Is global warming unstoppable?

Nov 23, 2009

In a provocative new study, a University of Utah scientist argues that rising carbon dioxide emissions - the major cause of global warming - cannot be stabilized unless the world's economy collapses or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day.

"It looks unlikely that there will be any substantial near-term departure from recently observed acceleration in emission rates," says the new paper by Tim Garrett, an associate professor of atmospheric sciences.

Garrett's study was panned by some economists and rejected by several journals before acceptance by Climatic Change, a journal edited by renowned Stanford University climate scientist Stephen Schneider. The study will be published online this week.

The study - which is based on the concept that physics can be used to characterize the evolution of civilization - indicates:

  • Energy conservation or efficiency doesn't really save energy, but instead spurs economic growth and accelerated .
  • Throughout history, a simple physical "constant" - an unchanging mathematical value - links global energy use to the world's accumulated economic productivity, adjusted for inflation. So it isn't necessary to consider population growth and standard of living in predicting society's future energy consumption and resulting .
  • "Stabilization of carbon dioxide emissions at current rates will require approximately 300 gigawatts of new non-carbon-dioxide-emitting power production capacity annually - approximately one new nuclear power plant (or equivalent) per day," Garrett says. "Physically, there are no other options without killing the economy."
Getting Heat for Viewing Civilization as a "Heat Engine"

Garrett says colleagues generally support his theory, while some economists are critical. One economist, who reviewed the study, wrote: "I am afraid the author will need to study harder before he can contribute."

"I'm not an economist, and I am approaching the economy as a physics problem," Garrett says. "I end up with a global economic growth model different than they have."

Garrett treats civilization like a "heat engine" that "consumes energy and does 'work' in the form of economic production, which then spurs it to consume more energy," he says.

"If society consumed no energy, civilization would be worthless," he adds. "It is only by consuming energy that civilization is able to maintain the activities that give it economic value. This means that if we ever start to run out of energy, then the value of civilization is going to fall and even collapse absent discovery of new energy sources."

Garrett says his study's key finding "is that accumulated economic production over the course of history has been tied to the rate of energy consumption at a global level through a constant factor."

That "constant" is 9.7 (plus or minus 0.3) milliwatts per inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar. So if you look at economic and energy production at any specific time in history, "each inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar would be supported by 9.7 milliwatts of primary energy consumption," Garrett says.

Garrett tested his theory and found this constant relationship between energy use and economic production at any given time by using United Nations statistics for global GDP (gross domestic product), U.S. Department of Energy data on global energy consumption during1970-2005, and previous studies that estimated global economic production as long as 2,000 years ago. Then he investigated the implications for carbon dioxide emissions.

"Economists think you need population and standard of living to estimate productivity," he says. "In my model, all you need to know is how fast energy consumption is rising. The reason why is because there is this link between the economy and rates of energy consumption, and it's just a constant factor."

Garrett adds: "By finding this constant factor, the problem of [forecasting] global economic growth is dramatically simpler. There is no need to consider population growth and changes in standard of living because they are marching to the tune of the availability of energy supplies."

To Garrett, that means the acceleration of carbon dioxide emissions is unlikely to change soon because our energy use today is tied to society's past economic productivity.

"Viewed from this perspective, civilization evolves in a spontaneous feedback loop maintained only by energy consumption and incorporation of environmental matter," Garrett says. It is like a child that "grows by consuming food, and when the child grows, it is able to consume more food, which enables it to grow more."

Is Meaningful Energy Conservation Impossible?

Perhaps the most provocative implication of Garrett's theory is that conserving energy doesn't reduce energy use, but spurs economic growth and more energy use.

"Making civilization more energy efficient simply allows it to grow faster and consume more energy," says Garrett.

He says the idea that resource conservation accelerates resource consumption - known as Jevons paradox - was proposed in the 1865 book "The Coal Question" by William Stanley Jevons, who noted that coal prices fell and coal consumption soared after improvements in steam engine efficiency.

So is Garrett arguing that conserving energy doesn't matter?

"I'm just saying it's not really possible to conserve energy in a meaningful way because the current rate of energy consumption is determined by the unchangeable past of economic production. … If it feels good to conserve energy, that is fine, but there shouldn't be any pretense that it will make a difference."

Yet, Garrett says his findings contradict his own previously held beliefs about conservation, and he continues to ride a bike or bus to work, line dry family clothing and use a push lawnmower.

An Inevitable Future for Carbon Dioxide Emissions?

Garrett says often-discussed strategies for slowing carbon dioxide emissions and include mention increased energy efficiency, reduced population growth and a switch to power sources that don't emit carbon dioxide, including nuclear, wind and solar energy and underground storage of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning. Another strategy is rarely mentioned: a decreased standard of living, which would occur if energy supplies ran short and the economy collapsed, he adds.

"Fundamentally, I believe the system is deterministic," says Garrett. "Changes in population and standard of living are only a function of the current energy efficiency. That leaves only switching to a non-carbon-dioxide-emitting power source as an available option."

"The problem is that, in order to stabilize emissions, not even reduce them, we have to switch to non-carbonized energy sources at a rate about 2.1 percent per year. That comes out to almost one new nuclear power plant per day."

"If society invests sufficient resources into alternative and new, non-carbon supplies, then perhaps it can continue growing without increasing global warming," Garrett says.

