Climate Change

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by anotherT34C

Can you please stop the tangents and write me where you heard that undersea volcanoes might be melting the arctic ice? Why is this hard? Did you just come up with it on your own? Is it written up in a journal? Did it come from AM radio?

I don't consider analysis to be scientific unless it comes from a recognized scientific institution, and makes its way though proper review. Amateur speculation is just that, and I'd like to know what I'm asked to consider.

Cameraderie probably got it from the article “Antarctic volcanoes identified as a possible culprit in glacier melting”, which he previously linked at
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/...pe/climate.php

“... Volcanic heat could still be melting ice to water and contributing to thinning and speeding up of the Pine Island glacier, which passes nearby, but Vaughan said he doubted that it could be affecting other glaciers in western Antarctica, which have also thinned in recent years. Most glaciologists, including Vaughan, say that warmer ocean water is the primary cause of thinning...”

[Robertcateran]

Originally Posted by MidLandOne

Yep, I agree. Must be so as you make more sense than some of these environmental activists with zero economic sense and think the world can exist on bicycles and composting toilets.

I am no climate scientist but am scietist enough to keep an open mind. I am trained to identify mumbo jumbo when I see it and I see far more of it on the environmentalist activist side than on the other.

May be you are not enough of a scientist if you don't have enough of an open mind to consider the value of bicycles and compost toilets and consider the present systems as sustainable. Have you considered the effective speed of commuters in a bicycle dominated system and a motor vehicle dominated system. Have you seriously considered the energy required in making the nitrogenous fertiliser that out western civilisation depends upon and the energy required to denitrify the perfectly good water that people have crapped and pissed in. Also, have you considered the long term availability of phosphate deposits.

[Robertcateran]

Addendum to the previous. Long term availability of phosphate deposits against dead zones in our lakes and rivers
As far as economic sense. I figure I have saved over 10 000 dollars this year in not having a car. I have also 20 points less on my blood pressure and 10kg on my waistline. Significant savings on health care.

[GordMay]

The Economics of Climate Change

Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/indepe...iew_Report.cfm

For the lazier - Summary of Conclusions:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/...ve_summary.pdf

"... The Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more.
In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year..."

[anotherT34C]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Cameraderie probably got it from the article “Antarctic volcanoes identified as a possible culprit in glacier melting”, which he previously linked at
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/...pe/climate.php

“... Volcanic heat could still be melting ice to water and contributing to thinning and speeding up of the Pine Island glacier, which passes nearby, but Vaughan said he doubted that it could be affecting other glaciers in western Antarctica, which have also thinned in recent years. Most glaciologists, including Vaughan, say that warmer ocean water is the primary cause of thinning...”

? A volcano melting a small slab of ice sitting directly on top of it is a very different scenario than raising the Arctic Ocean temperature enough to melt a large volume of floating ice. I can't understand anyone making that connection.

[camaraderie]

Originally Posted by anotherT34C

Can you please stop the tangents and write me where you heard that undersea volcanoes might be melting the arctic ice? Why is this hard? Did you just come up with it on your own? Is it written up in a journal? Did it come from AM radio?

I don't consider analysis to be scientific unless it comes from a recognized scientific institution, and makes its way though proper review. Amateur speculation is just that, and I'd like to know what I'm asked to consider.

Gord gave you my link to the International Herald Tribune Story
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/...pe/climate.php
....but the story starts off:
Another factor might be contributing to the thinning of some of the Antarctica's glaciers: volcanoes.
In an article published Sunday on the Web site of the journal Nature Geoscience, Hugh Corr and David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey report the identification of a layer of volcanic ash and glass shards frozen within an ice sheet in western Antarctica.....



