U.S.: Climate Change Climate Changing

OneWorld ^ | 11/21/06 | Haider Rizvi

[presidio9]

There are signs that key U.S. officials are ready to take on global warming, even as much of the world community failed to show its will to deal with the impending threat at a recent global conference.

Despite intense calls for new and radical actions, last week delegates at the UN-sponsored meeting in Kenya agreed on many outstanding issues, but not on further cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

Environmental groups widely described the outcome as a failure, but not all were expressing despair. Though equally unhappy with the results, some believe that meaningful global action on climate change is not a distant possibility.

Come January, those in the world who are concerned about the slow pace of climate action could see the global response get a boost with the United States becoming a significant part of it, according to an environmental group that is part of the global campaign for a swift response to global warming.

"With Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, changes in the federal policy are to be expected," said Gary Cook, director of the Climate Action Network, an umbrella organization representing over 350 environmental organizations worldwide.

Cook and his colleagues hope that with environmentally conscious Democratic lawmakers holding key positions in the Senate, the United States will soon be making real progress in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, as well as moving the global agenda on climate change forward.

The 1997 Kyoto treaty requires as many as 35 industrialized countries to cut emissions by an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. The United States is not obligated to abide by the treaty because the George W. Bush administration does not recognize it.

The Bush administration rejected Kyoto in 2001, arguing that it would harm the U.S. economy and that it should have also required reductions by poor but fast growing economies, such as India and China. Bush also repeatedly has said that more research was needed into the science of climate change.

The United States is responsible for about 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, although its share in the global population is just 5 percent.

Recent statements from Democratic Party leaders regarding appointments of lawmakers in the House and Senate bodies suggest that the analysis by environmentalists such as Cook could prove correct.

Last week, for example, three Democratic senators who are likely to head committees dealing with environmental issues wrote to Bush urging him to push for mandatory federal limits on greenhouse gases.

"The recent elections have signaled a need to change direction in many areas including global warming," they said in a letter telling the U.S. president that voters want the government to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Those who signed the letter included Barbara Boxer of California, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. The three are likely to head the Senate's environment, energy, and homeland security bodies, respectively, when Democrats assume leadership positions in January.

Boxer, who has introduced legislation that would mandate an 80-percent cut in U.S. emissions by 2050, has publicly declared that her committee's first hearing will be focused on global warming.

Like Boxer, Bingaman is considered a staunch supporter of action on climate change. In fact, he was the only member of Congress to attend last year's UN climate negotiations in Montreal.

"We pledge to work to pass an effective system of mandatory limits on greenhouses gases," Boxer and her colleagues told Bush in their letter. "We urge you to work with us...to signal to the world that global warming legislation is on the way."

Supporters for action on climate change say that since the November 7 elections new opportunities have arisen for Democratic politicians to take effective actions on the state level, and that in many areas, indications are that they are willing to do so.

While the most populous state of California has already embraced a climate action plan, Massachusetts' Democratic governor-elect Duval Patrick has expressed his willingness to align his state with a regional greenhouse gas initiative comprising seven other northeastern U.S. states.

Moreover, in recent polls, voters in Washington state joined more than 20 other pro-alternative energy states by approving a ballot initiative requiring 15 percent of the state's electricity to come from renewable sources.

In Nairobi, while delegates failed to set a deadline for concluding international negotiations on further cuts in emissions beyond 2012, they did agree to continue their discussions in the future.

As the next round of international talks takes place in Bali, Indonesia, in 2008, proponents of strong action against global warming say they hope that by then the United States may be in position to play an effective role in taking the world in a more positive direction.

On the domestic front, when the new Congress assumes its responsibility in January, it will have to deal with a number of ambitious bills to support alternative energy production and limit greenhouse gas emissions that were introduced this year.

Activists say they want the new Congress to adopt these and other aggressive measures on climate change proposals without any delay.

"That is the way the U.S. can begin to make real progress in reducing its emissions," said Cook.

[Monti Cello]

If you are familiar with Milankovitch cycles, you must be aware that there are serious problems with eccentricity as the causation of the 100kyr glaciations, which form the basis for Berger's prediction. His analysis flies in the face of climate history and the strong, narrow 100kyr peak in the ice volume (marine oxygen isotope) spectrum. And one does not need to be a genius or a PhD to see the periodicity in marine isotope records.

On this schedule, yes we are due for reglaciation any time now.

You may or may not know that the earth has been inexorably cooling for the past ~40 million years to the point that we are have reached a quasi-permanent glacial state at mid-high latitudes, with only brief intervals of climate as equable as today. Life on earth is considerably reduced during the normal glacial conditions, with blooms of activity during interglacials, such as at present.

The leading theory on this long-term cooling is the gradual draw-down of atmospheric CO2 by silicate rock weathering associated with uplift of the Tibetan Plateau.

However, man has unwittingly restored CO2 to the atmosphere, which, given that biota and civilization have blossomed during recent warm conditions, should produce large positive consequences for both life on earth and human society.

