooling patterns?? None!! Don't tell me that most zoologists, botanists, ecologists, climatologists, etc are in on a great conspiracy that only you can see. Wow, talk about paranoia!
Posted by Richard Bloom | November 24, 2009 11:46 PM
Where is our 'new' energy going to come from?
How about the sun? If we would utilize all the possible solar resources known and still undiscovered, we could be free of using fossil fuels to heat and cool are homes, propel our transportation, and power our electronic devices and toys. Nuclear power is a literal 'dead' end and fusion is a scam.
Solar is always an afterthought for most societies because you can't control it and therefore control the people.If we had been exploring solar power to the extent that fusion(hidden agenda-weaponry) has been researched then we might have a better system than solar panels. Not to mention passive solar, which 'should' have been incorporated into homes starting 30 years ago (remember; oil crisis).
Money and power always leave the average person at the whim of industrialist and political factions. Let's free the human race from this bondage.
Posted by idecline | November 25, 2009 3:04 AM
There is earth destructors everywhere...
You (the anti alarmists guys) would like so much that CO2 emissions have no (major) impact on climate change that you are believing it !
Instead of wasting your time trying to invalidate scientific study, why not trying to find another way to produce energy than to burn fossil carbon ?
Posted by JoSyl | November 25, 2009 7:39 AM
Mark writes,
trickle-down ponzi schemes
From Merriam-Webster ': an investment swindle in which some early investors are paid off with money put up by later ones in order to encourage more and bigger risk'
Ponzi schemese are more of a trickle up process. Those from the bottom pay those at the top.
Much like carbon credit schemes
Posted by Alan K | November 25, 2009 7:39 AM
Well, the esteemed right-wingers tried their hardest to sink the world economy, with their trickle-down ponzi schemes, deregulation, and support of "financial engineering" rather than actual engineering. Perhaps it was their plan all along to reduce CO2 emissions this way.
It will be interesting to see what Deniers and their anti-government brethren say about the conclusion that energy efficiency results in more economic growth. After all, nearly all energy efficiency gains over the past 40 years are due to government regulations and mandates, along with litigation. So what this paper is saying is that government regulations and mandates on energy efficiency grow the economy. This runs contrary to the Deniers' manifesto stating that the only way to grow the economy is "market" anarchy
REPLY: From the pages of Alinsky, folks! Can't handle the truth, twist the facts.
As far as can it be stopped. Doesn't something have to get started first before it can be stopped??? Again, AGW Proponents, WE ARE LAUGHING AT YOU!!!!!
MMMMMMMMM....MMMMMMMMMM......MMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!
Posted by From The Desk Of The Kunckle Dragging Flat Earth Philistine | November 25, 2009 7:41 AM
Deniers, delayers, skeptics- Happy TURKEY day!
MMMM,mmmm, GOOD. Gobble de gook.
To Brett and everyone else-
Happy Thanksgiving Day!
Posted by idecline | November 25, 2009 9:14 AM
Steve Rowland:
"Man, it is very good to be vindicated! People calling me an ass all the time for being a skeptic.. '(denier)'......"
I can tell you that I don't think its anyones intention to berate you for being a skeptic. Not here at least. This hardly vindicates anything though.
I do take issue with your stance on this:
"If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)"
Now Im not sure if this is a quote or what but its obviously how you feel.
First of all let me give you a high five on the ManBearPig (love the idea behind it). Just remember in the Imagination Land episode he turned out to be real.
In reference to the point of your statements, you and your cohorts have got to let this go. I think you have better things to do. Its not nearly as important as you think it is (or make it out to be). You don't even have to take my word for it. Its going to go away and there is nothing you can do about it. There is no conspiracy and out of all the info hacked, it keeps coming back to this one guy and one bit of code or a comment about a "trick". Thats IT? Thats all you have got?
If thats ALL you found its nothing! AGW is here to stay and no amount of barrel scraping is going to change that. The world is going to move on without you. Again, don't take my word for it. Its just like Mann's hockey stick. Its not as important as you think and it IS going to go away. No one person or institution is in control of AGW. Its a beast with infinite heads my friend :)
I would suggest you just keep doing what your doing. Submitting papers and conducting research. Get on the horn and talk to people about it. Convince them. Approach it with logic and not theories of world-wide conspiracy and paranoia. Thats the only way you are going to effectively combat your issue. If your theories are sound then people will start to listen. If they are weak you are going to have to try harder. Its just that simple and its up to you to make an effective argument.
