Authorities announce climate culprit *Update*
Glacier Bay, Alaska photo courtesy of Tostie14.
Global warming: It’s us
The world’s top climate scientists released a report today that assessed the reality of global warming and took a stand on whether it’s man or nature who holds the smoking gun.
There’s little doubt left, according to the best scientific minds on climate. Earth is getting significantly warmer. We humans are the chief culprit.
What’s more, the scientists reported that at the rate that human activities are warming the planet, we can expect to see at least a three–fold increase in global average temperatures by the end of the 21st century. Temperatures averaged across the globe increased about 1.2 degrees Celsius from 1901 to 2005. The scientists project that by 2100, we will see a jump in temperature between 3.2 to 7.8 degrees Celsius.
Over 800 scientists from more than 130 different countries are working together on this up–to–date picture of scientific understanding of climate change. They are working under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) headed by the United Nations. The IPCC calls its report a “comprehensive and rigorous picture” of the climate change situation.
Scientists and experts working on the report are divided into three groups, each looking separately at the causes, the impacts, and the mitigation of climate change.
Results were released from Working Group I of the IPCC, which looked at the causes of climate change. This group examined evidence of Earth’s changing climate in the atmosphere, the oceans, the polar regions and the tropics. There’s prior evidence for change in all of these places. For example, in 2005, scientists reported that the Arctic might be ice–free during the summer within 100 years, a condition it hasn’t reached in over a million years. Glaciers have retreated all over the world, and scientists just last week announced that ice and snow in the Swiss Alps will all but disappear by 2050. You can see the report for yourself at this link.
The melting of terrestrial ice from global warming contributes to rising sea level. The IPCC reported that sea level will rise from seven to 23 inches by 2100. In contrast, a study announced earlier this month in the journal Science put the sea level rise number much higher, between 20 to 55 inches by 2100. A dramatic rise in sea level has the potential to radically alter coastlines, inundate thousands of islands, and potentially displace millions of coastal dwellers.
The mechanism causing the change has become familiar. Earth’s atmosphere acts like a greenhouse, trapping heat from the sun and providing a warm place for life as we know it to thrive. Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, come naturally from volcanoes and plant decomposition. Humans add to these greenhouse gases mainly through the burning of fossil fuels and through land use.
Meanwhile, the effects of global warming – the extent to which it will or will not place a burden on our human culture – are still being debated. The reality is that no one knows what will happen.
Of course, it is not possible for us to foretell future events or to know what will happen years from now as a consequence of man-made global climate change; however, perhaps we can decipher “the writings on the wall” that appear ubiquitously before the eyes of so many members of our species.
That is to say, if discernable global overgrowth activities of the human species are “the smoking gun” that could inadvertently precipitate the mass extinction of biodiversity, the irreversible degradation of the environment, the endangerment of humanity, and the dissipation of this planetary home that God has blessed us to inhabit, then would reasonable people not choose to discuss how we humanely and fairly regulate certain historically unbridled activities: 1) increasing per human consumption of limited resources, 2) seemingly endless growth of large-scale industrial production and resource depletion capabilities and 3) unbridled reproduction of the human species, all of which are overspreading the surface of Earth in these early years of Century XXI?
I quote from junkscience.com (one of my other favorite web sites):
“As everyone is probably by now aware, Friday, February 2, 2007 marks the release of the IPCC’s political document: Assessment Report 4, Summary for Policymakers. The media seem to be operating under the misapprehension this is equivalent to the release of IPCC Working Group I Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis — this is regrettably neither true nor even close to the truth.
Bizarrely, the actual report will be retained for another three months to facilitate editing — to suit the summary! IPCC procedures state that: Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter (Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, p4/15) — this is surely unacceptable and would not be tolerated in virtually any other field (witness the media frenzy because language was allegedly altered in some US climate reports).
Under the circumstances we feel we have no choice but to publicly release the second-order draft report documents so that everyone has at least the chance to compare the summary statements with the underlying documentation. It should not be necessary for us to break embargo and post raw drafts for you to verify a summary of publicly funded documentation (tax payers around the world have paid billions of dollars for this effort — you own it and you should be able to access it).
Reluctantly then, here is the link to our archive copy of the second-order draft of IPCC Working Group I Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. The second-order draft was distributed in 2006, 5 years into what has so far been a 6 year process and these copies were archived last May.”
It should be noted that junkscience.com was recently fingered in a Mother Jones article for receiving money from ExxonMobil to “preach skepticism” about global warming.
