Too late? Why scientists say we should expect the worst

[Aurora]

The Guardian - 09/12/08

At a high-level academic conference on global warming at Exeter University this summer, climate scientist Kevin Anderson stood before his expert audience and contemplated a strange feeling. He wanted to be wrong. Many of those in the room who knew what he was about to say felt the same. His conclusions had already caused a stir in scientific and political circles. Even committed green campaigners said the implications left them terrified.

Anderson, an expert at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at Manchester University, was about to send the gloomiest dispatch yet from the frontline of the war against climate change.

Despite the political rhetoric, the scientific warnings, the media headlines and the corporate promises, he would say, carbon emissions were soaring way out of control - far above even the bleak scenarios considered by last year's report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Stern review. The battle against dangerous climate change had been lost, and the world needed to prepare for things to get very, very bad.

"As an academic I wanted to be told that it was a very good piece of work and that the conclusions were sound," Anderson said. "But as a human being I desperately wanted someone to point out a mistake, and to tell me we had got it completely wrong."

Nobody did. The cream of the UK climate science community sat in stunned silence as Anderson pointed out that carbon emissions since 2000 have risen much faster than anyone thought possible, driven mainly by the coal-fuelled economic boom in the developing world. So much extra pollution is being pumped out, he said, that most of the climate targets debated by politicians and campaigners are fanciful at best, and "dangerously misguided" at worst.

Article continues ...

[CountingDown]

Hmm . . just looking at the research and can't see a "when will this rise happen by" date. Just loked at the place we're moving to and it'll be ok up to 30m rise in sea level but they reckon if we get a 4 degree rise we could be looking at 70m plus - in which case we'll all be living on top of the pennines!

[MacG]

They are losing attention, and as good attention-whores they escalate the whoring to stay in the spotlight. Reminds about all those quasi-celebrities a couple of years ago - when attention was fading they first resorted to breast surgery, and later to sex- and drug scandals to stay in the spotlight. Soon they will be mercifully forgotten.

[skeptik]

The Guardian - 09/12/08
Despite the political rhetoric, the scientific warnings, the media headlines and the corporate promises, he would say, carbon emissions were soaring way out of control - far above even the bleak scenarios considered by last year's report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Stern review.

I dont see this . There doesnt seem to be anything out of the ordinary visible in the Mauna Loa data - generally respected as the gold standard for global CO2 levels. Apart from being a good example of deceitful graphology, note the non-zeroed vertical axis - the up curve shows no recent inflection indicative of 'soaring out of control' - its entirely consistent, and thus predictable - throughout.

realtime Atmospheric CO2 (updated monthly) from Mauna Loa observatory - note: The annual cycle shown in the non-averaged red line monthy plot is entirely natural.


It will be interesting to see what effect a global recession/depression has on the graph over the next few years. It should allow some interesting work relating economic activity to atmospheric CO2 levels.

[clv101]

Hmm . . just looking at the research and can't see a "when will this rise happen by" date. Just loked at the place we're moving to and it'll be ok up to 30m rise in sea level but they reckon if we get a 4 degree rise we could be looking at 70m plus - in which case we'll all be living on top of the pennines!

As far as I can tell there's is as close to makes no difference zero chance of seeing 70m plus in your lifetime. 30m is more than enough margin for your (and your children's) lifetime.

[clv101]

The Guardian - 09/12/08
Despite the political rhetoric, the scientific warnings, the media headlines and the corporate promises, he would say, carbon emissions were soaring way out of control - far above even the bleak scenarios considered by last year's report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Stern review.

I dont see this . There doesnt seem to be anything out of the ordinary visible in the Mauna Loa data - generally respected as the gold standard for global CO2 levels. Apart from being a good example of deceitful graphology, note the non-zeroed vertical axis - the up curve shows no recent inflection indicative of 'soaring out of control' - its entirely consistent, and thus predictable - throughout.

realtime Atmospheric CO2 (updated monthly) from Mauna Loa observatory

It will be interesting to see what effect a global recession/depression has on the graph over the next few years. It should allow some interesting work relating economic activity to atmospheric CO2 levels.