I was talking to Gary about this the other day. His take is that it is not the skeptics job to prove anything and this is true. But when something is the status quo (AGW), then effectively, that IS what you are going to have to do. Whether or not you feel you morally should have to is irrelevant.
Posted by Ryan | November 25, 2009 10:05 AM
I'm having trouble connecting the dots between ClimateGate and "falsification" of AGW theory.
The earth's sensitivity to doubling atmospheric CO2 is somewhere in the 2-4.5 deg C range. That's the result you get using recent observations, paleo observations, models, etc., etc. It all lines up.
Putting Phil Jones's head on a pike doesn't change that.
It's all good entertainment, and will serve as a needed wake-up call for some about openness, but that's about it.
P.S. The Jevons paradox only holds under certain conditions.
Posted by BCC | November 25, 2009 10:28 AM
Hide the decline! GK
Posted by G. Karst | November 25, 2009 11:00 AM
There is NO man-made global warming!!!
PERIOD!!!
If you want to be recognized as a legitimate journalist/blogger, stop drinking the kool-aid and open your eyes to the facts.
The earth has always went through warming and cooling periods, and it is currently in a cooling cycle.
All that this hoax is about is destroying the prosperity of America, and shifting global power further toward a one-world socialist govt.
Open your eyes, man. In the 70's we were running out of oil. There's more known oil reserves that have been found since then, than they claimed existed at the time.
Then in the 80's it was the rain forests. If we didn't stop the rain forest destruction in 10 years, we would all die.
Here we are 20 years later and still doing fine.
It's all about fear. Get the people worked up and afraid, then they're more easily manipulated.
If you continue spouting the politically correct line, then you're nothing but a hack, trying to brown-nose your way to the top.
Step out into the strange and ostracized world of the 'truth', based on 'facts', not pseudo-science.
We aren't buying the bs anymore!!!
Posted by KP | November 25, 2009 11:41 AM
After all their phony peer-review propaganda, their hype, their deception and their (AGW proponents) bully tactics COAL is still the fuel of choice worldwide. The past 5 years coal use has increased by 6% annually compared to 3% for natural gas and 1% for oil. All the renewables combined is but a blip and will remain so for the next century. And remember, those hundreds of coal plants being built every year have a 50 year life span.
Posted by Jack Mclaughlin | November 25, 2009 11:50 AM
It looks like all of these predictions,
no matter how well intended or not,
are all based on data that is so corrupted
and manipulated
What's the point any more?
Posted by saly | November 25, 2009 12:00 PM
climate change may not be unstoppable but things are not improving, so says an update to the IPCC (Warning! Results are not impacted by hacked E-mails!)
The ice sheets are both losing mass (and hence contributing to sea level rise). This was not certain at the time of the IPCC report.
Arctic sea ice has declined faster than projected by IPCC.
Greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to track the upper bounds of IPCC projections.
Observed global temperature changes remain entirely in accord with IPCC projections, i.e. an anthropogenic warming trend of about 0.2 ºC per decade with superimposed short-term natural variability.
Sea level has risen more than 5 centimeters over the past 15 years, about 80% higher than IPCC projections from 2001.
Posted by GettingWarm | November 25, 2009 12:51 PM
It is not stoppable unless you build my "Underwater Suspension Tunnels"! They will restore the climate to pre-industrial revolution conditions. How many times must I tell you this?
You have seen the youtube video I made and they work.Building nuke plants will exacerbate the problem as the GHGs will also trap their heat in the atmosphere. The tunnels elimanate all that.
Posted by Patrick AKA Cyclonebuster | November 25, 2009 9:31 PM
Getting Warm:
Aside from the Fact that your claims are false,
none of them would support the AGW hypothysis anyway.
They would simply be interesting but not relevent.
And the Last 10 years have NOT tracked anywhere near IPCC's mythical projections.
And LOL.... the Scam I mean scientists have just admitted it too.
Say.......
Anyone heard from Al?
He seems to have slithered back under his rock for a new bottle of oil to sell.
Posted by Gary | November 25, 2009 9:48 PM
Re: Climategate.
Can you say RICO, boys and girls!?
Cherry picked? Oh, my!
Well, Duh!
The FBI amasses thousands of hours of hours of meaningless chatter when they tap mob telephones but they only use the few incriminating parts as evidence of criminal behavior.
AGWers, please stop protesting. You're embarrassing yourselves. Have you no self respect?