Seriously, the jig is up.
It is truly a shocking and amazing thing to those of us who have covered the global warming story these past 30 years (I started writing about it in the ’70s) to have witnessed what some scientists are now calling a disinformation campaign surrounding this subject.
Scientists have known for decades that human activities had the potential to warm the planet. Now the planet is getting warmer. Enough said.
Time to start working together to figure out what to do …
I’m shocked to find agreement to Global Warming here of all places! Fluctuations in the earths temperature are more closely tied to solar activity than anything else, and this ‘report’ shows that. 30 years ago, when I was in grade school, all the evidence pointed toward global cooling and a looming ICE AGE!!! Look up popular magazines in the late ’70’s if you don’t beleive it. Lastly, some financial advice. Buy land in Antarctica if you truly believe that ‘Global Warming is man made and we can’t stop the effects”
Dear Mazzefr,
You are correct, I believe, about what you remember from grade school regarding a coming Ice Age. Sadly, I am almost too old to remember the looming Ice Age reports. While I truly believe global warming is primarily man-made, I also believe that humankind can diminish, stop and recover from the pernicious effects of climate change.
A top-rank scientist in the world at that time (and now), James Lovelock, made the prediction to which you refer. I would much prefer that he respond to you here, but that may not occur.
Suffice it to say, that we are engaged in difficult work. James Lovelock and rest of us are learning as we go. Please note that while he made the prediction of global cooling years ago, he is a clear and resolute advocate of the global warming phenomenon now.
Now, however, he has much more data and many more colleagues joining him in the search for good science regarding the way the world in which we live actually works.
In closing, I want to pay tribute to another great person, one I have been fortunate enough to meet and hear speak. His name is Rahjendra K. Pachauri. His leadership of the IPCC is exemplary. Absent this remarkable individual, the masters of the universe might have been ‘successful’ in suppressing good scientific data regarding global climate change.
Always,
Steve
Hello Mazzefr,
I honor your opinion. But let me tell you my perspective, as a science writer with 30 years of experience writing about this subject.
It’s true that there were reports of a coming ice age 30 years ago. At that time, scientists were beginning to feel very confident that variations in Earth’s orbit and tilt created what they call the Milankovitch cycle, causing ice ages to come and go on Earth in a regular way. This was an exciting result for scientists in the 1970s! They were thrilled that they could see the mechanism for ice ages on Earth, and so predict that another ice age would come.
So yes … according to scientists of the 1970s, an ice age was “looming.” Scientists were looking ahead and were confidently predicting another ice age. But the ice age was predicted to come in perhaps 10,000 years … not a few decades.
Even as they were discussing ice ages, scientists of 30 years ago were also discussing a much-more immediate looming crisis: global warming. From a mountaintop in Hawaii, since the 1950s, they had measured a steady increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and their computer models indicated that this increase was due to human activities. Even in the 1970s, scientists were predicting that – on a timescale of decades, not thousands of years – the climate would change. I know, because I was writing articles about ice ages and global warming as far back as the 1970s.
This talk of a looming ice age predicted by scientists 30 years ago is part of what I believe is a false controversy, created by some in the media and – if we believe the Union of Concerned Scientists – by some in industry. The Union of Concerned Scientists reported in early January 2007 that ExxonMobil spent nearly $16 million to fund skeptic groups, create confusion about the climate issue.
Scientists never predicted an ice age for OUR time. But they have, for 30 years, consistently predicted global warming for our time. And now it is indeed getting warmer.
Please don’t be surprised or shocked if Earth & Sky – which has tried, like so many others of good will, to be fair about the global warming issue – now takes a stand that global warming is real and caused by humans. We are doing this because we believe it’s true. No … we KNOW it’s true.
Earth & Sky tries to be “a clear voice for science.” We are only reflecting what we’ve heard over thousands of interviews with scientists in 15 years. For more from scientists about this issue, please see this week’s article After IPCC, 25 scientists speak on global warming.
Yes, there are natural variations to climate, including solar variability. But the ongoing rapid global warming we are experiencing now is real, and humans are a primary cause.
Deborah
So, there was an Ice Age and Global Warming coming at the same time? Interesting.