Does Garrett fear global warming deniers will use his work to justify inaction?

"No," he says. "Ultimately, it's not clear that policy decisions have the capacity to change the future course of civilization."

Source: University of Utah (news : web)

Explore further: White House warns climate inaction could cost US billions

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Alarming acceleration in CO2 emissions worldwide

May 21, 2007

Between 2000 and 2004, worldwide CO2 emissions increased at a rate that is over three times the rate during the 1990s—the rate increased from 1.1 % per year during the 1990s to 3.1% per year in the early 2000s.

China joins U.S. FutureGen project

Dec 16, 2006

China has joined the United States in the FutureGen International Partnership, a plan to develop clean-burning coal, the U.S. Department of Energy said Friday.

Global emissions to leap 39 percent by 2030: US

May 27, 2009

Global carbon dioxide emissions are set to rise 39 percent by 2030 as energy consumption surges in the developing world, notably in Asian giants China and India, the United States warned on Wednesday.

Recommended for you

Underwater elephants

7 hours ago

In the high-tech world of science, researchers sometimes need to get back to basics. UC Santa Barbara's Douglas McCauley did just that to study the impacts of the bumphead parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum) on cor ...

Malaysia air quality 'unhealthy' as haze obscures skies

14 hours ago

Air quality around Malaysia's capital Kuala Lumpur and on Borneo island was "unhealthy" on Tuesday, with one town reaching "very unhealthy" levels as haze—mostly from forest fires in Indonesia—obscured skies.

User comments : 82

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

CptWozza
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 23, 2009
"Climate change" is unstoppable. If you look for evidence of climate change you will always find such evidence, since the climate is always changing. It is not a static system. The rigor required to prove that any heating is greater than could have occured by chance seems to be beyond the imaginations of many climate scientists, but then that's why we have statisticians (and their confidence tests).

As for the heat engine hypothesis, even if it were true, I doubt that the magnitude of human activity is large enough to heat an entire planet, even if all of our 'work' were inefficiently dispersed as 'heat'. What is more, as our efficiency increases, not all of our work gets thrown out of the window. The analogy is too simplistic in any case.
omatumr
3 / 5 (22) Nov 23, 2009
You Are Right

Earth's climate has always changed.

Ask anyone who has studied the geologic record.

CO2-induced climate warming is a hoax, as revealed over the weekend by hackers who revealed private messages between those making this claim.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Going
2.6 / 5 (14) Nov 23, 2009
Both the Antarctic and Greenland Ice caps are melting at increasing rates. This is undeniable. This is because the planet is getting warmer.
CptWozza
2.6 / 5 (15) Nov 23, 2009
Both the Antarctic and Greenland Ice caps are melting at increasing rates. This is undeniable. This is because the planet is getting warmer.


Of course it's undeniable that the planet is getting warmer. Another time it will be undeniable that the planet is getting colder. To show that humans are responsible is much more difficult than you are suggesting. Like I said, I don't think many people appreciate exactly how rigorous you have to be to prove that it's not just business as usual. Since the climate always changes, the burden of proof rests with those claiming that our little cars and factories are responsible for some or all of this change. Ask any statistician and they will tell you how difficult it is to show than any change did not occur by chance alone. Unfortunately this kind of sharp thinking is not very common.
Bob_Kob
2.1 / 5 (10) Nov 23, 2009
This guy knows his stuff. I shudder whenever i hear people thinking about concervation of energy, switch lights off, stop using power etc.

What a huge waste of technology. They should be building more powerplants, nuclear preferrably so that we use more electricity on more electronic devices. I see two glaring economic benefits from that.

With the revenue generated by our reckless use of energy we can then afford to shift to efficient machines.
nuge
3 / 5 (13) Nov 23, 2009
The climate as it is now, supports humanity. Those who claim that the climate is changing, do so because they have strong evidence that it is, and know that this is a cause for concern because we move away from the optimum conditions that exist now. Those who say that the climate is not changing, or at least that we are not causing it to change, are primarily interested in avoiding having to spend money changing infrastructure. As the safety of everyone is at risk, surely the burden of proof rests with the group who claim "everything's cool, don't worry about it"?

Also, the group that reject climate change have a clear agenda (to not spend money), those who propose that it is occurring do not have an agenda other than concern. Yet everyone demands so much proof from the group who say it is occurring? I don't understand this attitude.
joefarah
2.9 / 5 (18) Nov 23, 2009
Wake up. Check the record... Since 2000 we have been in global cooling. Is it man-made global cooling? NO. Is it the result of a low solar activity. Maybe. Can we do anything about it. Yes. If we detonate 20 A-bombs, it will likely have an impact on the weather - maybe cooling, maybe warming - we don't really know. The resulting changes will settle to stable state in a few months.

