Climate scientists see 'tipping point' ahead
An international group of climate scientists warns that a "tipping point" in the earth's life-support systems may be rapidly approaching, and that should we step over that as-yet-undetermined threshold, it may be too late to reverse course. "The science tells us that we are heading toward major changes in the biosphere," UC …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Re: Yes...
As a premillennial dispensationalist myself, I thank the Lord that I am too old to be proved wrong in my own lifetime!
(Escape, because that's what the Rapture is all about)
Panic
Well if the presented 'facts' at the start are wrong the I smell bull for the rest of it. Mind you in general less humans is always a good thing, maybe we need to put some breaks on the breeding. These dammit women with there 'its my right to have a child' piss me off, costing the nhs, tax payers just because they feel a bit sad, boo hoo. Can we please quit breeding for five minutes! Problem is its not good for the economy, government wants there little future tax payers, it's budgeted for there existence!
Re: Panic
Hi Chris, have you considered this:
The things that piss you off (well-off educated women delaying conception for work and needing IVF) are symptoms of the very factors that have caused our population to plateau (female education, empowerment, lower fecundity etc ).
(If it wasn't for net immigration, our population in the UK would be stable or falling.)
I'll give you this: our current culture re women and work in the UK isn't ideal. In France it is more common for educated women to have children in their early twenties and then pursue their career afterwards.
You are also right about having an economy based on constant growth. Bertrand Russell had some ideas about this some time ago.
Re: Panic
It seems to be the immigrants who are having all of the children since many of them come from cultures where the woman is still the housewife and stays with children in the day.
it's really easy guys and gals ..
as it warms, there is more evaporation of water .. warmer air holds more water vapor ..
but it has been found that the overall humidity has increased very little .. instead there is more cloud cover ....
... which reflects more solar energy back into space .. and increases rain and snowfall
so this is nature's balance as the air and oceans warm .. it is the negative forcing of water vapor and clouds by reflecting and scattering the more energetic shortwave spectrum .. and cloud albedo reflecting the suns energy back into space that not only balances water vapor's (50%) and clouds (25%) 75% of the greenhouse gas effect .. but also balances out CO2's 20% greenhouse gas effect
Warming causes CO2 rise because warmer oceans both release more, and absorb less CO2 than cooler oceans .. this is partially offset by trees absorbing CO2 faster, growing faster but still sequestering that carbon for an average of 200 years
BTW .. when you burn a HYDROcarbon .. you actually emit significantly more H2O than CO2 .. so by burning fossil fuels we emit more *trapped for 100 million+ years* H2O than CO2
let's see .. water (vapor and clouds) is 75% of the greenhouse gas effect ... we emit more H2O buning fossil fuel than CO2
CO2 is 20% (at most) of the greenhouse gas effect ..
yet we ignore man cause extra H2O emitted .. and don't call for reducing water vapor .. WTF?
and the "cleanest" fuel is methane .. one Carbon .. four Hydrogen .. burning creates one CO2 and two H2O .. OMG .. twice as much of a MORE dangerous greenhouse gas
We need to dry the earth's air before it's too late .. water vapor and clouds have almost 4 times the warming greenhouse effect as CO2 !
"We need to dry the earth's air before it's too late .. water vapor and clouds have almost 4 times the warming greenhouse effect as CO2 !"
Do try and get a clue. CO2 is the forcer , water vapour is the responder. With no CO2 the earth would cool, water vapour will condense out of the atmosphere which would cool even more leading to more condensing etc. With global warming as you pointed out the opposite happens. CO2 does NOT condense out - its slowly removed by plants and other processes but it hangs around for a long longer than water and amplifies water vapours effects for the reasons I've given.
Speaking as a skeptic about AGW, your argument against AGW is hopelessly simplistic and shows no grasp at all about how complicated the climate actually is.
Wrong climate regime @0_Flybert_0
What you describe is the very simple mechanism that's kept the Earth habitable through most of the last 600 Myears. It pertains whenever there is no near-sea-level ice to be found on the planet, which isn't today.
Today, we are in an intergracial period between ice ages. During an ice age, there's a built-in positive feedback regime. If the ice advances, it reflects solar energy back into space, causing further cooling. If it melts, more land is exposed, and that encourages warming. Especially since it thaws out methane hydrates trapped in permafrost, causing large releases of methane, a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. There's geological evidence that this sudden thawing has happened several times since the recent era of ice ages started, followed by a more gradual reglaciation.
We may have caused the tipping point towards melting, or we may be about to do so. We are living in a most unstable climate regime that would or will tip within a geological eyeblink(*) in any case, with or without the influence of humanity.
