The Great Global Warming/Cooling Thread Part 2

[qualia]

Public acceptance of climate change affected by word usage

Public acceptance of climate change's reality may have been influenced by the rate at which words moved from scientific journals into the mainstream, according to anthropologist Michael O'Brien, dean of the College of Arts and Science at the University of Missouri. A recent study of word usage in popular literature by O'Brien and his colleagues documented how the usage of certain words related to climate change has risen and fallen over the past two centuries. Understanding how word usage affects public acceptance of science could lead to better science communication and a more informed public.

"Scientists can learn from this study that the general public shouldn't be expected to understand technical terms or be convinced by journal papers written in technical jargon," O'Brien said. "Journalists must explain scientific terms in ways people can understand and thereby ease the movement of those terms into general speech. That can be a slow process. Several words related to climate change diffused into the popular vocabulary over a 30-50 year timeline."

O'Brien's study found that, by 2008, several important terms in the discussion of climate change had entered popular literature from technical obscurity in the early 1900s. These terms included:

• Biodiversity – the degree of variation in life forms within a given area
• Holocene – the current era of the Earth's history, which started at the end of the last ice age
• Paleoclimate –the prehistoric climate, often deduced from ice cores, tree rings and pollen trapped in sediments
• Phenology – the study of how climate and other environmental factors influence the timing of events in organisms' life cycles

Not every term was adopted at the same rate or achieved the same degree of popularity. Biodiversity, for example, came into popular use quickly in only a few years in the late 80s and early 90s. Other terms, like Holocene or phenology, have taken decades and are still relatively uncommon.

"The adoption of words into the popular vocabulary is like the evolution of species," O'Brien said. "A complex process governs why certain terms are successful and adopted into everyday speech, while others fail. For example, the term 'meme' has entered the vernacular, as opposed to the term 'culturgen,' although both refer to a discrete unit of culture, such as a saying transferred from person to person."

To observe the movement of words into popular literature, O'Brien and his colleagues searched the database of 7 million books created by Google. They used the "Ngram" feature of the database to track the number of appearances of climate change keywords in literature since 1800. The usage rate of those climate change terms was compared to the usage of "the," which is the most common word in the English language. Statistical analysis of usage rates was calculated in part by co-author William Brock, a new member of MU's Department of Economics and member of the National Academy of Sciences.

More information: The study, "Word Diffusion and Climate Science" was published in the journal PLOS ONE and can be viewed here: www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0047966 A portion of O'Brien's experiment can be repeated using any computer with internet access. 1. Go to books.google.com/ngrams 2. Enter terms such as "climate change," "global warming," or "anthropogenic" and note how they have changed in usage over the past century. A New York Times op-ed "The Buzzwords of the Crowd," by O'Brien and first author R. Alexander Bentley of the University of Bristol further discussed their research and its implications for society.

Provided by University of Missouri-Columbia

http://phys.org/news/2013-01-climate-affected-word-usage.html

[Dolos]

This report is not what Obama needs at the moment given that he has finally decided to address climate change. Even I was amazed there was no mention of it at all throughout the whole US election. Whilst the American people are freezing a group of respected scientists bring out a report that can only cast doubt in their minds as it does in mine. I don't know how you can just shrug this stuff off cause I can't. How can you just say the science is settled, move on?

　

(note: I would like to debate their findings. I'm not interested in tearing down the reputations of the authors/scientists or just trashing the website the information was sourced from...It gets none of us anywhere and just leads to more childish arguments)

SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY REPORT The Right Climate Stuff Research Team JANUARY 23, 2013 The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) research team is a volunteer group of more than 20 scientists and engineers who are primarily retired veterans of our manned space program. We began our investigation into the controversial issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) in February 2012. We have reviewed, studied and debated available data and scientific reports regarding many factors that affect temperature variations of the earth's surface and atmosphere. We have also studied the well-documented beneficial, as well as potentially detrimental effects, of more CO2 in our atmosphere. This report provides a summary of findings that we have reached at this point into our investigation.