It's talking about emissions not concentrations - which have been running along the top or even above the IPCC SRES since it was published in 2001. That curve isn't straight, it's bending up. Recent increases in concentration have been at the fastest rate.

Also note that "non-zeroed vertical axis" is absolutely not deceitful graphology, it just requires minimal training to correctly interpret. There is nothing wrong with expecting your audience to take the effort to learn how to read a chart.

[skeptik]

That curve isn't straight, it's bending up.

Who said it was? Indeed. Bending up in an entirely consistent manner since the inception of the series.

Also note that "non-zeroed vertical axis" is absolutely not deceitful graphology, it just requires minimal training to correctly interpret. There is nothing wrong with expecting your audience to take the effort to learn how to read a chart.

A matter of taste. I prefer zeroed graphs. They tend to give a more realistic impression of any situation. Non-zeroed graphs are often used to re-enforce propaganda.

a link to an honest graph of CO2 level rise as measured at Mauna Loa (a bit big so I wont embed it)
http://impropergander.com/static/images/mauna-loa2.jpg

[MacG]

It's talking about emissions not concentrations - which have been running along the top or even above the IPCC SRES since it was published in 2001. That curve isn't straight, it's bending up. Recent increases in concentration have been at the fastest rate.

Also note that "non-zeroed vertical axis" is absolutely not deceitful graphology, it just requires minimal training to correctly interpret. There is nothing wrong with expecting your audience to take the effort to learn how to read a chart.

You have invested so much in this that I think you would perceive it as loss of social status to see the whole theory about AGW being wrong. If you could assume for a millisecond that it IS wrong, how would you handle the situation? I think you would react like any human being, and feel ashamed, embarrassed and stupid.

[clv101]

It's talking about emissions not concentrations - which have been running along the top or even above the IPCC SRES since it was published in 2001. That curve isn't straight, it's bending up. Recent increases in concentration have been at the fastest rate.

Also note that "non-zeroed vertical axis" is absolutely not deceitful graphology, it just requires minimal training to correctly interpret. There is nothing wrong with expecting your audience to take the effort to learn how to read a chart.

You have invested so much in this that I think you would perceive it as loss of social status to see the whole theory about AGW being wrong. If you could assume for a millisecond that it IS wrong, how would you handle the situation? I think you would react like any human being, and feel ashamed, embarrassed and stupid.

I see your point, but I don't think I would feel ashamed, embarrassed or stupid. If you've followed my writing on TOD these last couple of years I've been highly questioning of some some aspects of AGW. Looking to 'debunk' the more drastic projections through our understanding of fossil fuel resources and production rates. If it could be shown that temperatures weren't going to rise more than 2 degrees I'd be genuinely quite pleased.

Monbiot (who if you've followed my past writing you'll know I've been very critical off in the past) had a good article in the Guardian yesterday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... nvironment

He talks of people having a hard time accepting AGW, the quality of on-line discussions and the inaccurate portrayal of David Bellamy.

[Cabrone]

Hmm . . just looking at the research and can't see a "when will this rise happen by" date. Just loked at the place we're moving to and it'll be ok up to 30m rise in sea level but they reckon if we get a 4 degree rise we could be looking at 70m plus - in which case we'll all be living on top of the pennines!

I was at a meeting where Kevin Anderson was talking a few weeks ago and if I remember correctly he was talking about this century.

[MacG]

It's talking about emissions not concentrations - which have been running along the top or even above the IPCC SRES since it was published in 2001. That curve isn't straight, it's bending up. Recent increases in concentration have been at the fastest rate.

Also note that "non-zeroed vertical axis" is absolutely not deceitful graphology, it just requires minimal training to correctly interpret. There is nothing wrong with expecting your audience to take the effort to learn how to read a chart.