The bottom line is that we don’t have enough data and won’t for centuries. The earth is Billions of years old, yet Global Warming Kool Aid drinkers want to beleive they have any idea what will happen based on 150 years of data. It’s the equivalent of asking the opinion of 1 American and coming to the conclusion that ALL Americans hold the same opinion. I’m sorry, but it is apparent these scientists set out with a hypothesis an found every way to prove it, disregarding the obscene lack of data. I have no doubt that everyone is well intentioned at this level of discussion, but like the common thread of demonizing Exxon-Mobil, isn’t it also possible that people “in bed” with the Al Gore types see a trillion dollar industry on the horizon by pushing this agenda? Just as you question the money trail of “American Big Business”, be true to your scepticism and question these “power” peoples intentions. American has curbed emmissions dramatically. If you truly want to effect change, point to China. Protest their government and lack of ecological stewardship. My surprise of finding this topic at earthsky.org is my error. I heard a radio infomercial about Jupiter and assumed this was an Astronomy site and dealt with real, proveable science, not politics and moonbat theories.Mazzefr, yes, exactly, another ice age and global warming are both coming … an ice age thousands of years from now … and global warming in the coming decades.
It’s not about politics. We’re a science website. We hear from people about politics here, but we don’t write about politics. We write about science. Here’s an article written this week, featuring scientists’ ideas on global warming … After IPCC, 25 scientists speak on global warming.
I am proud to have the attention of earthsky.org and repect your work and opinion. It should be clear, however, to all reading this thread that as the Executive Director, you have “a dog in this fight” beyond the concerns of the rest of us. This is a part of your lifes work and many of your endeavors rely on Global Warming being fact, not speculation. This makes it exceptionally difficult for anyones viewpoint to be skewed. The earth and its atmosphere are far more flexible, far more vast than we give credit. Humans, are far less powerful, far less significant than we think we are.
Question everything, especially when you have “found” the answer.
Al Gore and his ‘power circle’ stand to make millions, just like big oil and big tobacco.
Take action on China if you want to effect change.
I’m enjoying this conversation also, Mazzefr. I like the way you think.
But I don’t understand when you say that part of the effort of Earth & Sky relies on global warming. In what way do we rely on it?
Earth & Sky tries to present science, nature and people. Those three topic areas are, surely, infinite. If there were no global warming, we’d still have many wonderful things to talk about.
In fact, Earth & Sky is almost entirely grant funded. Our sponsors are both public and private foundations that want to present science to people. After all, people pay for science with their tax dollars, and many want to give back. Some of our grants relate to specific topic areas, and some are more general (we just “educate”). We have grants to present nanotechnology, for example, and skywatching.
But we don’t have any grants to present global warming …
I wish we did!
It’s not that I think humans are so powerful. It’s just that I believe scientists who have learned that the tiniest actions can have large effects. Scientists are now speaking of Earth and its humans as being part of a coupled system.
If these scientists are right, it means is that we and the Earth affect each other … profoundly … and continuously.
Deborah
mazzefr says “The earth is Billions of years old, yet Global Warming Kool Aid drinkers want to believe they have any idea what will happen based on 150 years of data.”
Interestingly, I found two web sites that refer to the ice core samples that document 160,000 years of climate data. One web site reports “that there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming in the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” The other site says, “Approximately 99.72% of the greenhouse effect is due to natural causes.”
http://www.uic.com.au/nip24.htm
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
First, let me back off of two things I said earlier. I can understand how warming from one influence can occur while cooling from another influence can occur at the same time. Secondly, I may be hasty in accusing this site of being politically charged. I did happen across it on the same day the Global Warming report was released and 10 of 15 stories on the home page were related.
My original points are that 1)We cannot prove that man is responsible for Global Warming and 2)The current Global Warming debate is more about politics and money than science.
In the article linked by Ms. Byrd “after IPCC, 25 scientists”, the methodology used to form this ‘consensus’ is faulty. 500 scientists were e-mailed and only 25 responded? It is no leap of faith to expect that the 25 who responded were the most zealous of the 500 when it comes to Global Warming. What do the other 475 think? Mr. McClure’s links further exemplify both points. The UIC link blames man and the burning of fossil fuels. They are in the Nuclear Energy field, and have the world to gain if the Global Warming agenda is advanced.(I am in favor of Nuclear Energy by the way). The Clearlight link presents many opinions of scientists that Global Warming is occurring due to nature(Dr. William Gray-“Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I’ve been critical of global warming and am persona non grata.”), while the supportive claims are by, you guessed it, politicians. This sight also has charts that show we have been here before, in fact warmer, prior to the industrialization of man and our resilient planet corrected itself.