--------------------------------------------------

1. The science that predicts the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming is not settled science. 2. There is no convincing physical evidence of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Most of the alarm regarding AGW results from output of unvalidated computer models. We understand scientific arguments regarding how doubling CO2 in the atmosphere over a hundred years or more (if possible) can have a small direct warming effect, but we question the accuracy of feedback simulations in current models computing climate system responses that amplify CO2 effects. Efforts to estimate climate sensitivity to CO2 based solely on physical data have large uncertainties because many factors affect global temperatures, and CO2 levels rise in the atmosphere after the earth warms due to other factors. While paleoclimate data clearly show CO2 levels rise and fall in the atmosphere hundreds of years after temperature rises and falls due to other causes, the evidence is very weak to support claims of a catastrophic rise in global temperatures caused by CO2 emissions related to human activity. 3. Computer models need to be validated before being used in critical decision-making. Our manned aerospace backgrounds in dealing with models of complex phenomena have convinced us that this rule must be followed to avoid decisions with serious unintended consequences. 4. Because there is no immediate threat of global warming requiring swift corrective action, we have time to study global climate changes and improve our prediction accuracy. While there are many benefits due to some global warming, the major threats appear to be associated with a net loss of Greenland and Antarctica ice sheet mass that would contribute to a gradual sea-level rise. The history, current trends, and specific causes of ice sheet melting and ice accumulation by precipitation must be better understood before determining how best to respond to threats of accelerated sea-level rise. 5. Our US government is over-reacting to concerns about Anthropogenic Global Warming. More CO2 in the atmosphere would be beneficial for forest and crop growth to support the earth's growing population, so control of CO2 emissions is not an obvious best solution to hyped-up concerns regarding AGW. Eventually the earth will run out of fossil fuels and alternative energy sources will be required. Market forces will (and should) play a big role in this transition to alternative energy sources. Government funding of promising research and development objectives for alternative fuels appears to be a better option at this time than expenditures of enormous resources to limit CO2 emissions. 6. A wider range of solution options should be studied for global warming or cooling threats from any credible cause. CO2 effectiveness in controlling global average temperatures or sea levels has not been established. More reliable and greater control authority may be available from engineering solutions that would accommodate the beneficial aspects of more CO2 in the atmosphere.

http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/SummaryPrelimReport.html

[Halcyon Daze]

Do you really need this explained to you??? Perhaps you just want to believe CC is all just a myth or whatever.

You really are a man of poor judgement if you think ^this^ crap has any substance, it's all ALTERNATE REALITY STUFF...

Sorry, but WAKE-UP MAN!!

Edited January 24, 2013 by Halcyon Daze

[Dolos]

Do you really need this explained to you??? Perhaps you just want to believe CC is all just a myth or whatever.

You really are a man of poor judgement if you think ^this^ crap has any substance, it's all ALTERNATE REALITY STUFF...

Sorry, but WAKE-UP MAN!!

Well done mate...poor form again. You obviously can't debate this rationaly. Again all you have done is attack me. Silly stuff really.

[qualia]

i want to come back to this as i'm a little busy, but:

1. The science that predicts the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming is not settled science.

no one said it was. the "settled science" part comes from the fact that AGW is real and present. the effects of AGW are still to be determined. trying to rewrite history there i think. there was a sensational quote from bolt recently saying all the skeptics he knows say he globe is warming and humans are responsible, yet his blog is full of "zomg no warming for 17 years" posts. a little case of cognitive dissonance there, i think.

2.a output of unvalidated computer models

hmmm.....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20100322194954/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/models-2/

not to mention that as soon as met predicts a lower than projected temperature from model predictions, people like you are all over it. a case of cherry picking, i think.

3. 3. Computer models need to be validated before being used in critical decision-making.

see above

and i'll come back to the rest tonight,

[Halcyon Daze]

Like I said, it's alternate reality stuff. What's to debate?

They try to say there's proven benefits of Global Warming but only a "potentially detrimental effect" from it.

Yep, That's delusional alright.

Lift your standards Dolos, this is one of your worst yet.

[Dolos]

i want to come back to this as i'm a little busy, but:

1. The science that predicts the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming is not settled science.

no one said it was. the "settled science" part comes from the fact that AGW is real and present. the effects of AGW are still to be determined. trying to rewrite history there i think. there was a sensational quote from bolt recently saying all the skeptics he knows say he globe is warming and humans are responsible, yet his blog is full of "zomg no warming for 17 years" posts. a little case of cognitive dissonance there, i think.

2.a output of unvalidated computer models

hmmm.....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20100322194954/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/models-2/

not to mention that as soon as met predicts a lower than projected temperature from model predictions, people like you are all over it. a case of cherry picking, i think.

3. 3. Computer models need to be validated before being used in critical decision-making.

see above

and i'll come back to the rest tonight,

Can I just remind you of one thing here? I'm not the 20 or so scientists who put this report together. There is something about this body of work that really gets under Halcyon's skin. But anyway, I can pull your first statement apart easily...like this: The report says AGW is 'not settled science. Fair statement! But you say:

....no one said it was

. Yet how many times have you read Halcyon say things like this: and I quote.."Just accept the science and move on basically, we have a planet to save" I won't waste any time chasing up one of whitewinds quotes because you have been reading the same thread as me. They are every where.

So your already wrong. I have lost count of the times I have been told here that the science is settled.

IT"S NOT!

Thanks for at least taking the time to look at it and respond. Look forward to your follow up.

[Dolos]

Like I said, it's alternate reality stuff. What's to debate?

They try to say there's proven benefits of Global Warming but only a "potentially detrimental effect" from it.

Yep, That's delusional alright.

Lift your standards Dolos, this is one of your worst yet.