As for that ice-free planet, it's good news for large reptiles, and bad news for large mammals like humans. The stable temperature in the equatorial belt would be too high for humans to survive anywhere with high humidity. (temperature > body temperature, humidity near 100%, and you die).
(*) for non-geologists: a geological eyeblink is some time of the order of a hundred thousand years.
Re: Wrong climate regime @0_Flybert_0
actually ... I'm highly educated in the subject including the most recent research
the only "tipping point" we might be headed for is the equivalent of a little ice age .. between going into the cooling phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation .. the cooling phase of the long term Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation .. we are looking at a 20-30 year cooling cycle that may have already started 2-3 years ago .. plus a significantly weaker solar cycle and the next cycle predicted to be even weaker .. possibly the start of an approximately 200 year cycle that fit's the warming and cooling periods for the last 9000 years
if CO2 is driving warmth .. how do you explain that it cooled 1940-1978 as man's CO2 emissions steadily rose ? .. the temperature did jump 0.2C 1979-1980 .. but from 1980 .. according to the NASA satellite data .. the temperatures actually cooled, quite a bit by 1985 and were below 1980 by 0.15C average until 1997 .. and we are only about 0.2C above 1980 today .. though April and May were warm
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
and get some education in the math and science on the subject ...
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
Dr Spencer's page at NASA just in case you think he's unqualified
http://aqua.nasa.gov/about/team_spencer.php
Re: Wrong climate regime @0_Flybert_0
I've plotted global temperature since 1900, plus the Sun and CO2.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:132/normalise/from:1900
The recent warming is clear. And if you want to ask what fits the data better, CO2 fits the recent warming a lot better than the Sun.
SIR is a title
If the tipping point is 'as-yet-undetermined', how can anyone say it's coming soon?
Penguin, 'cost it's the closest to the Chicken Little icon I was looking for.
Coming Soon
It's a safe guess that the tipping point will come soon. Note, the authors didn't say whether it's soon within this week, within a human lifetime, or within geologic timescales.
Precise language is a bitch, better avoid it!
Re: SIR is a title
Media headlines say 'tipping point approaching! Yet the article states buried in its body the tipping point is 'as-yet-undetermined' and we need more research... Got to love things being blown out of all proportion.
The cynic in me wonders if someone had their budget cut in the recession and is after a bit of classic alarmism to scare people into providing more funding.
Intensification of agriculture...
... and a retreat from agricultural production on marginal land, greatly increased rates of urbanisation, massive building out of nuclear power, and population declines resulting from the transformation of societies that can be observed worldwide...
And the job is a good one.
You listening, Greenpeace?
You've got two choices...
1. More world
2. Fewer people
Everything else is codswollop. So take your pick.
Re: You've got two choices...
Less people please. I hate people.
I would like to propose a heavy tax on people with more than 2 children. People who have more than 4 should be castrated/sterilised, and people who have 15 state-funded scrotebag oiks should be ground down into animal feed.
Too many people not giving a monkey about the world.
?kill all humans? Wuz Re: You've got two choices...
Ok, it's a line from a cartoon...
Nature has a wy of keeping populations in check... To a point...
As the human race grows, the outbreaks of new or evolved viruses and penicillin resistant strains of bacteria also grow.
From a psychological perspective, populations that exceed the carrying capacity of their environments tend to disintegrate.
So I think we will see the human race's population plateau before that..
Unless you have a newer cheap energy sourceand a way to get us off this planet and in to space .....
Re: You've got two choices...
Are you supporting that bloke in Derby with sixteen kids, who allegedly took the public-spirited step of murdering five of them in a house fire?
Re: ?kill all humans? Wuz You've got two choices...
As the human race grows, the outbreaks of new or evolved viruses and penicillin resistant strains of bacteria also grow.
Citation? Sounds like bollocks to me. In 1918 the "Spanish flu" killed between 3 and 10% of the world population - between 50 and 130 million people - where as the latest flu pandemics have been relatively minor, like the 2009 swine flu pandemic which killed less than 20,000 worldwide.
Re: You've got two choices...
"I would like to propose a heavy tax on people with more than 2 children. People who have more than 4 should be castrated/sterilised, and people who have 15 state-funded scrotebag oiks should be ground down into animal feed."
A far, far more effective way of getting a population reduction is less discrimination against women in the workplace and greater educational opportunities all round. The greater sexual equality and work opportunities increase, the greater the reduction in birth rate so far (demonstrable throughout the West and elsewhere and logically guessable to anyone who pauses to think whether they would prefer to have an intellectually stimulating job that gives them lots of spare cash and some holiday time to spend it, or if they would prefer to try squeezing something the size of a grapefruit out of something the size of a lemon).