At the end of time, the world will stop supporting life. Until then, let's take reasonable action - but by all means avoid the Global Warming hoax which is being used to try to form a One World Government in a couple of weeks in Copenhagen.
Yes
2.4 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2009
I think the average trend of the feedbacks is right.
Human Induced Global Warming (HIGW)? I don't know and you don't know.
Everybody seems to have his own agenda, and needs to get support for it and HIGW is such a justification to get things done.
Fact is: the earth is POLLUTED.
That is undeniable, you can take pictures of it and you can measure it!
Now should we continue polluting because HIGW is a religion?
What about acid rain (measurable)? The ozone hole (measurable)? animal extinction (measurable)? Dirt field in the oceans (photograph-able)?
No we can continue on our way because HIGW is a myth and wait for someone that can come with some concrete numbers that show something real.
LOL you can proof that everything we say is religion, because everything is an interpretation of the perception performed with one of our senses, and if certain VIPS agree, or when enough individuals agree, then we can say it is true! Unless certain other VIPS disagree. Comes down to power in the end.
Loodt
2.4 / 5 (17) Nov 23, 2009
I find this remark most amusing:-

...One economist, who reviewed the study, wrote: "I am afraid the author will need to study harder before he can contribute."...

Since when can we classify economists, climate change specialists, and homeopaths as scientists?

Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha...

Carbon dioxide is the product of clean, full, and efficient combustion!
gwrede
4 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2009
Lowering our standard of living (enough to make a difference) creates resentment and unrest, and fertile ground for populists and demagogues, the results of which will endanger both us and the environment more than the potential benefits. So it's not an option.

Going Green quickly isn't a panacea either. Switching from regular light bulbs to the new ones needs big factories to be built, and the new bulbs themselves are an environment hazard, unless disposed of properly. (Not everyone even has access to Proper Waste Disposal.)

Massively creating renewable energy needs investing, R&D, manufacturing facilities, and raw materials. Which means even more mining and more energy consumption in the coming years.

Finally, a new nuclear plant every day seems like much. But for the US, that'd be a plant every three years in each state. Not outrageous at all considering that this includes increases in oil consumption, too. If everybody switched to electric cars, this would seem too little.
Bob_Wallace
3.5 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2009
""Making civilization more energy efficient simply allows it to grow faster and consume more energy," says Garrett."

Here Garrett makes what could easily be an incorrect prediction.

Jeavons Paradox assumes that supply remains constant and conservation causes a decrease in cost. Decreased cost then leads to higher consumption.

That may not hold.

That most likely will not hold.

We need to, and are likely to, take cheap coal electricity off our grids. The renewable replacements will be somewhat more expensive and will not create the desire to consume more as Garrett assumes.

Short term we should see increases in the cost of electricity, which should further drive conservation.

(And if the nuclear fanboys get their way electricity prices will soar, crushing demand.)
Bob_Wallace
3.2 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2009
"To Garrett, that means the acceleration of carbon dioxide emissions is unlikely to change soon because our energy use today is tied to society's past economic productivity."

Here Garrett makes another mistake.

He assumes that increasing energy supplies will increase CO2 production.

He overlooks the vast amount of wind and solar energy we have available for harvest.

He overlooks the fact that wind energy is now quite inexpensive relative to average grid prices and solar is reaching grid parity much quicker than predicted.

A mix of conservation/efficiency and renewable energy can allow us to continue to grow our economies without releasing additional CO2.
Bob_Wallace
3.3 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2009
"Stabilization of carbon dioxide emissions at current rates will require approximately 300 gigawatts of new non-carbon-dioxide-emitting power production capacity annually - approximately one new nuclear power plant (or equivalent) per day," Garrett says.

In 2008 the world added 27 gigs of new wind capacity (capacity, not nameplate). That's roughly 10% of the renewables that we would have to build per year to reach Garrett's goal.

Wind installation is expected to increase by at least 20% per year over the next several years. At that rate we will be annually installing close to 300 gigs of new wind capacity in a dozen years.

Add to that all the solar, geothermal, tidal, hydro and other renewables that are being and will be installed.

This is not undoable.
chrisp
2.2 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2009
One thing is true is that Human Induced Global Warming has been a debate - a standing wave of conflicting beliefs and viewpoints. I hope we can suspend the "I'm right, you're wrong" game long enough so that people start to look beyond their own conclusions.
Most everyone wants to succeed at something, to accomplish something and to grow and be productive. Would we be willing to redefine a new 'standard of living' as it pertains to the world as a whole, not just the richest countries, the 'haves'? Could the 'haves' still be as happy or happier, consuming less for an indefinite period and helping other people less fortunate - to help provide the opportunity for them to be able to support themselves sustainably?
I feel it begins with each of us. Michael Jackson said something to that affect at the end of 'This Is It." Garret's statement: "Ultimately, it's not clear that policy decisions have the capacity to change the future course of civilization." Yes, not policy decisions alone.
defunctdiety
3.5 / 5 (18) Nov 23, 2009
Fact is: the earth is POLLUTED

Fact is: controlling pollution has NOTHING to do with controlling CO2.

Fact is: AGW policies do NOTHING to better pollution control.

Fact is: CO2 and Methane ARE NOT pollutants, they are NOT ambient air health concerns.

Fact is: AGW legislation pushes regressive technology, technology which only adds cost to the basis of modern life: energy production.

Fact is: The West has been controlling ACTUAL POLLUTION for over 30 years.

Fact is: It is up to the Developing World to develop RESPONSIBLY.

rising carbon dioxide emissions - the major cause of global warming -

Fact is: the bi-line of this article is 100% false and 100% academically dishonest, 100% propaganda.