They say? They are a body of respected scientists...Who are you? Oh thats right...you is on the 'corroboree' so you are an expert on all things.

You have shown you are not up to any form of debate unless all sides are in agreement. There are plenty of parts of the world that would benifit from some warming...to say otherwise is about as delusional as one man can get. You should move on before you make a real goose out of yourself.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Dolos

[waterboy 2.0]

Current state of glaciers in the tropical Andes: a multi-century perspective on glacier evolution and climate change

A. Rabatel¹, B. Francou², A. Soruco³, J. Gomez⁴, B. Cáceres⁵, J. L. Ceballos⁶, R. Basantes^2,7, M. Vuille⁸, J.-E. Sicart², C. Huggel⁹, M. Scheel⁹, Y. Lejeune¹⁰, Y. Arnaud², M. Collet^2,7, T. Condom², G. Consoli², V. Favier¹, V. Jomelli¹¹, R. Galarraga⁷, P. Ginot^1,12, L. Maisincho⁵, J. Mendoza¹³, M. Ménégoz¹, E. Ramirez¹³, P. Ribstein¹⁴, W. Suarez¹⁵, M. Villacis⁷, and P. Wagnon²

¹UJF-Grenoble 1/CNRS, Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Géophysique de l'Environnement (LGGE) UMR5183, Grenoble, 38041, France

²IRD/UJF-Grenoble 1/CNRS/Grenoble-INP, Laboratoire d'étude des Transferts en Hydrologie et Environnement (LTHE) UMR5564, Grenoble, 38041, France

³UMSA, IGEMA, Calle 27, Cota Cota, La Paz, Bolivia

⁴ANA, UGRH, Huaraz, Peru

⁵INAMHI, Iñaquito N36-14 y Corea, Quito, Ecuador

⁶IDEAM, Carrera 10 N20-30, Bogotá DC, Colombia

⁷EPN, DICA, Ladrón de Guevara E11-253, Quito, Ecuador

⁸Department of Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, University at Albany, Albany, NY, USA

⁹Department of Geography, University of Zurich, 8057 Zürich, Switzerland

¹⁰CEN, CNRM-GAME, Météo-France/CNRS, Saint Martin d'Hères, France

¹¹UPS-Paris 1/CNRS/UVM-Paris 12, Laboratoire de Géographie Physique (LGP) UMR8591, Meudon, 92195, France

¹²IRD/CNRS/IFSTTAR/Météo-France/UJF-Grenoble 1/Université de Savoie/Grenoble-INP, Observatoire des Sciences de l'Univers Grenoble (OSUG) UMS222, St Martin d'Hères, 38400, France

¹³UMSA, IHH, Calle 30, Cota Cota, La Paz, Bolivia

¹⁴UMPC/CNRS/EPHE, Sisyphe UMR7619, Paris, 75252, France

¹⁵SENAMHI, av. Las Palmas s/n, Lima, Peru

Abstract. The aim of this paper is to provide the community with a comprehensive overview of the studies of glaciers in the tropical Andes conducted in recent decades leading to the current status of the glaciers in the context of climate change. In terms of changes in surface area and length, we show that the glacier retreat in the tropical Andes over the last three decades is unprecedented since the maximum extension of the Little Ice Age (LIA, mid-17th–early 18th century). In terms of changes in mass balance, although there have been some sporadic gains on several glaciers, we show that the trend has been quite negative over the past 50 yr, with a mean mass balance deficit for glaciers in the tropical Andes that is slightly more negative than the one computed on a global scale. A break point in the trend appeared in the late 1970s with mean annual mass balance per year decreasing from −0.2 m w.e. in the period 1964–1975 to −0.76 m w.e. in the period 1976–2010. In addition, even if glaciers are currently retreating everywhere in the tropical Andes, it should be noted that this is much more pronounced on small glaciers at low altitudes that do not have a permanent accumulation zone, and which could disappear in the coming years/decades. Monthly mass balance measurements performed in Bolivia, Ecuador and Colombia show that variability of the surface temperature of the Pacific Ocean is the main factor governing variability of the mass balance at the decadal timescale. Precipitation did not display a significant trend in the tropical Andes in the 20th century, and consequently cannot explain the glacier recession. On the other hand, temperature increased at a significant rate of 0.10 °C decade⁻¹ in the last 70 yr. The higher frequency of El Niño events and changes in its spatial and temporal occurrence since the late 1970s together with a warming troposphere over the tropical Andes may thus explain much of the recent dramatic shrinkage of glaciers in this part of the world.

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/81/2013/tc-7-81-2013.html

[Halcyon Daze]

They're not climate scientists at all, they are just commentators with an agenda.

Anyone can put this sort of crap together on some website, it's paper thin and obviously so. It's merely conjecture from our all time favorite demographic, and has an openly stated political agenda.

I just can't believe you're 'convinced' by it. The only explanation is that you have either extremely poor judgement or you simply want to believe it's true.