The abstact of the published article in Nature Geoscience reads:
A recent volcanic eruption beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet

Hugh F. J. Corr & David G. Vaughan
Top of pageIndirect evidence suggests that volcanic activity occurring beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet influences ice flow and sheet stability1, 2, 3. However, only volcanoes that protrude through the ice sheet4 and those inferred from geophysical techniques1, 2 have been mapped so far. Here we analyse radar data from the Hudson Mountains, West Antarctica5, that contain reflections from within the ice that had previously been interpreted erroneously as the ice-sheet bed. We show that the reflections are present within an elliptical area of about 23,000 km2 that contains tephra from an explosive volcanic eruption. The tephra layer is thickest at a subglacial topographic high, which we term the Hudson Mountains Subglacial Volcano. The layer depth dates the eruption at 207 BC240 years, which matches exceptionally strong but previously unattributed conductivity signals in nearby ice cores. The layer contains 0.019–0.31 km3 of tephra, which implies a volcanic explosive index of 3–4. Production and episodic release of water from the volcano probably affected ice flow at the time of the eruption. Ongoing volcanic heat production may have implications for contemporary ice dynamics in this glacial system.
Here: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...s/ngeo106.html
You'll have to pay for the full text.

[jzk]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The Economics of Climate Change

Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/indepe...iew_Report.cfm

For the lazier - Summary of Conclusions:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/...ve_summary.pdf

"... The Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more.
In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year..."

These doomsday predictions presume that the current state of the climate is somehow optimized for global GDP and that the Earth experiencing a warmer climate which it has seen time and time again will lead to all sorts of "bad" things. How could this be possible? What are the chances, in such a state of climate flux, that today just happens to be the optimum climate for GDP? Slim to none.

[anotherT34C]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

Gord gave you my link to the International Herald Tribune Story
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/...pe/climate.php
....but the story starts off:
Another factor might be contributing to the thinning of some of the Antarctica's glaciers: volcanoes.
In an article published Sunday on the Web site of the journal Nature Geoscience, Hugh Corr and David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey report the identification of a layer of volcanic ash and glass shards frozen within an ice sheet in western Antarctica.....



The abstact of the published article in Nature Geoscience reads:
A recent volcanic eruption beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet

Hugh F. J. Corr & David G. Vaughan
Top of pageIndirect evidence suggests that volcanic activity occurring beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet influences ice flow and sheet stability1, 2, 3. However, only volcanoes that protrude through the ice sheet4 and those inferred from geophysical techniques1, 2 have been mapped so far. Here we analyse radar data from the Hudson Mountains, West Antarctica5, that contain reflections from within the ice that had previously been interpreted erroneously as the ice-sheet bed. We show that the reflections are present within an elliptical area of about 23,000 km2 that contains tephra from an explosive volcanic eruption. The tephra layer is thickest at a subglacial topographic high, which we term the Hudson Mountains Subglacial Volcano. The layer depth dates the eruption at 207 BC240 years, which matches exceptionally strong but previously unattributed conductivity signals in nearby ice cores. The layer contains 0.019–0.31 km3 of tephra, which implies a volcanic explosive index of 3–4. Production and episodic release of water from the volcano probably affected ice flow at the time of the eruption. Ongoing volcanic heat production may have implications for contemporary ice dynamics in this glacial system.
Here: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...s/ngeo106.html
You'll have to pay for the full text.

Ok, I'll take that to mean "you made it up". This has nothing to do with heating the Arctic Ocean.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

Gord gave you my link to the International Herald Tribune Story
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/...pe/climate.php
....but the story starts off:
Another factor might be contributing to the thinning of some of the Antarctica's glaciers: volcanoes.
In an article published Sunday on the Web site of the journal Nature Geoscience, Hugh Corr and David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey report the identification of a layer of volcanic ash and glass shards frozen within an ice sheet in western Antarctica...

I think this article illustrates the balance of opinion on climate change very well.

On one hand we have a journalist & headline writer, saying:
“Antarctic volcanoes identified as a possible culprit in glacier melting” & etc.

Whilst on the other hand, we have the scientists, upon whose work they are reporting, saying:
“Most glaciologists, including Vaughan, say that warmer ocean water is the primary cause of thinning.”

The journalist draws different conclusions, than do the researchers.

[Amgine]

The journalist may have jumped to conclusions, but AnotherT34C had it right: the research article has *nothing* to do with climatology. It has to do with correcting previous observations of the inside of glaciers, and it might have an interesting physical observation/methodology which will affect the way future observations will be interpreted.