Fact is: AGW theory has collapsed.
3432682
2.9 / 5 (9) Nov 23, 2009
So we'd need to build one nuke plant per day. So what? China is opening one coal power plant per week. Let's get started. Lots of jobs. We'll start by having a few standard designs, chosen by THE MARKET, and a streamlined permitting process. I'm betting on modular pebble bed reactor types, but we'll see what type is best through competition. It ought to take 1 year to prep the site and 1 year to install and test each one. And cost about 20% of the current absurd American prices. So who wants a job?
RJB26
3 / 5 (10) Nov 23, 2009
I have a feeling that as agw proponents start to unravel, the side effect of thier death throes will be lots of these kinds of articles. These guys want to believe in global warming so bad they will reverse engineer any data they collect to support their relig...er thier "science".
Zenoze
2.6 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2009
It seems like this would be a relatively simple problem to solve. If you take the total amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere, can you not plug that number into an equation which calculates the effects of energy being absorbed by the CO2 and deturmine the overall effect humans have on the change in global tempurature?

No one can deny that even the smallest amount of green house gases being artificially pumped into the atmosphere has an effect on the Earth's chemistry. Whether it is enough to change the course of human history can be deturmined by math, the ultimate source of truth.
Sean_W
2.8 / 5 (16) Nov 23, 2009
You Are Right

Earth's climate has always changed.

Ask anyone who has studied the geologic record.

CO2-induced climate warming is a hoax, as revealed over the weekend by hackers who revealed private messages between those making this claim.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel


If it were just a hoax it would be the greatest in the history of science. But hundreds of millions (cumulatively billions) of dollars are at issue. It's fraud and over the next decade there will be people going to jail over this. I have heard that the big revelations are not in the e-mails. They are in the data files and comments in the code that describe what it is doing. There seems to have been a reason that they never wanted to make their climate data or the code used to manipulate it available for scrutiny and it wasn't just wanting to avoid critical evaluation of their results on a scientific level. Crimes have been committed
malapropism
4.8 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2009
Given how well (snigger!) most economists predicted the recent recession and proposed useful remedies to help get more-or-less back on track, I'm a little surprised any of them felt sufficiently confident to make any comment about this study at all... regardless of where one stands on the political aspects of global warming.
PPihkala
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 23, 2009
It's a fact that in written human history there has not been so low amounts of ice in arctic. It's a fact that mountaineous claciers are getting smaller. It's a fact that CO2 in air and in oceans has raised and keeps rising. Where is the hoax? Earth is polluted by CO2 and other combustion products and we need to curb those to keep this place habitable. If you don't believe that pollution is harmful and has to be stopped, we can dump that garbage into your back yard. Then maybe you will understand that it's important to stop polluting air, water and earth.
dostalik
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2009
The question is: is the global warming science industry unstoppable?
http://www.guardi...ientists
Ashy
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2009
Read Michael Crichton, "State of Fear". This book based on real documents. And I remember his words from other book: "but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not".
nuge
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2009
It's a fact that in written human history there has not been so low amounts of ice in arctic. It's a fact that mountaineous claciers are getting smaller. It's a fact that CO2 in air and in oceans has raised and keeps rising. Where is the hoax? Earth is polluted by CO2 and other combustion products and we need to curb those to keep this place habitable. If you don't believe that pollution is harmful and has to be stopped, we can dump that garbage into your back yard. Then maybe you will understand that it's important to stop polluting air, water and earth.


Thankyou!!! It's good to hear some sanity in these comments!!
addict
3.8 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2009
yes yes yes ,this is why nothing can be done, so called renewables are a joke they are currently less than 1% of the mix there eroei is 2or 3 to one.the world as it is cannot run on alt energy. growth is over we are reaching its limits . resource limits,peak oil, population limits.,unlimited growth on a finite planet doesent work it is the cause of all enviormental degradation. peak net energy means peak everything. most of you are delusional and dont have a clue what is going on. BAU is OVER never to return . this recession is permanent, its game over .
Ashy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2009

yes yes yes ,this is why nothing can be done, so called renewables are a joke they are currently less than 1% of the mix there eroei is 2or 3 to one.the world as it is cannot run on alt energy. growth is over we are reaching its limits . resource limits,peak oil, population limits.,unlimited growth on a finite planet doesent work it is the cause of all enviormental degradation. peak net energy means peak everything. most of you are delusional and dont have a clue what is going on. BAU is OVER never to return . this recession is permanent, its game over .


Forever and ever, amen.
RJB26
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2009
Nuge my man you dont get it. the earth warms, the earth cools. these are known as "cycles". global warming alarmists and other eco nazis need you to be afraid so they can part you from your money and your freedom. everybody wants a clean and vibrant earth and we should do everything we can to that end. technology will march on and we will continually make progress as we have always done. we just have to be careful that charlatans and frauds like CRU dont dictate policy based on manipulated data. so relax, lucky for us the end is not always just around the corner.
nuge
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2009
Nuge my man you dont get it. the earth warms, the earth cools. these are known as "cycles".


Actually I do get that. Evidence for these climate cycles is well documented. Unfortunately, so too are the mass extinctions that have repeatedly occurred as a result. You're undoubtably right that the human race will survive due to our technology, but we already see the signs that there will be a lot of trouble for other species (in particular in the oceans). And such an event will create significant problems for us.

I don't think the end of the world is around the corner, however, with attitudes like yours being as prevalent as they seem in these posts, we may be quite unprepared for the challenges that are on our doorstep.
Helio
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2009
How is it that supposed scientists posting on this forum can be so alien to thinking in terms of systems? Even some people with occupations listed in their profile as engineers cannot see beyond one to one relationships. I hope I never have the misfortune to use something they have designed.