Posted by Aram | November 25, 2009 10:49 PM
(sigh) These type of reports really are annoying to most of us because of the "fear'mongering" they produce. Is mankind causing some warming of the planet? Unquestionably, but how much and whether it is significant is the question we need to answer and we are a long way from knowing or even guessing that. IMO, like Dr Pielke, I think AT LEAST half of any documented warming (thought to be around .7C) is due to the Urban Heat Island effect by mans population growth and subsequent land use changes. All the alarmists who are so concerned with the minor part CO2 plays in all this are putting their emphasis on the wrong area and ignoring that Gorilla in the room. Whether any smoking gun emerges from the Climategate brouhaha currently going on or not, it does give one pause (or should if you have a brain) when considering whther we even have accurate information enough to make ANY intelligent decisions on where to head. The only thing which can destroy our economy is the Government trying to regulate, control, and take over the free enterprise system that has allowed the best standard of living the world has ever known. The market will determine (if left to do so)how and when we come out of the recession we are experiencing but over interference from Government "help" will certainly kill it. Then all the CO2 alarmists won't have to worry anymore because economic production will virtually cease. Happy Thanksgiving to everyone and don't worry too much about anything escept the governments wanting to "help" you.
Posted by Michael Jennings | November 26, 2009 10:51 AM
Good article on Climate Change on Megan McArdle's Blog.
... Mark, please provide some support for the assertion that all efficiency gains are due to government regulation. The Soviet Union had very strong regulations and was an environmental hellhole. Regulation is good at closing externalities only (Such as CFCs or lead in gasoline.) Otherwise, it tends to fail rather miserably, or else introduce inefficiencies of its own. And it's becoming increasingly questionable whether CO2 is reasonably considered an externality.
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/the_real_problem_with_the_clim.php
Posted by Ryan W. | November 27, 2009 2:08 AM
BCC;
You ask how to connect the dots, then state;
"The earth's sensitivity to doubling atmospheric CO2 is somewhere in the 2-4.5 deg C range"
This is a perfect example of how the dots connect actually.
The sensitivity figure is highly controversial.
It is an assumption based on theories and supported only by models. The models only work if the Scientist's assumptions are accurate.
Therefore; to trust the sensitivity figure you must first have complete trust in all the models, all the assumptions and all the scientists that make them.
Sooooo. If the scientists are fudging the data and embellishing the assumptions and "adjusting" the code......
Why would you trust the 2-4 degree figure?
Many scientists believe the correct sensitivity figure is closer to .3 -.5 degrees.
Which of course renders AGW null and Void.
Clearer?
Posted by Gary | November 27, 2009 10:35 AM
If you buy into the AGW hysteria, who's to blame? The damn greenies who unrealistically opposed nuclear power, who caused the closure of Yucca Mountain nuclear repository and sowed the seeds of fear of nuclear energy beginning with the movie China Syndrome and stopped the development of nuclear power in the US. It is no secret that global warming cycles are unstoppable if one cares to read about the earth's history. We humans are along for the ride until things correct or don't. Then mankind adapts or perishes.
Posted by William Bock | November 27, 2009 11:32 AM
If you already have the flu, which then it does no good to get a vaccine which is what reduction of CO2 emissions is all about. In the same way, if global warming is unstoppable, then we need to stop the push for economy-altering cap-and-trade legislation and focus on dealing with the symptoms.
The energy of the AGW community should be switching over to focusing on lobbying for rational development along seashores, rational improved stormwater and riverine management in floodprone areas, strict water conservation and storage measures for drought prones areas, improved agricultural practices to provide more robust food sources, improved fisheries practices to have more robust marine ecosytems, and a number of other measures.
Instead, we just keep hearing the same tired bleating about how the world is ending and we must pass cap-and-trade legislation even though it is too late. Let's get some real imagination going in the AGW community other than ways to squash skeptical research and make Al Gore more moeny so he can fly around in private jets.
There are tons of public projects in the list above, all of which would make long-tem improvements to American society while providing jobs over the next few years.
Posted by rd | November 27, 2009 1:19 PM
It appears that China is demanding that any further committments on greenhouse gas emissions will require foreign aid to them: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125934114728466611.html
Let's not get played as patsies just because we have a bunch of folks panicking about AGW.