JZK: yep, that's pretty much my interpretation. But bureaucracies/corporations tend to be heavily invested in the status quo so for them climate change is a disaster scenario that screams of risk.

[anotherT34C]

Originally Posted by Amgine

... But bureaucracies/corporations tend to be heavily invested in the status quo so for them climate change is a disaster scenario that screams of risk.

I'd add to that, that we're all heavily invested in the status quo. Our present climate may not be optimized to maximize GDP, and I'd agree that in the long run (more than several human working careers) warmer weather would likely be better. However, our existing infrastructure IS optimized for the present climate, and having to quickly re-adapt it would represent a very large opportunity cost.

I know the climate shift is happening, and I'm skeptical that we can stop or reverse it. I am however, highly confident that the opportunity cost of slowing the climate shift is far smaller than the opportunity cost of adaptation to a rapid shift.

Exactly how much to slow it, needs to be a sober cost-benefit analysis. At some point the incremental cost of prevention exceeds the incremental cost of adaptation, and we need to have a best educated guess at where that is. It's a shame that we can't even have that much needed conversation because of the strong culture of denial. If we can only barely convince a plurality that the Earth is more than 7000 years old... it's pretty depressing.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by anotherT34C

.. I am however, highly confident that the opportunity cost of slowing the climate shift is far smaller than the opportunity cost of adaptation to a rapid shift.

Exactly how much to slow it, needs to be a sober cost-benefit analysis. At some point the incremental cost of prevention exceeds the incremental cost of adaptation, and we need to have a best educated guess at where that is. It's a shame that we can't even have that much needed conversation because of the strong culture of denial...

Among others, the Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change has examined the costs and benefits:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/indepe...iew_Report.cfm

The findings of the above study may not appeal to everyone's emotional bias.

The draft report of the Garnaut Climate Change Review, a similar study conducted in Australia in 2008 by Ross Garnaut broadly endorsed the approach undertaken by Stern, but concluded, in the light of new information, that Stern had underestimated the severity of the problem and the extent of the cuts in emissions that were required to avoid dangerous climate change.
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/domi...garnautweb.nsf

[jzk]

From the report that Gord cites: "Ecosystems will be particularly vulnerable to climate change, with one study estimating that around 15 – 40% of species face extinction with 2°C of warming. Strong drying over the Amazon, as predicted by some climate models, would result in dieback of the forest with the highest biodiversity on the planet."

So the planet has encountered 2C warmer periods many times before, and the ecosystem and life forms contained therein have weathered it just fine, but this time 15-40% of them will go extinct.

If the Global Warming crowd ever wants to create a "consensus" then they really need to stop publishing such nonsense.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by jzk

.. So the planet has encountered 2C warmer periods many times before, and the ecosystem and life forms contained therein have weathered it just fine, but this time 15-40% of them will go extinct.

This is one of a number of popular, but unsubstantiated, myths regarding CLIMACTIC temperature variations.

The consensus exists, whether some wish to recognize it, or not.

We all think we have reasonable evidence for our positions, that others won't accept, even as we deny the presence of reasonable evidence for others' positions. Instead of just focusing on our own predicament, however, we should stop to look at the situation others are facing.

Specifically, we should look more closely at the flaws we have identified in others' arguments and think about what sorts of arguments and evidence would force us to take their claims more seriously. When we are doing this, we are not being biased in favor of our own pet theories — we are being as critical as we can, perhaps even too critical. This, then, is what we should try to turn back around against our pet theories. We should demand the same standards from ourselves, that we require of others.

So, what is reasonable evidence for our position? It's evidence that we would accept for a position we don't already believe and perhaps are even a bit hostile towards — if we can't muster that much evidence on behalf of our claims, then we don't have enough yet.

This doesn't mean our claims are wrong, or even that the evidence we have thus far is not fair, but if we want to convince others we should have enough that would convince ourselves if we were them.

[jzk]

Originally Posted by GordMay

This is one of a number of popular, but unsubstantiated, myths regarding CLIMACTIC temperature variations...

Gord,

Please explain. What part is a "myth?" Have we undergone a climate of 2C warmer than the present? Did we have massive species extinction during that climate?

Thanks.