Natural systems are complex and we don't have a control. A scientist would not be surprised that there is a high degree of uncertainty.
RJB26
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2009
Well with respected "scientists" like your boys at CRU twisting data, attempting to suppress the voices of other scientists who disagree with them, and hiding behind a veil of secrecy not allowing others to corroborate thier findings, i really dont see why i should trust these people. How much data can they cherry-pick, how many graphs can they make up before you say hmmmmmm, something doesnt seem right with this. Im not a scientist, but i love poring over the new discoveries and advancements in technology. i am however at least smart enough to know the difference between politics and science. unfortunately, where climate science is concerned there are ever increasing amounts of overlap. Oh and since you are a super smart scientist you of all people should know that science isnt conducted via consensus. remember that next time gore jumps on his personal jet.(i wonder if polar bears will fall from the sky on his way to copenhagen).
RJB26
2.2 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2009
@helio- the problem is climate scientists dont have a high degree of "uncertainty" they keep telling us the oceans WILL rise 50 feet, war WILL breakout, and the earths temps WILL rise by 10 degrees unless we send billions of dollars to third world countries right now. Oh, and i didnt realize the requirement that one had to be a scientist to post an opinion in this forum. whats your area of expertise?
freethinking
Nov 25, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Coops
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2009
I do not see how we can stop GHG emmisions. The ETS will surely just drive costs of products up as the carbon tax costs manufacturers, does anyone see china or the US really making an effort to massively downscale the use of hydrocarbons that would make one jot of difference? Nah.
Tachyon8491
1 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2009
From some objective scrutiny it would appear that Garrett's axiomatically foundational tenets in his modelling are robustly correct. I intuitively do not like the compound term "Energy consumption" however - I would prefer the concept of "Energy exchange." The dynamics of energy-exchange channels in human interaction with the biosphere are vastly complex, and in any self-balancing system that has intrinsic homeostatic tendencies, an enormous amount of damage can be absorbed while passing critical thresholds may not be observable. Tiny changes in some contributory phase-states may well cause enormous changes in the system as a whole. The idea that anthropogenic activity cannot affect the planet as a whole is idealistically utopian and its subscribers suffer from the Ostrich Syndrome - if you don't look, it can't exist...
nuge
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2009
I can't understand why there are sceptics at all. NO ONE can argue with the following:

- Mankind releases a lot more Carbon Dioxide than was ever released before.

- Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas; it is good at absorbing heat, and hence traps heat in the atmosphere.

Given just those two points, which can hardly be disputed, climate change IS occurring. I don't care about what you "choose to believe", there is only one truth, and that is that the world is getting hotter because of emissions of carbon dioxide.
marjon
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 26, 2009
Nuge my man you dont get it. the earth warms, the earth cools. these are known as "cycles".


Actually I do get that. Evidence for these climate cycles is well documented. Unfortunately, so too are the mass extinctions that have repeatedly occurred as a result. You're undoubtably right that the human race will survive due to our technology, but we already see the signs that there will be a lot of trouble for other species (in particular in the oceans). And such an event will create significant problems for us.



Solution, improvise, adapt, overcome. Something homo sapiens have been doing for over 100,000 years.
marjon
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 26, 2009
I can't understand why there are sceptics at all. NO ONE can argue with the following:

- Mankind releases a lot more Carbon Dioxide than was ever released before.


Before what?

- Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas; it is good at absorbing heat, and hence traps heat in the atmosphere.


Water is much better. Why do the dry deserts get so cold at night. Why doesn't the CO2 trap the desert heat?


Given just those two points, which can hardly be disputed, climate change IS occurring. I don't care about what you "choose to believe", there is only one truth, and that is that the world is getting hotter because of emissions of carbon dioxide.


The real truth is there IS a limit to how much heat can be absorbed (not trapped) by C02.
"Remember that CO2’s heat effect is logarithmic. The more you add, the less it`s impact. "
http://wattsupwit...warming/
marjon
2.2 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2009
"The uncertainty range of the strength of the climate-carbon cycle feedback by the end of the 21st century reaches 59 ± 98 ppm in terms of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and 0.4 ± 0.7 W m−2 in terms of the radiative forcing. "

.4 +/- .7 => -.4 to +1.1 Wm-2. So the feedback could be positive or negative.

http://www.spring...7806501/
jgelt
1 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2009
Holy Jupiter Effect!
Of course the leading Climatologist was L. Ron Hubbard.
Helio
1 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2009
"The uncertainty range of the strength of the climate-carbon cycle feedback by the end of the 21st century reaches 59 � 98 ppm in terms of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and 0.4 � 0.7 W m−2 in terms of the radiative forcing. "

.4 +/- .7 => -.4 to +1.1 Wm-2. So the feedback could be positive or negative.

http://www.spring...7806501/


And what is the cause of that uncertainty? Papers presented at COP 13 in Bali stated that 50% of the uncertainty was due to varying projections of energy use.

A good example of looking for a simple cause and effect correlation without considering the whole system.
nuge
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2009
I can't understand why there are sceptics at all. NO ONE can argue with the following:

- Mankind releases a lot more Carbon Dioxide than was ever released before.


Before what?


Before now, obviously.

- Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas; it is good at absorbing heat, and hence traps heat in the atmosphere.


Water is much better. Why do the dry deserts get so cold at night. Why doesn't the CO2 trap the desert heat?

It does. The deserts, and everywhere else, are getting warmer due to there being more CO2.

I'm not sure why I bother arguing with you idiots though. You are clearly absolutely determined to reject common sense. Just to prove my point someone is probably going to quote this and try to argue against it with a load of childish nonsense.
Helio
1 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2009
Holy Jupiter Effect!
Of course the leading Climatologist was L. Ron Hubbard.


Even if that was true, it is as relevant as noting that Einstein believed in God. Smart man, knew a lot of stuff, but does it prove the existence of God for you?

But your claim seems to be one of those items of fiction circulated on sceptics sites.
SmartK8
2.5 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2009
Greenland is new Florida. I don't believe humans are responsible for GW - therefore - I won't be wasting my time, trying to reduce my carbon footprint. I'm waiting for a new Greenland government, and buying as much land as possible. The prices will skyrocket there - one day.
daveib6
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2009
Yes, it is true that climate change is and has always fluctuated. However, to those of you skeptics, I urge you to do some research. The fact is that we know exactly WHY and how the climate has warmed and cooled over the milenium. There are consistent patterns that have to do with complex interplay of multiple overlapping orbital patterns. Those patterns show themselves in the cycle of glaciations that have left their mark in the 2-million year ice core record. These records line up precisely with Petaflop scale computing simulations that calculate the earths orbital position as calculated when figuring in all other orbiting bodies, not only in our solar system, but also due to the solar system orbiting the galaxy. Using all of this combined data, we know difinitively, and precisely what direction the global temperature should be heading. If our race is to survive, we must beleive this: We should be getting colder, not warmer. The difference is entirely Human caused!
VOICEOFTRUTH
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2009
looks like the people posting fake pseudosciense news like this one didnt heard

that global warming was just definalty proven to be a scam only this week

for all those who didnt get the news couse there busy stuffing turkey here is the link to get u up to date
http://www.youtub...KItPhEJc
daveib6
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 27, 2009
If there's any 'pseudosciense' in that clip, it's the spin that spin-master is using. If there's anything fake about that clip, it's the messenger himself! There is not one single point that idiot made that can difinitiely be interpreted as scam, witholding information, or anything of the sort. This is ALL SPIN! Not 1 of the emails mentioned had the actual intent that the spin-master claimed. WAKE UP PEOPLE! He's intentionally misleading you because he's in the back pocket of the wealthy and it is the wealthy whose pocket book would feel the pinch the most if and when we take the fact of Global warming seriously.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2009
I can't understand why there are sceptics at all. NO ONE can argue with the following:

- Mankind releases a lot more Carbon Dioxide than was ever released before.


Before what?


Before now, obviously.

- Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas; it is good at absorbing heat, and hence traps heat in the atmosphere.


Water is much better. Why do the dry deserts get so cold at night. Why doesn't the CO2 trap the desert heat?

It does. The deserts, and everywhere else, are getting warmer due to there being more CO2.


Where is the data?
That is what science is about, proof. Show me the data documenting the decrease in delta Temp in dry deserts.
peteone1
3 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2009
The *nuge*:
((Thankyou!!! It's good to hear some sanity in these comments!!))
Oh foolishness, thy name is AGW Alarmist! ;-)
peteone1
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2009
What the REAL NUGE thinks of the myth of AGW...

http://books.goog...;f=false
peteone1
2.4 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2009
The nuge:
((The deserts, and everywhere else, are getting warmer due to there being more CO2))
Oh and a warmer planet is a *bad thing* all of a sudden? Remember mate, the last 10K yrs of warmth allowed human civilization to evolve farther and faster than anytime in our species' 5 million yr history! And even if the pathetically small sliver of .038% CO2 in the atm were to blame for warming the earth significantly, CO2 is actually GOOD for life (plants) ergo it's good for us!

((not sure why I bother arguing with you idiots though))
Um, mate...all of the "idiocy" is brandished on the side of the anti-capitalist AGW Alarmist idiots as they perpetually spew out pseudoscientific nonsense. And as the wise sage Aesop reminds us:
"You are known by the company you keep"

((determined to reject common sense))
Which is what *The nuge* and his capitalism-hating AGW Alarmist comrades do everytime they spout the gospel of AGW Alarmism.

peteone1
1 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2009
"In an impressive study recently published in The Review of Economics and Statistics, for example, Deschenes and Moretti (2009) analyze the relationship between weather and mortality, based on 'data...of deaths in the United States over the period 1972-1988,' wherein they 'match each death to weather conditions on the day of death and in the county of occurrence, high-frequency data and the fine as they write, allow them...to estimate...the effect of cold and hot temperature shocks on mortality, as well as the dynamics of such effects...from cold northeastern states to warm southwestern states.' Based on their findings, for example, they calculate that 'each year 4,600 deaths are delayed by the changing exposure to cold temperature due to mobility,' and that '3% to 7% of the gains in longevity experienced by the U.S. population...are due to the...movement toward warmer states in the West and the South, away from the colder states in the North.'"
http://www.co2sci...les/V12/
peteone1
2 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2009
nuge
1 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2009
I never claimed to be THE Nuge, so stop calling me that. Oh and thanks for proving my point.
RJB26
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2009
ooohhh, just checking out some climategate news. eco-nazis are starting to turn on each other. good stuff. popcorn is popping.on another note- turns out "peer review" means one agw drone rubber stamps another agw drones work, then concerted efforts are made to exclude "non-believers" from "journals of record"(code for climate "science" journals pushing climate ideology over actual science). heres a quote from agw high priest phil jones: "Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it".--- uh news flash drones.....thats how science works! state a hypothesis, conduct experiment, analyze data, draw conclusions, make data available so experiment can be validated or refuted by other scientists. if disproven amend hypothesis and repeat.
RJB26
3 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2009
daveib6 quote- "WAKE UP PEOPLE! He's intentionally misleading you because he's in the back pocket of the wealthy and it is the wealthy whose pocket book would feel the pinch the most if and when we take the fact of Global warming seriously".