As I gather, your position is to invest in reversing this fortuitous development while condemning the earth, our human descendants, and the flora and fauna to a future of continental-scale icepack and a near-perpetual frigidity over a substantial fraction of the globe. That status quo ante position is virtually certain to be deleterious to the foreseeable future of man and life on earth. Glacial cycles exhibit strong regularity, and the next one is unlikely to be a pretty sight. Perhaps you ought to broaden your perspective and think about the future, and the concrete lessons we can take from climate history.

[sangfroid]

And Now, for the Traditional "Human Caused Global Warming" Slide

The bias of the data in these theories always depends on who paid for the research; The Environmental Protection Industry or the Oil and Coal Industry. What do you believe if you aren't connected to either?

[Paloma_55]

This data came from the N.O.A.A and is empirically drawn and presented from Vostok (Antarctic) ice core samples.

The data is not processed, other than to put it on a slide for view.

What it shows, is that the earth has had warm/cold cycles on ~120K year periods for as long as the measurement process allows. The range is rather consistent and ~12C. The C02 quantities tend to *follow* the temperature, but in the last 100 years has dramatically increased.

What is not shown, is that CO2 production relates to earthly temperature levels...AT ALL.

While it is possible that CO2 levels *might* raise temps, it might also result in a much more moderate ice age..which would be a good thing.

[cogitator]

then you say CO2 is not invovled?

CO2 is negligibly involved in stratospheric ozone depletion; your posting combined two issues. A warmer atmosphere may increase the transport rate of trace gases to the stratosphere.

CO2Science is a very biased source. Their raw data analyses are not the correct way to look at climate data. And I'm not interested in pursuing every skeptical claim in the Web; I've done that for years. In lieu of that, here's a site for you:

A Few Things Ill-Considered

How to talk to a global warming sceptic

A sample posting:
Climate Scientists Hide Water Vapor (that's the skeptical argument which is responded to here)

[cogitator]

They disregard the facts about which frequencies of EM radiation are capable of penetrating more than a few microns of seawater.

I don't see how that affects the warming of the oceanic water column.

[cogitator]

If you are familiar with Milankovitch cycles, you must be aware that there are serious problems with eccentricity as the causation of the 100kyr glaciations, which form the basis for Berger's prediction. His analysis flies in the face of climate history and the strong, narrow 100kyr peak in the ice volume (marine oxygen isotope) spectrum. And one does not need to be a genius or a PhD to see the periodicity in marine isotope records.

Let's take a look at the EPICA core data:

You see how flat the d-O18 record is starting after the rise into this interglacial? (Look at the record vs. age, not depth.) There are a several papers that compare this interglacial to the Eemian (the previous one), and most indicate that this interglacial is more stable than the Eemian. That stability must be a part of any analysis of when (and how) the initiation of the next glacial epoch will take place. Even if the eccentricity cycle is questionable, the other Milankovitch factors are still very "flat" now; Berger and Loutre's analysis includes all three factors. Insolation will not vary in the near-future Holocene by nearly as much as it did in the Eemian.

You may or may not know that the earth has been inexorably cooling for the past ~40 million years to the point that we are have reached a quasi-permanent glacial state at mid-high latitudes, with only brief intervals of climate as equable as today.

I know that. Nice figure here, if you haven't seen if before:

http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/207_IR/chap_01/images/01_f07.jpg

However, man has unwittingly restored CO2 to the atmosphere, which, given that biota and civilization have blossomed during recent warm conditions, should produce large positive consequences for both life on earth and human society.

No doubt warm is better than cold for civilization, but the worst thing that can happen is rapid change.

As I gather, your position is to invest in reversing this fortuitous development while condemning the earth, our human descendants, and the flora and fauna to a future of continental-scale icepack and a near-perpetual frigidity over a substantial fraction of the globe.

Don't be silly. My position is that it is prudent to plan and prepare for potential deleterious climate change scenarios, and such a process should be informed by the best science available. The IPCC report is pending by only months now, and it will be widely discussed. Hopefully there will be some clarification of many of these issues.

Perhaps you ought to broaden your perspective and think about the future, and the concrete lessons we can take from climate history.

Well, when you put it that way, that's one reason I've always been a bit concerned about the status of the oceanic thermohaline circulation. Since you are quite knowledgeable, I'm sure you've heard of the Younger Dryas.

[GOP_1900AD]

Warmers claim that IR is warming the oceans but the physics don't support such a claim.

[cogitator]

Warmers claim that IR is warming the oceans but the physics don't support such a claim.

I totally agree with you here. That's a preposterous and dumb conception. The oceans are warming due to heat transfer from a warming atmosphere.

[Monti Cello]

That apparent stability can be just as easily argued from the other side: That we are overdue for an unusually sharp correction due to regular cyclical forcing. Or, as Ruddiman argues, human activity is already successfully staving off reglaciation. The lesson I take from those charts is that the d18O abruptly falls off the table, particularly from peak warm conditions, with little warning, and gradual change the exception rather than the rule. I don't care about 'the other Milankovitch factors' which have little role in glaciation over the last ~900 ka.