Re: ?kill all humans? Wuz You've got two choices...
Even without the citation, why bollocks? If virus evolution is the selection of randomly occurring mutations, statistically there will be more mutations if the pool is larger. Add to that humans moving into new areas and flitting around the globe. The world population has more than tripled since the first medicinal use of penicillin, so I would be very surprised if the occurrence of penicillin resistant bacteria hasn't grown since then.
The 1918 epidemic was the result of mass human movement (due to global warfare). A higher population density and greater human movement around the globe can only aid viruses. Likewise, the first case of AIDS known was a US sailor presenting inexplicable muscle wasting in the 1950s (tissue samples were preserved and found to HIV positive in the 1980s - National Geographic), so human travel was a likely factor.
It's true that the modern outbreaks of influenza haven't had the same impact, but at least have provided a good drill for scientists and authorities for when/if a big outbreak occurs. There are influenzas that are very deadly, and there are influenzas that spread very easily through the air, and so far they haven't got together...
Re: You've got two choices...
I prefer the Drax approach, nerve gas the entire world from space, come back in 5 years.
OK, SuperTimm, fair enough -
We'll grind you into bone meal first, though. What, some problem? Nonsense! If it's good enough for the goose, after all -- here, just jump in this hopper, let me turn on this motor, and very soon we'll all be enjoying the benefits of clearer air and a less polluted environment.
Well, no, not you of course, but then you're scum so who cares? We were going to mulch you and use you for fertilizer, but our chemists tell us there's way too much acidity and bitterness there to produce a plant anyone would want anything to do with, so we're just going to dump you in a landfill instead.
Seems to me that lots of people in the whole green, environmentalist, let's save this poor old planet that's only been around four and a half billion years and clearly can't see off an infestation of half-bright bald apes with delusions of grandeur, thing -- lots of these folks try to pour this stuff into whatever pre-existing hole in their life they feel needs filling. If it weren't this, it'd be PETA or Planned Parenthood or space exploration or non-profit medical care for the fuzzy-wuzzies of Upper Volta, or something.
Re: You've got two choices...
Malthus gave us that choice many billions of people ago. It was bullshit then and still is.
Re: propose a heavy tax on people with more than 2 children.
I've got a better idea. Put the tax on the holier than thou bigots who want to limit other people's freedom, and convert all those who are willing to kill those people into some Soylent to send to China.
Influenza is a bad example
Influenza is an exception to most general rules about disease propagation.
It's anomalous because it can infect just about any creature with warm blood, rather than just one species. It is spread globally by migrating birds, even in times when humans hadn't worked out how to fly. It's also a fast-mutating virus. There are very many new strains every year, all busily adapting themselves to new species.
Flu is eventually its own antidote. As it mutates in a population, any strain which leaves its victims walking around despite being infected will have a huge advantage over a parent strain that isolates them in bed (or in a coffin). And because the strains are related, the less severe one spreads immunity against the deadlier. Flu evolves within a species to become more infectious but less serious. Were it not for the frequency with which it jumps between species, it would rapidly become no worse than a common cold.
One day, a scientist may have to decide whether to release a flu virus derived from a deadly one, engineered to be less deadly but more infectious.
I am reminded...
... of an interesting quote from Dr Stephen Schneider, of Stanford University, in a 1988 interview with 'Discover' magazine
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination.
That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
Many would have read this quote minus the last 3 sentences. However, even with those sentences included, this seminal statement gives me grave doubt as to the many claims as to the nature & causality of anthropogenic climactic change. To "spin" scientific inquiry & the quantification of such, as this quote suggests, opens the interpretation of such inquiry to immediate abuse & opportunism, no matter how well intentioned the sentiment of that statement may be.
For me, the frailties of humanity have all but smothered any ongoing rational & meaningful research & analyses of this incredibly complex system. Ratings & earnings driven media & PR spin, individual & group self-interest, demonstrable financial opportunism & speculation - these are just a few things that have prompted me to mistrust the many "authoritative" statements, issued on an almost daily basis, as to the "urgency" of our global situation.
Schneiderism
"This 'double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.' Many would have read this quote minus the last 3 sentences."
I am very familiar with this statement, to the point that I use the term "Schneiderism" to refer to the practice of scientists lying for political reasons. I need to use it more often, really, as it defines a real and easily observable phenomenon.
The problem with Schneider's apologists attempting to use those three last sentences as if they somehow mitigate the statements preceding them, is that "being honest" is kind of an "all or nothing" thing. "The right balance is between being effective and being honest" simply means that sometimes scientists should be honest, but they don't have to be. He can sanctimoniously "hope to be both" but why anyone would give any credibility to anyone who thinks that scientists do not have to be honest all the time, is something beyond my ability to understand.