Can't you tell it's crap? Are you just fooling yourself or what? You make no sense.

How are we supposed to take you seriously when you cling to this kind of dodgy garbage?

Edited January 25, 2013 by Halcyon Daze

[qualia]

I'm not the 20 or so scientists who put this report together.

thanks for clearing that up.

by "scientists" do you mean

Apollo Era NASA Retirees

well, i know i'd prefer to get information from people currently working in the field of climate science, not retirees from an unrelated field.

i suppose you feel differently. besides, there's not even a list of the so called "scientists" on the webpage you linked to. is this one of those "trust me i'm from the internet" moments? you'll need to try harder if you want to "pull apart" what i wrote.

[Halcyon Daze]

Ok, your so-called respected scientists include a couple geologists, a couple former astronauts, a physicist , mathematician, mechanical engineer, an environmentalist LOL an author, a couple professors of 'God knows what', a retired energy industry executive from BLOODY TEXAS! and a lone meteorologist. (Talk about mutton dressed up as lamb)

Sadly, none are actual climate scientists

Yeah and their presentations are quite poor, propaganda-style shock-pieces with dodgy sources.

Oh but they're from NASA!!!!

Well NASA has been one of the leading bodies of climate science, so yeah, maybe you should go have a quick look at what the ACTUAL Climate Scientists from NASA have found.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Halcyon Daze

[LokStok]

NASA's response

"NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate. As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue 'claims' about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion...If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse."

Waleed Abdalati, NASA Chief Scientist.

http://www.shawnotto.com/neorenaissance/blog20120413.html

[Halcyon Daze]

Wow ^that's^ a seriously BRILLIANT article LokStock. Kudos to you mate.

[Dolos]

I'm finished....I'll just come back and laugh at you lot when it's over. Won't be too long. We laughed like fuck in the 70's at another lot of alarmists and we will be doing it again. In the words of another respected member of this forum..and I quote:

You should cease. There comes a time when the age old saying becomes most apparent - Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

They're being ignorant to the point that their pages and pages of copy-pasta drown out any other real question or opinion on the subject.

I will not partake in their nonsense. It's arrogant and selfish as it denies people a real opportunity to see some of the more pressing questions that have been asked.

Out of respect he shall remain anonomus.

He is right and I shall head his advise....I've much more important things to be worrying about than your obsessive doom and gloom garbage. Your elitist boys club shit gets very tireing. Very childish for so called mature adults. ..... how much time have you wasted out of your lives trying to silence little old me. Am I that important? Now I‘m just bored with you....I'll pop back every now and again as important events unfold.

cheers children....

[Halcyon Daze]

I'm finished....I'll just come back and laugh at you lot when it's over. Won't be too long. We laughed like fuck in the 70's at another lot of alarmists and we will be doing it again. In the words of another respected member of this forum..and I quote:

Out of respect he shall remain anonomus.

He is right and I shall head his advise....I've much more important things to be worrying about than your obsessive doom and gloom garbage. Your elitist boys club shit gets very tireing. Very childish for so called mature adults. ..... how much time have you wasted out of your lives trying to silence little old me. Am I that important? Now I‘m just bored with you....I'll pop back every now and again as important events unfold.

cheers children....

Noooooo Don't Go! Oh well, thanks for showing us just what science is up against these days.

Now I don't want to distract from LokStock's brilliant post so here's his link again... ENJOY!

http://www.shawnotto.com/neorenaissance/blog20120413.html

Edited January 25, 2013 by Halcyon Daze

[qualia]

don't give up now dolos you were so close

so close....

[qualia]

It’s a commonly held belief, even within the climate action advocacy community, that significant technological breakthroughs are necessary to harness enough clean, renewable energy to power our global energy demands.

Not so, says a new study published this month, which makes an ambitious case for "sustainable sources" providing 95 percent of global energy demand by mid-century.

This new analysis, "non-sensical graph and hollow "plan" for "North American energy indepedence."

Image credit: Shutterstock | James Steidl

Desmogblog (http://s.tt/1nrKZ)

[CβL]

I just want to say this - the term 'global warming' is a bit of a misnomer. All that's actually happening via the greenhouse effect, is that radiant energy (infrared) is being reflected back towards Earth. That's it.

The effect is better described that there's increased energy in the system (the system is Earth plus the atmosphere), and that this energy must obviously manifest in some form. So your immediate predictions of the temperature rising (based on the greenhouse effect's description) are actually based on the assumption that there's constant heat everywhere on Earth (we'll get to why). This is obviously not true (polar ice-caps, the ocean absorbs more heat than a desert, etc) - a thing called a heat gradient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_gradient) exists between the hot and the cold areas. The greater the difference between the temperatures of the two areas of fluid (air is a fluid), the greater the movement of matter from the cold to the hot and movement of heat from the hot to the cold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection).