Linking to other respondents in this thread proved interesting as well. Stevenearlsalmony’s SustainabilitySoutheast.org site includes links to Grist, a politically charged site singing the praises of Al Gore, a politician. Al Gore’s nomination for a Nobel Peace Prize exemplifies just how political this subject is. Another concern with Mr. Salmony is in his opening comments where he advocates discussion of regulating reproduction of the human species. Scary!
Lastly, Annon. The link to Mother Jones is priceless! Nothing but pure political blather, including a special interview with Vermont’s Socialist senator. Please. As far as Exxon-Mobil goes, be as critical about the organizations that support Global Warming. They have as much to win as Exxon-Mobil does to sustain. Global Warming is easily a multi-trillion dollar industry.
I would be interested in how Earth & Sky reconciles “being a clear voice for science”, with “knowing” something to be true. Have you invented your own version of the scientific method?
Mazzefr and Mark …
We at Earth & Sky can only speak from our experience. We “know” something to be true in the same way anyone does. Because we’ve heard it many places from people we respect. Because it jibes with the best information available. Because it’s logical. Because we have long experience on this subject and have watched for a decade, with great dismay, while the false controversy about global warming unfolded.
Mazzefr … I believe the scientists who are “global warming skeptics” are just as zealous as those who believe otherwise. It’s just that, honestly, there aren’t very many of them.
Mark … you will never get ALL scientists to agree on anything. We stand by our goal of being a clear voice for science. In this case, the science is clearly saying that global warming is real and caused primarily by humans.
The biggest unknown, now, is what will happen next.
All the best,
Deborah
A clear voice doesn’t necessarily imply “all-knowing” insight. In his day, Copernicus clearly had good reasons for believing the Earth revolves around the sun. But he didn’t “know” that it did – in the sense that he understood every little intricacy and could offer absolute proof.
The data in the charts show this is cyclical, yet ‘false controversy’ and ‘humans are causing Global Warming’ are the mantra. What did humans do in the 11th century to cause it and then correct it in the 13th century? Reduced emmission village raizing? Low carbon platemail armor?
Yes it was colder 160k years ago; what about 110k,190k,320k years ago. What did humans do then? Sushi instead of Charbroiled Wooly Mammoth?
The Weather Channel has threatened to revoke Certification of meteorologists who disagree with Global Warming. Perhaps we don’t hear from the scientist nay-sayer because they too will be bounced to the curb? So much for the pursuit of the truth. Remember we heard NOTHING from the other 475.
People are investing billions in this hoax, they want to see a return on their investment.
Dear Mazzefr,
Please understand that, among many too many other scientists, Dr. Heidi Cullen is being subjected to astonishing attacks simply because she openly, and perhaps prematurely, expressed the view of the IPCC to the minions of the masters of the universe in the mass media.
At this moment I feel as if you and I are two ships passing in the night. What worries me is that the ships in which we are sailing are headed toward the same iceberg….and both of us are not able to find a way to help the other steer clear of what we are approaching.
One question in closing, if you please: “Is global warming OR the endlessly expanding, artificially designed, man-made global economy more likely to become the real hoax on humanity?”
Sincerely,
Steve
Minions of the masters of the universe? How do you sleep with that thought in your head? The mass media is on your side and you can’t even see it through your green goggles. Look out! They might come after you next, waiting around the corner.
As far as your view on the economy, if you boil it all the way down to a “you can’t take it with you when you die” argument, of course the economy isn’t real. I expect anyone who has given it a thought to have figured this out before they reach age 30. More concerning, as this is a political comment (again), is your socialist viewpoint. Perhaps the minions of the masters of the universe (hey, wasn’t that a cartoon, it must be true!) would have a harder time finding you in a Socialist country or at least you can be happier and sleep easier at night. Just trying to help you avoid the iceberg, if they still exist.
Bellvue is calling Mr. Salmony.
Dear Mazzefr,
Your comments remind to remember just how difficult is the work in which you and I and others in the Earth & Sky community are engaged.
Perhaps you are correct in your ‘assessment’ that I have lost my mind and am ready for one of the psych wards at Bellevue Hospital. On the other hand, it could be that your evaluation of my mental status is neither sufficiently evidence-based nor quite right. In any case, I like the idea of visiting a psychologist.
As ever,
Steve
Steve
Dear Mazzefr,
Your comments have given me pause. Later this month I have an appointment to see a respected colleague in psychology.
As ever,
Steve
Best wishes Dr. Salmony.
Dear Mazzefr,
My appointment is on February 21st. In the meantime, perhaps you and I can work together on something that could be meaningful. Others are encouraged to participate.