The good news is that there is lots of evidence that small, relatively inexpensive steps can provide large energy savings and pollution (especially particulates) reduction. Unfortunately, this is not sexy glamorous stuff, so it usually does not get a lot of lobbying on its behalf. In particular, there is no way for Wall Street to game the system, like in cap-and-trade, so it is of no interest to their lobbyists. However, some long-term thinking on relatively small but effective steps could go a long way to reducing world-wide pollution, deforestation, and US use of imported oil: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125934114728466611.html
Posted by rd | November 27, 2009 1:32 PM
I wasn't sure if I got the right link into my previous post on small energy saving steps, so just in case here it is: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125927619226565569.html
Posted by rd | November 27, 2009 1:36 PM
RYAN, I AM GOING TO WRITE IN CAPS SIMPLY TO DIFFERENTATE THE COMMENTS, NOT TO INFER "SCREAMING."
I can tell you that I don't think its anyones intention to berate you for being a skeptic. Not here at least. This hardly vindicates anything though. NO, NOT HERE AT LEAST, BUT QUITE FRANKLY I BELIEVE IT VINDICATES A LOT. IT IS WHAT SKEPTICS HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG AND HAVE BEEN VILIFIED BY THE OTHER SIDE FOR USING 'JUNK SCIENCE' WHEN THIS SHOWS THE HYPOCRISY OF THE OTHER SIDE ENGAGED IN THE VERY JUNK SCIENCE THEY ACCUSE OTHERS OF USING.
I do take issue with your stance on this:
"If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)"
Now Im not sure if this is a quote or what but its obviously how you feel. OF COURSE, THE ENTIRE POINT IS THE THE AGW SCARE IS PREDOMINATELY TO CREATE AN EXPLOSION OF NEW 'GREEN' JOBS WHETHER SUSTAINABLE OR NOT, AND ADDITIONALLY PUT A GRIEVIOUS 'CAP AND TRADE' TAX, TO NAME JUST ONE, ON THE AMERICAN BUSINESS AND TAXPAYER. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO SEE OR DISCERN EXACTLY THE ROAD THIS SETS US UPON, YOU ARE EITHER NAIVE OR HAVE YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND (SOMETHING THE HYSTERICS HAVE BEEN ACCUSING THE SKEPTICS OF FOR YEARS.)
First of all let me give you a high five on the ManBearPig (love the idea behind it). Just remember in the Imagination Land episode he turned out to be real. YEAH, HE TURNED OUT TO BE REAL IN THE 'IMAGINATION LAND', AND IN THE SAME IMAGINATION LAND OF AGW, THOSE IN POWER WILL EVENTUALLY CREATE A REALITY WHETHER IT IS FACTUAL, REAL, OR OTHERWISE.
In reference to the point of your statements, you and your cohorts have got to let this go. BASED UPON WHAT GROUNDS DO YOU GENRERATE THAT STATEMENT? I think you have better things to do. AND YOU DO NOT? Its not nearly as important as you think it is (or make it out to be). OF COURSE, THE MSM HAS ALREADY SHOWN US HOW 'IMPORTANT' IT IS BY BEING COMPLETELY SILENT ABOUT IT. FOX NEWS IS THE ONLY MAJOR NEWS PUTTING IT ON THE NEWS. YOU HAVE FIVE SUPPOSEDLY INDEPENDENT MSM ORGANIZATIONS WHO, DAY IN, DAY OUT ALL REPORT EXACTLY THE SAME THING, AND IN THIS INSTANCE, AND IN THEIR EVERYDAY ARROGANCE, THINK IF THEY DO NOT REPORT THE SCANDAL, IT NEVER HAPPENED, THUS YOU CAN JUMP ON THEIR BANDWAGON WITH YOR CLAIMS THAT IT IS NOT IMPORTANT AND THAT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HAS 'NO NEED TO KNOW'. You don't even have to take my word for it. Its going to go away and there is nothing you can do about it. ON THIS POINT, YOU ARE LIKELY CORRECT, THERE HAS SIMPLY BEEN TOO MUCH MONEY INVESTED INTO IT, MUCH LIKE THE DOT COMS OF THE 90'S, IT'S NOT GOING TO GO AWAY UNTIL IT ITSELF EITHER IMPLODES OR THE STOCK MARKET IMPLODES. There is no conspiracy and out of all the info hacked, it keeps coming back to this one guy and one bit of code or a comment about a "trick". Thats IT? Thats all you have got? LET'S NOT SHOOT THE MESSENGER,OK? THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG DID COME OUT. ARE YOU TO SUGGEST THAT THIS IS 'ALL THERE IS' SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU PRETEND IT ISN'T THERE? UNTIL WE RUN FULL SPEED INTO IT? THE TITANIC HIT ONLY A GLANCING BLOW BUT THAT ICEBERG STILL BROUGHT IT DOWN.