Aka there's more wind, and more ocean currents. Not everywhere all at once. But between areas of difference. Some of these may cancel out - there might be two wind currents meeting, and previously one was stronger - now the other one gets a power-up, and they both cancel out (for example). Now lastly, the Earth's climate is a highly complex system, where the assumption that a small change here, will have a small change here cannot be made. Essentially, the butterfly effect (that a butterfly in Mexico, could create a tornado through a chain of events, that destroys all of Iowa [good riddance] ). Now this isn't some wacky idea - it's real (not the butterfly terrorist), but the idea that a tiny change, can have a huge difference, and more importantly - that we cannot predict /exactly/ what will happen in a chaotic system - any time into the future. But - we can predict properties of the system, such as average energy, or average flow rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_system . That's why the weather prediction is often off (usually they get the weather right, but not the location - i.e. a big cyclone will usually dodge a country, rather than evaporate).
Now basically, let's say the winds are moving faster, and cancelling each other out, and changing directions (easy to see why, based on the prior explanations), then when an arctic wind for example, is blowing faster, and is directed to somewhere with a lot of humidity (which was raised into the air by excess radiant energy), then there will be.... heavy frozen precipitation, more than usual (aka lots of snow).
The mean temperature would only rise evenly everywhere, if the planet had no wind, and was homogenous (made out of the same stuff everywhere), and wasn't spinning (no coriolis force to make wind).

So the roadmap for understanding this is:

1) Understand that the greenhouse effect is the trapping of radiant energy (photons).

2) Understand that the planet has areas of different absorption rates (black rock mesa [absorbs heat], middle of the ocean, shallow salt pan lake, snow [reflects heat]), and initial temperatures (polar ice caps, rocky mesas, middle of the ocean).

3) Understand that convection occurs whenever there's a heat gradient
4) Understand that the climate is a chaotic system, and thus you must treat it as such (re-read above, I've used colorful language, but it's pretty much to the T factual)

5) Understand how some local climates can be hotter, some can be colder and windier, but the mean temperature of the globe is higher than ever before

Thank you for understanding climate change.

Edited January 26, 2013 by CβL

[qualia]

How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming?

James Hansen has been publicly speaking about climate change since 1988. The NASA climatologist testified to Congress that year and he's been testifying ever since to crowds large and small, most recently to a small gathering of religious leaders outside the White House last week. The grandfatherly scientist has the long face of a man used to seeing bad news in the numbers and speaks with the thick, even cadence of the northern Midwest, where he grew up, a trait that also helps ensure that his sometimes convoluted science gets across.

This cautious man has also been arrested multiple times.

His acts of civil disobedience started in 2009, and he was first arrested in 2011 for protesting the development of Canada's tar sands and, especially, the Keystone XL pipeline proposal that would serve to open the spigot for such oil even wider. "To avoid passing tipping points, such as initiation of the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, we need to limit the climate forcing severely. It's still possible to do that, if we phase down carbon emissions rapidly, but that means moving expeditiously to clean energies of the future," he explains. "Moving to tar sands, one of the dirtiest, most carbon-intensive fuels on the planet, is a step in exactly the opposite direction, indicating either that governments don't understand the situation or that they just don't give a damn."

He adds: "People who care should draw the line."

Hansen is not alone in caring. In addition to a groundswell of opposition to the 2,700-kilometer-long Keystone pipeline, 17 of his fellow climate scientists joined him in signing a letter urging Pres. Barack Obama to reject the project last week. Simply put, building the pipeline—and enabling more tar sands production—runs "counter to both national and planetary interests," the researchers wrote. "The year of review that you asked for on the project made it clear exactly how pressing the climate issue really is." Obama seemed to agree in his second inaugural address this week, noting "we will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations."

At the same time, the U.S. imports nearly nine million barrels of oil per day and burns nearly a billion metric tons of coal annually. China's coal burning is even larger and continues to grow by leaps and bounds. Partially as a result, global emissions of greenhouse gases continue to grow by leaps and bounds too—and China is one alternative customer eager for the oil from Canada's tar sands. Neither developed nor developing nations will break the fossil-fuel addiction overnight, and there are still more than a billion people who would benefit from more fossil-fuel burning to help lift them out of energy poverty. The question lurking behind the fight in North America over Keystone, the tar sands and climate change generally is: How much of the planet's remaining fossil fuels can we burn?

The trillion-tonne question

To begin to estimate how much fossil fuels can be burned, one has to begin with a guess about how sensitive the global climate really is to additional carbon dioxide. If you think the climate is vulnerable to even small changes in concentrations of greenhouse gases—as Hansen and others do—then we have already gone too far. Global concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have reached 394 parts per million, up from 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution and the highest levels seen in at least 800,000 years. Hansen's math suggests 350 ppm would be a safer level, given that with less than a degree Celsius of warming from present greenhouse gas concentrations, the world is already losing ice at an alarming rate, among other faster-than-expected climate changes.