Our differences are plainly stated in this thread and do not need to be repeated.
I expect you would agree with me when I say that about 90% of the educated people we know would probably agree with what YOU are reporting as real. Of the remaining 10%, I would like to suggest that probably 10% of the remaining 10% would agree with ME. According to my calculation, that would mean that 90 of every one hundred people agree with YOU and 1 in every one hundred people agrees with me. Of course, this is nothing more than a good faith guess.
I will also submit that my view is shared by very few people and that your view is one that is widely shared and consensually in most places. The E & S community is not like most places; however, it is likely that most people in the E & S community do not agree with either YOU or ME, not really.
What I am asking of you and the E & S community here and now is this. Please find one top-rank expert in human population science who will simply provide a professional critique of the research of Russell P. Hopfenberg, Ph.D. and David I. Pimentel, Ph.D. regarding human population dynamics and the human overpopulation of Earth.
While I cannot yield to any of the various and sundry efforts to have me stop the AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, please know that as soon as the scientific evidence from Hopfenberg and Pimentel is sensibly refuted, be assured the campaign will end. And at that time, as you have suggested, Mazzefr, it may be Bellevue Hospital will accept me because we will have evidence that I have lost my mind and, even worse, lost touch with sacred science itself.
Your assistance will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Steve
Dr. Salmony,
I am a common man of above average intelligence. I am not as learned or schooled as you or the doctors you mentioned above. I have no access to those who would refute these men, and if I did, I doubt you would believe them as it seems anyone who does not walk in lock step is a blasphemer and surely paid off by big oil.
I know nothing of these men, so I googled their names to find aside from links to Earthsky.org, a link to marklynas.org who’s home page gushes with the eco-apocalypse. “Hellish vision of life on a hotter planet”, “our FINAL warning: degree by degree”. OH MY!
You run in small circles Doctor Salmony. The only therapy you may need is to get out of the “triangle’ more. Take a vacation from our eminent doom. Stand in a cornfield in Nebraska, where there isn’t another human for miles. Visit Alaska, NW territories or a train ride across Siberia. For warmer climates, a safari in Africa or guided trek with the Aborigines in Australia to Ayers Rock.
Our planet is spectacular and will be for millions of years. I suspect that when we truly over-populate we will quickly adapt, be it through agro-tech improvements or colonizing Mars.
I truly wish you the best and bid you farewell. As stated earlier, my true interest in ES was astronomy and will likely not return to this thread.
Sincerely,
Mazzefr
Dear Mazzefr,
If I am anything at all, I am a common man, too.
You and I are doing something significant in this thread, I believe. The dialogue mainly promulgated by you and me here is precisely what needs to be happening among many people from many places.
Although engaging is dialogue is difficult, such communication can be vital when it is focused upon taboo topics, ones that most people will not speak about openly. How, pray tell me, can humankind do what is within its power to preserve life as we know it and the integrity of Earth if discussions like this one do not occur among us all?
There are topics that are not the subject of discussion in public meetings or at professional conferences. Increasing per capita consumption of scarce natural resources, the seemingly endless expansion of economic globalization in a finite world and the unbridled growth of absolute global human population numbers are examples of subjects people do not mention.
Let me say to you, Mazzefr, as clearly and convincingly as I am able, that you have done more to discharge your responsibilities to science than many scientists I know who claim expertise in matters relevant to this dialogue.
Thanks, too, for your willingness to consider my request regarding ONE TOP-RANK SCIENTIST WITH EXPERTISE IN HUMAN POPULATION SCIENCE. That good, unchallenged, peer-reviewed scientific evidence from Russell Hopfenberg, Ph.D. and David Pimentel, Ph.D. remains marginalized and all but universally ignored in the 2007 is something I find incomprehensible and unacceptable. At least to me, it seems scientists necessarily have “duties to perform” by commenting on new scientific research. How, pray tell me, are people to distinguish between good science and mad science?
I believe our planetary home is just as spectacular as you say it is. My goal is to be able to look my children in the eye and say, “ Despite having worshipped the economy and money most of my life and, consequently, having come late to this struggle to protect the integrity of Earth from ruin by the human species, I have done the best I could with what I possess to leave you a world that is as spectacular as it is now for my friend, Mazzefr, and me.”
Let me say, in closing, that I extend to you now only the very best wishes for the future. Godspeed.
Very truly yours,
Steve
Dear Mazzefr,
Farewell, my friend.
Steve