Re: I am reminded...
That quote explains a lot. Dr Schneider and others need to be reminded that the value of their public pronouncements is entirely founded on a belief in their integrity in that they are following the scientific process and are telling us what the science says.
They should not be concerned about the balance between 'between being effective and being honest', because 'being honest' is all they are ethically required to do. They should leave the 'being effective' bit to those that are allowed to have agendas.
I'm with turtle - "Schneiderism" ought to be used commonly to refer to this practice.
The balance between 'between being effective and being honest'
"[The scientists] should not be concerned about the balance between 'between being effective and being honest', because 'being honest' is all they are ethically required to do."
The honest scientists may be an admirable and ethical creature, but he might not get another grant. Say hello to him, when you pass his new premises under the bridge.
The balance between honesty and hyperbole in science is not quite that simple: the money for science follows the big story, so if you can invent that (or follow a pre-existing one), you have it made. Most scientists are idealistic creatures, but they must find a delicate balance between doing science and selling science.
Re: I am reminded...
And the reason for doing so?
Because humans, as a generalisation, are a lazy self-centred bunch who will make little or no sacrifice unless it has an immediate gain/threat.
Give people an ounce of doubt and they will use that to get out of doing things, in particular, those difficult or unpopular decisions that politicians must do but still keep themselves on the gravy train.
And that is the dilemma, try to hold a reasoned argument with those who don't give a toss, are incapable of understanding science/statistics, or have pre-set views (e.g. religion) and you lose. Not because your data is out of agreement, but because the DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE that their actions are wrong/ill-advised/must be changed.
Or take on politicians at their own gain by spinning the facts to attention-grabbing scenarios and getting folk to sit up and take notice. Then once more to dismiss it because "its just spin" and not in their short-term interests.
Maybe skynet was right...
@Schultz & Paul Crawford - Re: I am reminded...
While I agree with Schultz's observation that an honest scientist is not likely to flourish, one who goes for hyperbole will lose the most potent thing he/she has to persuade the more knowledgeable/intelligent listeners - trust.
I also get Paul Crawford's point that scientists can't have a reasoned argument with those that don't give a toss. But that is ignoring the fact that in reality they only have to argue with people who do care about the science and what it is saying - ie the mass of intelligent non-experts who read and comment on this stuff (like our commentards). It is they who in practise can persuade the 'lazy self-centred' bunch that there is something up. Unfortunately the hyperbole just provokes a negative response in many of such people.
As it stands, scientists are in real danger of being lumped in with politicians as a class of people whose self interest is assumed to over-ride the facts.
Re: @Schultz & Paul Crawford - I am reminded...
"The balance between honesty and hyperbole in science is not quite that simple: the money for science follows the big story, so if you can invent that (or follow a pre-existing one), you have it made. Most scientists are idealistic creatures, but they must find a delicate balance between doing science and selling science."
So where does this lead?
Once one group had made distortions to get funding then competing groups will feel bound to make slightly more sweeping distortions next time. This cycle will continue with larger and larger groups of scientists all distorting the facts to greater and greater degree to secure some of the limited monies available. Sooner or later their 'findings' will have no tangible basis in reality as we see with the '27 billion population' claim
That isn't science, it's lobbying.
Re: @Schultz & Paul Crawford - I am reminded...
@Zombie Womble etc.
It's not the scientists: It's the managers. Most scientists are quite honest, but they answer to a manager who isn't always a scientist and is often removed from the facts. It's the managers who try to sort out the budgets, but where they don't understand the underlying science they make things up, and that's where the corruption comes in.
It's becoming common place for this to happen, and not just in science. Here, I'm an IT specialist complete with years of experience, qualifications and successful projects. My boss used to be a developer but these days he spends most of his time in meetings, but at least he still understands what we're talking about... most of the time... His boss, however, has budget control... and hasn't a clue about IT. Seriously - they see something shiny and they just have to have it, even if it's utterly useless...
Re: I am reminded...
I've had many an honest debate with religious people. Never had one with an anti-religious bigot. Probably because the religious people, even those who aren't following the one true God, actually believe honesty is a moral imperative for which there are eternal consequences rather than some hypothetical normative construct used to reach an end.
Re: I am reminded...
what Schneider is saying is nothing to do with grants. You get grants even if you do really dull work.
What he's saying is that if scientists see a threat, they might want to warn people. They (all) aren't robotic calculators. If they want to communicate effectively they have to balance effectiveness with honesty.