International governments have determined that 450 ppm is a number more to their liking, which, it is argued, will keep the globe's average temperatures from warming more than 2 degrees C. Regardless, the world is presently on track to achieve concentrations well above that number. Scientists since chemist Svante Arrhenius of Sweden in 1896 have noted that reaching concentrations of roughly 560 ppm would likely result in a world with average temperatures roughly 3 degrees C warmer—and subsequent estimates continue to bear his laborious, hand-written calculations out. Of course, rolling back greenhouse gas concentrations to Hansen's preferred 350 ppm—or any other number for that matter—is a profoundly unnatural idea. Stasis is not often found in the natural world.

Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may not be the best metric for combating climate change anyway. "What matters is our total emission rate," notes climate modeler Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, another signee of the anti-Keystone letter. "From the perspective of the climate system, a CO2 molecule is a CO2 molecule and it doesn't matter if it came from coal versus natural gas."

Physicist Myles Allen of the University of Oxford in England and colleagues estimated that the world could afford to put one trillion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere by 2050 to have any chance of restraining global warming below 2 degrees C. To date, fossil fuel burning, deforestation and other actions have put nearly 570 billion metric tons of carbon in the atmosphere—and Allen estimates the trillionth metric ton of carbon will be emitted around the summer of 2041 at present rates. "Tons of carbon is fundamental," adds Hansen, who has argued that burning all available fossil fuels would result in global warming of more than 10 degrees C. "It does not matter much how fast you burn it."

Alberta's oil sands represent a significant tonnage of carbon. With today's technology there are roughly 170 billion barrels of oil to be recovered in the tar sands, and an additional 1.63 trillion barrels worth underground if every last bit of bitumen could be separated from sand. "The amount of CO2 locked up in Alberta tar sands is enormous," notes mechanical engineer John Abraham of the University of Saint Thomas in Minnesota, another signer of the Keystone protest letter from scientists. "If we burn all the tar sand oil, the temperature rise, just from burning that tar sand, will be half of what we've already seen"—an estimated additional nearly 0.4 degree C from Alberta alone.

As it stands, the oil sands industry has greenhouse gas emissions greater than New Zealand and Kenya—combined. If all the bitumen in those sands could be burned, another 240 billion metric tons of carbon would be added to the atmosphere and, even if just the oil sands recoverable with today's technology get burned, 22 billion metric tons of carbon would reach the sky. And reserves usually expand over time as technology develops, otherwise the world would have run out of recoverable oil long ago.

The greenhouse gas emissions of mining and upgrading tar sands is roughly 79 kilograms per barrel of oil presently, whereas melting out the bitumen in place requires burning a lot of natural gas—boosting emissions to more than 116 kilograms per barrel, according to oil industry consultants IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates. All told, producing and processing tar sands oil results in roughly 14 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than the average oil used in the U.S. And greenhouse gas emissions per barrel have stopped improving and started increasing slightly, thanks to increasing development of greenhouse gas–intensive melting-in-place projects. "Emissions have doubled since 1990 and will double again by 2020," says Jennifer Grant, director of oil sands research at environmental group Pembina Institute in Canada.

Just one mine expansion, Shell's Jackpine mine, currently under consideration for the Albian mega-mine site, would increase greenhouse gas emissions by 1.18 million metric tons per year. "If Keystone is approved then we're locking in a several more decades of dependence on fossil fuels," says climate modeler Daniel Harvey of the University of Toronto. "That means higher CO2 emissions, higher concentrations [in the atmosphere] and greater warming that our children and grandchildren have to deal with."

And then there's all the carbon that has to come out of the bitumen to turn it into a usable crude oil.

Hidden carbon

In the U.S. State Department's review of the potential environmental impacts of the Keystone project, consultants EnSys Energy suggested that building the pipeline would not have "any significant impact" on greenhouse gas emissions, largely because Canada's tar sands would likely be developed anyway. But the Keystone pipeline represents the ability to carry away an additional 830,000 barrels per day—and the Albertan tar sands are already bumping up against constraints in the ability to move their product. That has led some to begin shipping the oil by train, truck and barge—further increasing the greenhouse gas emissions—and there is a proposal to build a new rail line, capable of carrying five million barrels of oil per year from Fort McMurray to Alaska's Valdez oil terminal.

Then there's the carbon hidden in the bitumen itself. Either near oil sands mines in the mini-refineries known as upgraders or farther south after the bitumen has reached Midwestern or Gulf Coast refineries, its long, tarry hydrocarbon chains are cracked into the shorter, lighter hydrocarbons used as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. The residue of this process is a nearly pure black carbon known as petroleum (pet) coke that, if it builds up, has to be blasted loose, as if mining for coal in industrial equipment. The coke is, in fact, a kind of coal and is often burned in the dirtiest fossil fuel's stead. Canadian tar sands upgraders produce roughly 10 million metric tons of the stuff annually, whereas U.S. refineries pump out more than 61 million metric tons per year.