If thats ALL you found its nothing! SO YOU STATE. AGW is here to stay and no amount of barrel scraping is going to change that. IT IS, BY NO MEANS 'BARREL SCRAPING', IT'S JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG. The world is going to move on without you. IF IT WERE JUST 'MOVING ON' THAT WOULD MAYBE NOT BE SO CRITICAL, BUT UNFORTUNATELY YOU WILL FINALLY SEE THAT IT'S ALSO HEADED FASTER AND FASTER DOWN A ROAD WITH THE BRIDGE OF ECONOMIC DISASTER OUT AHEAD. YOU GUYS HAVE PUT UP BOGUS AGW WARNING SIGNS ALONG THE WAY TO SPEED IT UP. Again, don't take my word for it. Its just like Mann's hockey stick. Its not as important as you think and it IS going to go away. DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT BUT IT WILL GO AWAY FOR THE REASONS I HAVE ALREADY STATED, NOT BECAUSE IT IS NOT AS IMPORTANT AS SKEPTICS FEEL THAT IT IS. No one person or institution is in control of AGW. Its a beast with infinite heads my friend :) DON'T WE ALL KNOW THAT?
I would suggest you just keep doing what your doing. Submitting papers and conducting research. Get on the horn and talk to people about it. Convince them. Approach it with logic and not theories of world-wide conspiracy and paranoia. THE WORD IS 'COLLUSION.' THIS MUCH IS READILY APPRECIABLE FROM THOSE E-MAILS. WHETHER IT IS 'IMPORTANT' OR NOT, TIME WILL TELL. Thats the only way you are going to effectively combat your issue. If your theories are sound then people will start to listen. OH, BUT PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO LISTEN, MY FRIEND, TRUST ME. :-) If they are weak you are going to have to try harder. THE SKEPTICS ARGUMENTS HAVE NEVER BEEN WEAK, SIMPLY DROWNDED OUT BY THE SELF-SERVING SCAREMONGERS WHO GAVE US Y2K AND THE LIKE. Its just that simple and its up to you to make an effective argument. FIGHTING AN UPHILL BATTLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A SLOW, PATIENT, AND SOMETIMES DEMORALIZING PROCESS, ESPECIALLY WHEN ITS ACTUALLY A SERIES OF HILLS THAT HAVE TO BE TAKEN WHERE LIARS HAVE SET THEMSELVES UP IN THEIR PILLBOXES TO TAKE POTSHOTS OF THOSE TRYING TO PRESENT THE TRUTH.
I was talking to Gary about this the other day. His take is that it is not the skeptics job to prove anything and this is true. But when something is the status quo (AGW), then effectively, that IS what you are going to have to do. Whether or not you feel you morally should have to is irrelevant.THAT IS QUITE CONDESCENDING AND, AS USUSAL, YOU END BY POINTING OUT THE 'STATUS QUO'. THE POINT IS THAT THE STATUS QUO IS RELATIVE, AND WOULD BE MUCH LESS RELATIVE AND ORIENTED TOWARDS THE SKEPTICS IF EVERY 'SCIENTIS' WERE NOT ON THE GOVERNMENT GRAVY TRAIN, EITHER AT PRESENT OR HOPING TO GET ON IT.
MOST SKEPTICS DO NOT ARGUE THAT WARMING IS NOT OCCURRING, SIMPLY THAT CO2 AND AGW IS NOT THE CAUSE. YOU NEED AGW TO GET INTO THE MONEY SOPURCE TO PAY FOR YOUR TILTS AT THE WINDMILLS.
Posted by Steve Rowland | November 28, 2009 12:16 PM
A scathing article on American West water mismanagement over the past century in the form of a book review: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n23/rebecca-solnit/dry-lands
Global warming is only a small fraction of our ecosystem problems. We can survive global warming without even blinking if we can get our act together in general on things that will cause us major problems over the next century with or without global warming.
Posted by rd | November 29, 2009 1:14 PM
rd:
On THAT, you and I can emphatically agree.
Posted by Steve Rowland | December 1, 2009 11:27 AM
rd:
"We can survive global warming without even blinking if we can get our act together in general on things that will cause us major problems over the next century with or without global warming."
Double ditto for me! GK
Posted by G. Karst | December 3, 2009 11:23 AM