Climate May Be Less Sensitive To CO2 Than Previously Thought 413
a_hanso writes "A new study suggests that the effects of rising levels of carbon dioxide on temperature may be less significant than previously thought. 'The new models predict that given a doubling in CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels, the Earth's surface temperatures will rise by 1.7 to 2.6 degrees C. That is a much tighter range than suggested by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report, which suggested a rise of between 2 to 4.5 degrees C."
Nuclear (Score:5, Insightful)
We should be switching to nuclear anyway, it's not about global warming, it's about the eventuality of the end of the age of oil. It will happen so it's better to be thinking about it now.
Let the informed battles begin (Score:4, Insightful)
Warmist: World is still getting warmer, which means we will all die
Skeptic: These are all extrapolations which are barely worth the paper they are written on
Denier: We need to stop with the environmental programs, they are killing the economy
Warmist: We need to stop polluting, the world is in jeopardy
Denier: It will cost trillion to "save" the world, and it might not even be saved. Anyone who wants to spend that kind of money on a crapshoot is an idiot
Warmist: Can we afford to take a chance? Our choice is trillions now, or quadrillions later. If you don't agree with me, then you are an idiot.
Skeptic: Anybody who wants to take drastic action on the currently available data is an idiot.
Re:saved! (Score:3, Insightful)
Statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:well if this pans out (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Let the informed battles begin (Score:5, Insightful)
There are climate deniers, who think nothing should be done, and then there are economy deniers, who don't actually believe that their policies have economic cost (and may in fact praise them for "creating jobs").
If you're not one of the irrational extremists, you have to deal with them both (and will probably be called one when dealing with the other). It kinda sucks.
Models are based on insufficient data (Score:5, Insightful)
There are hundreds of things changing the temperature contantly and it's very hard to isolate the changes CO2 caused.
Re:Let the informed battles begin (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Excellent... (Score:5, Insightful)
How can there be a debate about scientific results? This always confuses me. One can have a debate about moral or ethical issues, but not about scientific results.
Then I would say your understanding of how science works is somewhat limited. We could have a debate about: a) whether the assumptions made at the outset were good assumptions, b) whether the data was collected in a reasonable way, c) whether the statistics were chosen and applied correctly, d) whether you've done a good enough job controlling other variables and excluding competing hypotheses, e) the magnitude and directionality of various sources of error, and whether they could confound the data, etc.
Not saying that these are problems with the study in question, but I've read studies in which each of the above (among other things) were certainly open for debate!
Re:well if this pans out (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually 1.7 to 2.6 due to a doubling of CO2 is fantastic. It means with the current trajectory we're only going to get the "expected" unavoidable warming (2 degrees C) even if we do nothing till 2050 or later.
Basically, we let Peak Oil kill off the internal-combustion engine automobile and ride out solar/battery improvements for stationary energy. It changes a lot.
Re:saved! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:saved! (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that 20 years ago there was only 30 years oil left.
We're digging 20,000 feet under ocean beds for oil now. Exactly how much oil do you expect there to be in the mantle?
Re:saved! (Score:5, Insightful)
Only good can come?
Are you sure of that?
Because I can see many things wrong with your statement.
Many bad and not so good things can come from Reducing CO2.
Cars cost more, jobs pay less, food and gas cost more.
Some businesses are getting seriously hurt. (Try making cement in California)
I can understand 5 year olds thinking that all is good and nice. You though are presumably an adult.
try some critical thinking.
Are the benefits realized by these reductions worth the cost?
I do not know. I think that further reductions may in fact not be worth the cost.
But of this I am sure.
Not only good comes from the reduction of CO2.
Re:Nuclear (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, we should be working on energy efficiency.
Nuclear may be relatively safe but, when things do go wrong, we have to live with the consequences for a wee bit longer.
Here's The Thing. (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey, AGW people? Here's the bottom line. Read this carefully. Let it nourish your thought processes. You want to know why the general public hasn't panicked and fallen behind you in your crusade? Here it is.
Lets say we have many, many skilled scientists working on not one, but DOZENS of models that are constantly being refined and tinkered with. This has been going on for DECADES. They feed these models with thousands and thousands of hard, verifiable data points -- measurements from buoys, satellites, even ships at sea with calibrated instruments. Temperatures, pressures, atmospheric readings, all get poured into these models with loving care and infinite attention to detail. When using the models, another team of specialists carefully takes the average of these models, based on experience, to make cautious predictions.
They're called Hurricane Models. And even after DECADES of refinement, they still can't reliably predict the path of a storm past 3-5 days. They still can't reliably predict hurricane intensity AT ALL.
And you want us to believe that you can predict, WITH GREAT CONFIDENCE, that the Earth will be 10 degrees warming in so many years because of what mankind is doing?
"Oh, well, that's different," screams the AGW crowd. Maybe. But it does show the limitations of science, does it not? I appreciate everything that the hurricane forecasters have accomplished. They've saved a lot of lives. But there's a good, hard example of the limitations of ANY model that seeks to predict the behavior of a huge, complex, chaotic system.