Pet coke is possibly the dirtiest fossil fuel available, emitting at least 30 percent more CO2 per ton than an equivalent amount of the lowest quality mined coals. According to multiple reports from independent analysts, the production (and eventual burning) of such petroleum coke is not included in industry estimates of tar sands greenhouse gas emissions because it is a co-product. Even without it, the Congressional Research Service estimates that tar sands oil results in at least 14 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than do more conventional crude oils.

Although tar sands may be among the least climate-friendly oil produced at present—edging out alternatives such as fracking for oil trapped in shale deposits in North Dakota and flaring the gas—the industry has made attempts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, unlike other oil-producing regions. For example, there are alternatives to cracking bitumen and making pet coke, albeit more expensive ones, such as adding hydrogen to the cracked bitumen, a process that leaves little carbon behind, employed by Shell, among others.

More recently, Shell has begun adding carbon-capture-and-storage (CCS) technology to capture the emissions from a few of its own upgraders, a project known as Quest. The program, when completed in 2015, will aim to capture and store one million metric tons of CO2 per year, or a little more than a third of the CO2 emissions of Shell's operation at that site. And tar sands producers do face a price on carbon—$15 per metric ton by Alberta provincial regulation—for any emissions above a goal of reducing by 12 percent the total amount of greenhouse gas emitted per total number of barrels produced.

The funds collected—some $312 million to date—are then used to invest in clean technology, but more than 75 percent of the projects are focused on reducing emissions from oil sands, unconventional oils and other fossil fuels. And to drive more companies to implement CCS in the oil sands would require a carbon price of $100 per metric ton or more. "We don't have a price on carbon in the province that is compelling companies to pursue CCS," Pembina's Grant argues.

In fact, Alberta's carbon price may be little more than political cover. "It gives us some ammunition when people attack us for our carbon footprint, if nothing else," former Alberta Energy Minister Ron Liepert told Scientific American in September 2011. Adds Beverly Yee, assistant deputy minister at Alberta's Environment and Sustainable Resource Development agency, more recently, "Greenhouse gases? We don't see that as a regional issue." From the individual driver in the U.S. to oil sands workers and on up to the highest echelons of government in North America, everyone dodges responsibility.

Price of carbon

A true price on carbon, one that incorporates all the damages that could be inflicted by catastrophic climate change, is exactly what Hansen believes is needed to ensure that more fossil fuels, like the tar sands, stay buried. In his preferred scheme, a price on carbon that slowly ratcheted up would be collected either where the fossil fuel comes out of the ground or enters a given country, such as at a port. But instead of that tax filling government coffers, the collected revenue should be rebated in full to all legal residents in equal amounts—an approach he calls fee and dividend. "Not one penny to reducing the national debt or off-setting some other tax," the government scientist argues. "Those are euphemisms for giving the money to government, allowing them to spend more."

Such a carbon tax would make fossil fuels more expensive than alternatives, whether renewable resources such as wind and sun or low-carbon nuclear power. As a result, these latter technologies might begin to displace things like coal-burning power plants or halt major investments in oil infrastructure like the Keystone XL pipeline.

As it stands, producing 1.8 million barrels per day of tar sands oil resulted in the emissions of some 47.1 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent in 2011, up nearly 2 percent from the year before and still growing, according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. In the same year coal-fired power plants in the U.S. emitted more than two billion metric tons of CO2-equivalent. "If you think that using other petroleum sources is much better [than tar sands], then you're delusional," says chemical engineer Murray Gray, scientific director of the Center for Oil Sands Innovation at the University of Alberta.

In other words, tar sands are just a part of the fossil-fuel addiction—but still an important part. Projects either approved or under construction would expand tar sands production to over five million barrels per day by 2030. "Any expansion of an energy system that relies on the atmosphere to be its waste dump is bad news, whereas expansion of safe, affordable and environmentally acceptable energy technologies is good news," Carnegie's Caldeira says.

There's a lot of bad news these days then, from fracking shale for gas and oil in the U.S. to new coal mines in China. Oxford's Allen calculates that the world needs to begin reducing emissions by roughly 2.5 percent per year, starting now, in order to hit the trillion metric ton target by 2050. Instead emissions hit a new record this past year, increasing 3 percent to 34.7 billion metric tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

Stopping even more bad news is why Hansen expects to be arrested again, whether at a protest against mountaintop removal mining for coal in West Virginia or a sit-in outside the White House to convince the Obama administration to say no to Keystone XL and any expansion of the tar sands industry. The Obama administration has already approved the southern half of the pipeline proposal—and if the northern link is approved, a decision expected after March of this year, environmental group Oil Change International estimates that tar sands refined on the Gulf Coast would produce 16.6 million metric tons of CO2 annually just from the petroleum coke, which would be enough to fuel five coal-fired power plants for a year. All told, the increased tar sands production as a result of opening Keystone would be equal to opening six new coal-fired power plants, according to Pembina Institute calculations.