this is what its really about for many of these people- government control and wealth redistribution. its not sound science but "social justice" that they seek. green on the outside, red on the inside.
Parsec
2.8 / 5 (5) Nov 28, 2009
Its entirely true that overall, warming might be a good thing. Warmer climes mean that overall land area for crops would increase (somewhat), more rainfall, and more land available in the north.

Unfortunately, a whole lot of people are living in areas that would become uninhabitable (by being underwater). Many species could make the transition very easily. Many could not. It isn't really the warming that's the problem, its the speed of the transition. I am sure we wouldn't lose more than 5 to 10% of our population, so any alarmist talk of the end of the world is idiocy.

Of course if you happen to believe, as I do, that 200-500 million people dying would be a tragedy, it is something worth preventing.
finitesolutions
Nov 28, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2009
Its entirely true that overall, warming might be a good thing. Warmer climes mean that overall land area for crops would increase (somewhat), more rainfall, and more land available in the north.

Unfortunately, a whole lot of people are living in areas that would become uninhabitable (by being underwater). Many species could make the transition very easily. Many could not. It isn't really the warming that's the problem, its the speed of the transition. I am sure we wouldn't lose more than 5 to 10% of our population, so any alarmist talk of the end of the world is idiocy.

Of course if you happen to believe, as I do, that 200-500 million people dying would be a tragedy, it is something worth preventing.


What do propose to ensure those 200-500 million don't die? Provide evidence as to the efficacy of your plan.
RCB
Nov 28, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
marjon
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2009
Its entirely true that overall, warming might be a good thing. Warmer climes mean that overall land area for crops would increase (somewhat), more rainfall, and more land available in the north.

Unfortunately, a whole lot of people are living in areas that would become uninhabitable (by being underwater). Many species could make the transition very easily. Many could not. It isn't really the warming that's the problem, its the speed of the transition. I am sure we wouldn't lose more than 5 to 10% of our population, so any alarmist talk of the end of the world is idiocy.

Of course if you happen to believe, as I do, that 200-500 million people dying would be a tragedy, it is something worth preventing.


Do you think it a tragedy that the DDT ban has killed millions from malaria?
VOICEOFTRUTH
Nov 28, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
VOICEOFTRUTH
Nov 28, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jgelt
not rated yet Nov 28, 2009
The pope didn't shut down the vatican when Darwin published Origin of the Species, did he?
(Not my quote, but I think it's trenchant.)
vanderMerwe
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2009
Going: Both the Antarctic and Greenland Ice caps are melting at increasing rates. This is undeniable.

NOTHING is undeniable now that we've had a hard look at how the political activists pretending to be scientists behaviour has begun to be exposed with the whistle blowing of the University of East Anglia/Climate Research Unit of emails, reports and code.

We've known for years that Mann of the "hockey stick" and Hansen at NASA have been cooking their data. All that remains to be seen now is to understand just how big the "global warming" fraud is, not whether there is a fraud being perpetrated as I've long suspected.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2009
I wonder how earth observing satellite data is peer reviewed?
Choice
not rated yet Nov 29, 2009
This discussion seems to ignore capture and sequestration.
antigoracle
2.2 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2009
It's a fact that man made pollution kept the earth cooler and so our subsequent removal of this pollution in the last few decades would have resulted in a spike in heat reaching the earth.

As for CO2, especially man made CO2, contributing to global warming, the jury is still out on that.

My concern is all these "brilliant" scientists and polliticians rushing to implement an irreversible solution to global warming which ends in most of the habitable earth covered in ice.
Ronan
not rated yet Nov 29, 2009
Antigoracle: Through sunscreens or something like that to block out sunlight, I suppose? I agree, that could be worrisome--probably not likely to have much of a risk of going wrong (at least, not to a "Snowball Earth" extent; other milder-but-still-not-so-good issues could easily arise), though, as long as the sun-blocking method wasn't space-based and could therefore be easily removed/would remove itself in a decade or two.

As regards the article itself...Hrm.

Hope it isn't so.
the_flash
3 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2009
I suggest we start building those nuclear plants and do it quickly.
marjon
3 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2009
I suggest we start building those nuclear plants and do it quickly.


If the AGW believers proposed such a solution, I may take them seriously.
Punishing the world with higher taxes and more government interference suggests another motive.
nuge
3 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2009
Whereas denying established science to excuse continued use of fossil fuels suggests no underlying motive at all, right?
Jim1138
3 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2009
Solution, improvise, adapt, overcome. Something homo sapiens have been doing for over 100,000 years.