Naive honesty can lead to ineffective communication.
For example a few years ago the climate scientist Dr Phil Jones was asked, via a skeptic injecting the question to a journalist, whether there had been statistically significant warming since 1995. Phil Jones gave the naive honest answer that no there hadn't.
Of course very few people understand what statistical significance is so this gave climate deniers a license to go around claiming that Phil Jones had admitted warming had stopped in 1995. Which wasn't what he claimed, but was a very effective distortion.
Sometimes you have to consider that honest words can be abused and therefore honest words can be ineffective, even damaging. To be effective you sometimes have to omit information and doubts to scupper the chances of them being twisted and exaggerated. Phil Jones for example would have been better off not answering the question, "doing a politician" and dodging the loaded question.
@NomNomNom: Re: I am reminded...
In order to defend dishonest scientists, you have chosen Phil Jones, of ClimateGate infamy. You could not have picked a more dishonest scientist - or made a more appropriate choice..
Re: @NomNomNom: I am reminded...
I haven't defended "dishonest scientists". Your premise is wrong.
I'd like to know what Phil Jones has done dishonestly, in your opinion.
I've given an example of the dishonesty of climate deniers. You haven't provided any example.
Re: @NomNomNom: I am reminded...
"I haven't defended 'dishonest scientists'. Your premise is wrong. I'd like to know what Phil Jones has done dishonestly, in your opinion. I've given an example of the dishonesty of climate deniers. You haven't provided any example."
I said "ClimateGate'. If you think that all the dishonesty, manipulativeness, and effort put into gaming the way science works, as revealed in the ClimateGate emails, is anything less than a complete and utter disgrace to any institution purporting to be an educational institution, and if you think that the behavior shown in those emails is acceptable behavior for anyone with any pretensions to any reputation as a scientist, then you will have to explain why.
Personally, I would call the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia to be a hotbed of scientific dishonesty. And if you want to continue to defend dishonest scientists such as Phil Jones and his ilk, don't let anyone stop you... but don't deny that you are doing it, either.
Clever.
"state shifts can exhibit hysteresis, meaning that the shifts themselves can be separated in time from their causes"
So the theory can be right even if the effects are separated from the causes by, oh, maybe centuries. Very convenient from insulating the science from empirical falsification. Or insulating specific scientists from having to admit that they are incompetent and/or dishonest.
And, typically, although more study is needed to understand the many factors impinging on the situation, somehow it is already known that the situation is catastrophic and calls for alarmism and its attendant political agenda.
It seems that humanity's fate is going to be like having to listen to that virulent racist Paul Ehrlich over, and over, and over, and over...
There are too many people on the planet
IF it is true that climate change is man made.
So as all good problem solvers know, fixing the root cause and not the symptoms, is the ONLY way to fix a problem.
The trouble is that there are far too many people who do not want to face up to this unpalatable fact. Scientists included.
Re: There are too many people on the planet
It's not a fact, it's your opinion. What would the right number of people be, and how do you know?
Deniers, really?
It's a bit rich to ask people not to get their knickers in a twist whilst at the same time slinging mud yourself.
Nicely written.
This Rik Myslewski fella should do all El Reg's climate articles, he's done a good job of explaining a very wordy Nature article in an open-minded way. It's a plesant change from the heavily one-sided stuff I've seen too much of round here. Keep up the good work Rik!
Re: Nicely written.
"He's a bedwetter like me"
And never let facts get in the way of an eco-panic.
Re: Nicely written.
Be fair now. This Rik fella should do *half* of El Reg's climate articles.
Re: Nicely written.
So then you'd be one them there mind-set-in-concrete Warmists like Rik.
Population
This all comes down to one fact nobody likes. The greater the population on the earth (human that is), the worse any problem that may exist will be. We'll need more resources just to support the greater number of people. So, the first driver must be to limit or reduce overall world population. You can then look at distribution etc. A lesser population will by definition require fewer resources, including CO2 emissions etc.etc.
However, very few are willing to face this blindingly obvious fact and just stick their heads in the sand. Most politicians wouldn't dream of calling for fewer and fewer children to this end as their economic models require an ever expanding economy (e.g. growth). if you don't have growth over the longterm, basically most of the worlds economy doesn't work. Whilst you can be more efficient, ultimately to keep expanding the economy needs more workforce.
Until we get leaders that can stop looking at the next election and try to do some unpalatable things for the good of the country and the world, we'll not get anywhere.
Re: Population
Its easier to have just two children if you know that they are very likely to reach adulthood. In many areas of the world, this is far from certain, so you are going to hedge your bets even if you do have access to contraception.
This topic is closed for new posts.