Even as increased oil production in the U.S. diminishes the demand for tar sands-derived fuel domestically, if Keystone reaches the Gulf Coast, that oil will still be refined and exported. At the same time, Obama pledged to respond to climate change and argued for U.S. leadership in the transition to "sustainable energy sources" during his second inaugural address; approving Keystone might lead in the opposite direction.

For the tar sands "the climate forcing per unit energy is higher than most fossil fuels," argues Hansen, who believes he is fighting for the global climate his five grandchildren will endure—or enjoy. After all, none of his grandchildren have lived through a month with colder than average daily temperatures. There has not been one in the U.S. since February 1985, before even Hansen started testifying on global warming. As he says: "Going after tar sands—incredibly dirty, destroying the local environment for a very carbon-intensive fuel—is the sign of a terribly crazed addict."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=tar-sands-and-keystone-xl-pipeline-impact-on-global-warming

[whitewind]

Out of 13,950 climate papers published in the last 20 years only 24 reject AGW

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart

by James Lawrence Powell posted on November 25, 2012 08:45PM GMT

Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.

I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases "global warming" or "global climate change." The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology.

I read whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that "reject" human-caused global warming. To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone. John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli also reviewed and assigned some of these articles; John provided invaluable technical expertise.

This work follows that of Oreskes (Science, 2005) who searched for articles published between 1993 and 2003 with the keyword phrase “global climate change.” She found 928, read the abstracts of each and classified them. None rejected human-caused global warming. Using her criteria and time-span, I get the same result. Deniers attacked Oreskes and her findings, but they have held up.

Some articles on global warming may use other keywords, for example, “climate change” without the "global" prefix. But there is no reason to think that the proportion rejecting global warming would be any higher.

By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to "global warming," for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17.

[qualia]

"communistic conspiracy"

enough said

[Halcyon Daze]

That's one hellava conspiracy

[whitewind]

This one's a bit old, but worth reading.

Australasia has hottest 60 years in a millennium, scientists find

Study of tree rings, corals and ice cores finds unnatural spike in temperatures that lines up with manmade climate change

• Alison Rourke in Sydney
• guardian.co.uk,Thursday 17 May 2012 07.52 BST

Red dust blown in from Australia's parched interior blankets Sydney in 2009. Australia and its region are experiencing the hottest 60 years in a millennium, scientists have determined. Photograph: Greg Wood/AFP/Getty

The last 60 years have been the hottest in Australasia for a millennium and cannot be explained by natural causes, according to a new report by scientists that supports the case for a reduction in manmade carbon emissions.

In the first major study of its kind in the region, scientists at the University of Melbourne used natural data from 27 climate indicators, including tree rings, corals and ice cores to map temperature trends over the past 1,000 years.

"Our study revealed that recent warming in a 1,000-year context is highly unusual and cannot be explained by natural factors alone, suggesting a strong influence of human-caused climate change in the Australasian region," said the study's lead researcher, Dr Joelle Gergis.

The climate reconstruction was done in 3,000 different ways and concluded with 95% accuracy that no other period in the past 1,000 years match or exceeded post-1950 warming in Australia.

The study, published in the Journal of Climate, will be part of Australia's contribution to the fifth Intergovernmetal Panel on Climate Change report, due in 2014.

As part of the study, climate modellers used the natural data to analyse the impact of both natural events, like volcanic eruptions in the pre-industrial era, and the impact of human-induced climate change such as greenhouse gasses emissions on temperatures in the last millennium.

Dr Steven Phipps, from the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, who carried out the modeling, said the study demonstrated strong human influence on the climate in the region.

"The models showed that prior to 1850 there were not any long-term trends and temperature variations were likely to be caused by natural climate variability which is a random process," he said.

"But [the modeling showed] 20th-century warming significantly exceeds the amplitude of natural climate variability and demonstrates that the recent warming experience in Australia is unprecedented within the context of the last millennium."

Annual average daily maximum temperatures in Australia have increased by 0.75C since 1910. Since the 1950s each decade has been warmer than the one before it.

Australia's peak scientific body, the CSIRO, has said temperatues will rise by between 1C and 5C by 2070 when compared with recent decades. It predicts the number of droughts in southern Australia will increase in the future and that there will be an increase in intense rainfall in many areas.

[whitewind]

NASA's response

"NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate. As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue 'claims' about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion...If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse."

Waleed Abdalati, NASA Chief Scientist.

http://www.shawnotto.com/neorenaissance/blog20120413.html

Nicely said. Deniers have never added to the debate, only obfuscated, created confusion, lied, and spammed - anything to avoid looking at the evidence and accepting reality. Why this desperate need to avoid reality is beyond me, I can't see what's so confronting about this stuff, I really can't.