And the human population dropped down to a few thousands at least once during that period. A few will (may?) adapt and overcome.
marjon
3.5 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2009
Whereas denying established science to excuse continued use of fossil fuels suggests no underlying motive at all, right?


What 'established' science?

"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. "
http://www.timeso...6328.ece

Reagan used to say 'trust but verify'. How can we trust scientists who say 'trust us' and then toss the data?
VOICEOFTRUTH
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2009
IS THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM UNSTOPPABLE?

looks like that way with articles likes these

http://www.youtub...KItPhEJc
marjon
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2009
"The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.[2]"

http://en.wikiped.../Big_Lie

AGW-ites have too much invested in their big lie to give it up easily.
Shootist
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2009
Both the Antarctic and Greenland Ice caps are melting at increasing rates. This is undeniable. This is because the planet is getting warmer.


Have you been to the Arctic or Antarctic?
Egnite
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2009
Is "climate change" unstoppable? Not a chance.

Is "Global Warming" unstoppable? Yes, as soon as the AGW scam is fully uncovered for the fraudulent extorsion of lower/middle classes that it is, we'll all soon forget about it.

I wouldn't dismiss climate change but to think CO2 is going to cause catastrophic damage to this planet unless we pay a tax is simply naive. If they had a sensible solution (like force people to neutralize thier carbon footprints by planting the necessary number of trees depending on thier consumption) then it'd be a little more believable.

Label me as a denier if that's what your religion does but I belive we are polluting this planet with far worse chemicals (than CO2) which cannot be processed by life and no matter what we do, the climate will still change as it has done in it's past.
powercosmic
not rated yet Nov 30, 2009
Unfortunately Garret is RIGHT!

I had been gradually coming 'round to the same conclusion due to the observed data regarding oil prices and its consumption. The data is VERY supportive of Garrets claims and his work will ultimately be validated as correct.
po6ert
not rated yet Nov 30, 2009
we live in an ice age. within the last 13000 years the glaciation extended down past boston. walden is a glacial kettle pond. Is excess sequestration of the cause of ice ages? give me a warm earth!!
Yes
4 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2009
There's no evidence climate change is caused by CO2.
There's no evidence climate change is caused by CO2.
There's no evidence climate change is caused by CO2.
There's no evidence climate change is caused by CO2.
There's no evidence climate change is caused by CO2.
There's no evidence climate change is caused by CO2.

Agreed.
Now what did you proof?
Is climate change not caused by CO2?
You found yourself a mantra with a dead end.
Mantras are religion!
Now you are a religious person.
Find yourself a mantra that moves you to action.
At least something positive might happen.
Yes
5 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2009
Maybe get yourself a mantra like:
Climate change is caused by CO2
Climate change is caused by CO2
Climate change is caused by CO2
Climate change is caused by CO2
Climate change is caused by CO2
Then you act upon it.
You plant some trees in your neighborhood to absorb CO2.
Then somebody who lives in a desert proofs that climate change is not caused by CO2.
In the meanwhile your neighborhood looks beautiful with all those trees that attract songbirds. You saved your neighborhood from a landslide because the roots fix the sand where your house is standing on. You drink pure water because all those treeroots have a positive effect on the ground water, and your children breath oxygen in stead of this CO2 that is harmless for the climate.
mdk
5 / 5 (1) Dec 03, 2009
Please. Antarctica is not losing ice, it's gaining overall even as the northern hemisphere loses ice. The only inevitable fact is that the ice age will resume no matter how much CO2 we've put into the system. In the past levels were 10 times higher than today and the world still had an ice age glaciation. And even CRU data shows the last 10 years have had zero cooling after Nino/Nina effects are removed. In fact NASA satellite data shows atmospheric cooling since 2003 yet we are still browbeaten over warming.

If you look at ice core data it's clear that the Earth usually warms beyond our current temp before the end of an interglacial so it wouldn't be surprising if it happens this time. I'm just not sure which species caused the earlier warming since it wasn't humans. As we are nearing the end of our interglacial, warming may be the least of our problems.
nuge
1 / 5 (1) Dec 03, 2009
If you are a skeptic, please consider having a look at this site:

http://www.grist....keptics/
RJB26
1 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2009
if you are a we are gonna die in six months, the world is gonna end if we dont destroy our economy right now believer. please consider having a look at this site:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
or
http://www.climateaudit.org/
RJB26
not rated yet Dec 03, 2009
nuge
not rated yet Dec 07, 2009
Roderick
not rated yet Jan 14, 2010
Gentlemen,

You talk like a bunch of right wing conspiracy theorists. I am sure your ancestors denied evolution as well and thought the world was 4,000 years old.

:)

Ice core samples show that atmospheric CO2 levels have doubled since the beginning of the Industrial Age. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We have good reason to believe atmospheric methane has also risen as well.

More greenhouse gases ceteris paribus, higher temperatures.

When you look at the various feedback mechanisms, most reinforce the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere. Higher temperatures reduce snow and ice and hence increase terrestrial absorption of heat.

Similarly, higher temperatures melt permafrost, which in turn releases more CO2 and more methane.

Orbital variations and sunspot activity do not explain current global warming.

Temperatures are rising too quickly to be explained by either.

The purpose of the board is to have intelligent discussions, not advertise one's ignorance.