Given that surface conditions on Greeland are less warm than during the Viking settlement, I find the thermohaline argument speculative and weak, and the Younger Dryas is a poor analog for the present. The abrupt change from a hypothesized thermohaline reorganization in any case is small potatoes compared to the onset of massive reglaciation, which is virtually guaranteed to occur, absent any intervention.

[FreedomPoster]

I love the fact that FReepers tend to have good, common-sense solutions to serious problems!

[sangfroid]

This data came from the N.O.A.A and is empirically drawn and presented from Vostok (Antarctic) ice core samples. The data is not processed, other than to put it on a slide for view.

Yes,..and who then pays for the data to be interpreted and presented to the uninitiated? Environmental groups or Oil companies?

While it is possible that CO2 levels *might* raise temps, it might also result in a much more moderate ice age..which would be a good thing.

So.....we can't believe either theory? I guess, according to your interpretation, this data shows us that - in the long term - one of two things *might* happen depending on who is paying to analyze and present the data.

[cogitator]

For a stable system to become non-stable (i.e., changing) a force must be applied that pushes the system out of the zone of stability. The current factors affecting the climate system, that can be quantified and identified, are pushing the climate system in the short-term in the warming direction. While I will grant a modicum of possibility to factors that may push the system in a cooling direction*, I do not see that those factors have the potential to induce a more rapid change than the factors that are inducing warming.

* Cloud feedback might still be sufficient, though. Increased water vapor --> more clouds --> higher albedo.

[kabar]

I've done that. Mr. Felix needs to address this in his future research work: Milankovitch cycles

He did and I provided you the links on his site including the Table of Contents for his book. It is in Chapter 14.

If Mr. Felix responds, in print, to Berger and Loutre 2002, then I'll pay more attention to him and his theory.

Pacemaker of the Ice Ages

Magnetic Reversals and Glaciation

I could care less whether you pay attention or not. My concern is that our political leadership doesn't fall for this phony claptrap and damage our economy.

[cogitator]

My concern is that our political leadership doesn't fall for this phony claptrap and damage our economy.

Our views obviously differ. But have you seen this (regarding the economy)?

25x’25 Cheaper than Conventional Energy Mix in Many Cases, According to RAND Study

Forget about the environment for a moment. This is what the POTUS advocated in the last State of the Union speech. (I never thought I'd hear the POTUS say "sawgrass" in a SOU speech.)

[Monti Cello]

Whatever factor has caused abrupt d18O changes is going to produce abrupt cooling again, presumably due to a rapid adjustment to some gradually-changing astronomical factor. The climate system tips rapidly from interglacial to glacial states. It happens fast - and it's going to happen again, and it's on schedule to happen any time. There is not a 'modicum of possibility' for abrupt cooling - there is a virtual certainty! (sans intervention)

You seem overly focused on the most harsh imagined negatives of a speculated severe warming. In terms of abruptness,severity, and consequences for man and life, reglaciation is a far more likely (i.e. virtually certain), deleterious (warm, as you say is better than cold), and long-lasting (100kyr and beyond) climatic change.

Some of the hypothesized astronomical forcings have already dipped into dangerously low territory, harkening a new glaciation (see, for instance Berger et al 2005, Palaeoceanography). We had better get pumping fast if we are going to hold this off - and sawgrass thankfully is not going to play any significant role. You and the libs do all you want to make sure our descendants are back in the deep-freeze - the rest of us will continue to burn carbon and pursue life.

[samm1148]

"Yes, I've heard of this site a few times. Interesting idea. Not enough basis in actual data and observations for me to be concerned about it."

Pretty much sums up the junk science on global warming that you put out on here--thanks. By the way: What is the temperature forecast ed to be next May in Alaska? You should be able to tell us all that.

[Raycpa]

Kyoto Treaty - Senate Vote 95-0

Posted on 02/16/2005 10:30:56 AM PST by Infantry Grunt 1968-69

On the 12:00 CST network news the MSM reported on today's implementation of the Kyoto Treaty. They then had an audio clip of Al Gore blaming the Bush administration for keeping the US out of the treaty. The commentator then stated that the Senate voted 95-0 against the treaty. NOWHERE did they mention that this vote took place DURING THE CLINTON/GORE ADMINISTRATION!!!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1344538/posts

[GOP_1900AD]

Um.... you are claiming conduction? Hmmmm ....

[kabar]

Interesting article, but I wish I had a nickel for every time I have read about some new promising source of renewable or alternative energy. The difficulty always comes when trying to make it cost competitive with oil and carbon based fuels. Whatever happens, I would rather have the marketplace decide what kind of energy source is viable rather than have the federal government steer us in one direction or the other.

[cogitator]

What is the temperature forecast ed to be next May in Alaska? You should be able to tell us all that.

I can. Where in Alaska?