What I'm desperately tired of is binary thinking: EITHER one believes the prevailing, dire theories about AGW and wants to take emergency action, OR one is an uniformed, reactionary dunderhead. (Or even worse, a Republican -- which I am NOT, by the way).
The question isn't whether the Earth is warming. I honestly don't know, but let's say it has. It's a long leap from that assertion to insisting that my barbeque grill is what's causing it. (More binary thinking: either you agree with us in all particulars, or you're no different from a Young Earth Creationist.) I need to be SURE before I repent and take the grill to the landfill. You haven't convinced me.
And here's the point: I AGREE that we need to reduce carbon emissions. Whether they're causing global warming or not, I'm tired of breathing stinky air in Birmingham, AL, if nothing else. (There's the "personal interest" angle.) Let's crush the stranglehold of Big Oil and find some real, green alternatives.
But I AM NOT going to allow anyone to wreck the global economy to achieve this. We can do it slowly and steadily, with planning and forethought. I'm not going to allow my government to enact some byzantine, "carbon credit" scheme that is, at the end of the day, just another boondoggle that lines the pockets of important contributors.
So: there you go, AGW proponents. Read it and learn, or begin with the condescending, sneering replies about how uninformed I am. It's really this simple: when your "scientists" finally achieve the ability to tell me, with at least 90% accuracy, that it will rain in my neighborhood next week, I *might* believe your claims about what's going to happen in the next century.
I think I'm being quite reasonable. :)
Re:saved! (Score:5, Insightful)
What if a reduction in CO2 means a reduction in consumption of fossil fuels, and therefore a significant cost reduction, especially if oil-prices go up? What exactly will prevent another (possibly lasting) oil crisis? The oil is slowly but surely running dry, and certain (oil-dependent) countries are ready to fight over oil or use it as a weapon (just look at Iran; they are currently threatening to cut off the Strait of Hormuz, thus blocking not just their own but many other Middle-east countries oil export). It may be cheaper to rely on oil and gas at this very moment, but other energy sources, may well become cheaper in the (very near) future.
Re:Let the informed battles begin (Score:5, Insightful)
economy deniers, who don't actually believe that their policies have economic cost (and may in fact praise them for "creating jobs").
Fair enough, but the "economy deniers" I hear are usually on the other side of the debate though.
The Republicans in particular spout this meme that environmental policy is bad for the economy. It is a frustrating one because it is only true in the short term. In the long run, such R&D is usually good. Ask Toyota if making the Prius was a mistake. They developed it back when Ford, GM, and Chrysler were complaining to the Bush administration that raising the fuel efficiency standards would cost a million jobs. That was only true because they hadn't invested in the technology.
Keeping clean air and waterways helps the fishing and tourism industries. It reduces health care costs. It raises worker productivity.
(and may in fact praise them for "creating jobs").
True that they don't directly "create jobs." But companies not investing in tech means they fall behind and lose those jobs eventually.
Re:saved! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:saved! (Score:0, Insightful)
Telling them a few more people are going to starve and companies are already going out of business just makes them redouble their efforts. But don't forget, you're the ideologue.
Re:saved! (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean, pointing that oil is finite? That's all you need to prove your argument is false. Of course, you can dismiss the knowledge that oil is finite for how long you want. It is just a theory after all.
Also, that isn't proof that peak oil is now. The way things are going, nobody will ever be able to prove "peak oil is now", whenever "now" is.
Re:saved! (Score:4, Insightful)
There are the tar sands in Canada that hold an immense amount of oil.
Extracting that oil is glacially slow (we're getting maybe 1.5 million barrels per day. that's less than 1/10th of the US' current usage alone. Every oil company in Alberta is running balls out to expand that, but capacity is only expanding at about 200,000 barrels/day/year), expensive (The cheapest most accessible stuff costs $40/barrel to extract and upgrade), and messy as hell.
Re:saved! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let the informed battles begin (Score:4, Insightful)
Scientist: Here are the assumptions in the models we used, and here are the sensitivities of the outputs to these assumptions and the statistical variations depending on the numerical seeds.
At this point, about 1% of the way through the paper, the Denier, Skeptic and Warmist all stop listening and want to know which cities will be flooded, and get unhappy if the answer doesn't match what they were given by the last scientist they talked to.
The climate is a fantastically complex system.There has been a lot of progress in climate modeling, but it isn't like predicting where a cannon ball will land if you know the starting trajectory.
You can't predict this, so you can't predict that! (Score:5, Insightful)
So we're back to the argument, "Nobody can reliably predict the outcome of a single spin of a roulette wheel, so it is crazy to think that anybody can predict the average of thousands of spins!"
And meanwhile, the casinos continue to make money.
Strong candidate for the single dumbest argument against global warming.
Re:saved! (Score:4, Insightful)
Cars cost more, jobs pay less, food and gas cost more.
Some businesses are getting seriously hurt. (Try making cement in California)
Yes, because pushing the cost of doing business onto the people living around your factory, farm or the users of your products is a god-given right in the Free Market. You're subsidizing businesses if you allow them to destroy the health and environment that people live and work in.