You have invested so much in this that I think you would perceive it as loss of social status to see the whole theory about AGW being wrong. If you could assume for a millisecond that it IS wrong, how would you handle the situation? I think you would react like any human being, and feel ashamed, embarrassed and stupid.

I see your point, but I don't think I would feel ashamed, embarrassed or stupid. If you've followed my writing on TOD these last couple of years I've been highly questioning of some some aspects of AGW. Looking to 'debunk' the more drastic projections through our understanding of fossil fuel resources and production rates. If it could be shown that temperatures weren't going to rise more than 2 degrees I'd be genuinely quite pleased.

Monbiot (who if you've followed my past writing you'll know I've been very critical off in the past) had a good article in the Guardian yesterday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... nvironment

He talks of people having a hard time accepting AGW, the quality of on-line discussions and the inaccurate portrayal of David Bellamy.

I'm sorry, but TOD is just to many words for my taste. I get an impression that the people there write for their own sake only. The same goes for Monbiot - just words, words, words, and no content at all. Sent a glance at the last link and was encouraged though - Monbiot is feeling the entire thing slipping away. Good riddance!

[Cabrone]

It's talking about emissions not concentrations - which have been running along the top or even above the IPCC SRES since it was published in 2001. That curve isn't straight, it's bending up. Recent increases in concentration have been at the fastest rate.

Also note that "non-zeroed vertical axis" is absolutely not deceitful graphology, it just requires minimal training to correctly interpret. There is nothing wrong with expecting your audience to take the effort to learn how to read a chart.

You have invested so much in this that I think you would perceive it as loss of social status to see the whole theory about AGW being wrong. If you could assume for a millisecond that it IS wrong, how would you handle the situation? I think you would react like any human being, and feel ashamed, embarrassed and stupid.

Geez, another MacG ad hominen attack based on nothing whatsoever.

I find it amusing that all the major scientific bodies and governments agree on AGW but you don't. Wow that must make you some kind of genius right?

If you think you are so correct then may I suggest that you email Kevin Anderson at the Tyndall centre and ask him how he arrived at his conclusions?

Somehow I doubt you will though because you can't handle reality.

[DominicJ]

, three worlds seem to exist in virtual isolation. In the physical world, global warming appears to be spilling over into runaway feedback: the most dangerous situation humankind has ever encountered.

Moonbats proof?
Why none of course.

The earth used to be a flaming ball of molten rock, runaway feedback is (one of the many) reasons climate science is such a joke.

[ziggy12345]

Government spending on scientific research was at an all time low until somebody came up with te idea of global warming (Climate change as its now called because its not warming anymore)

If you paid teachers a bonus for students results they will all get grade A*s. Its just a cash cow for the scientists to keep them in work.

[MacG]

It's talking about emissions not concentrations - which have been running along the top or even above the IPCC SRES since it was published in 2001. That curve isn't straight, it's bending up. Recent increases in concentration have been at the fastest rate.

Also note that "non-zeroed vertical axis" is absolutely not deceitful graphology, it just requires minimal training to correctly interpret. There is nothing wrong with expecting your audience to take the effort to learn how to read a chart.

You have invested so much in this that I think you would perceive it as loss of social status to see the whole theory about AGW being wrong. If you could assume for a millisecond that it IS wrong, how would you handle the situation? I think you would react like any human being, and feel ashamed, embarrassed and stupid.

Geez, another MacG ad hominen attack based on nothing whatsoever.

I find it amusing that all the major scientific bodies and governments agree on AGW but you don't. Wow that must make you some kind of genius right?

If you think you are so correct then may I suggest that you email Kevin Anderson at the Tyndall centre and ask him how he arrived at his conclusions?

Somehow I doubt you will though because you can't handle reality.

It does not matter. Collective delusions are generally not swayed by facts. Read "The Crowd" by Gustave LeBon for some insights.