Monday, May 12, 2014

Global Warming Update

  photo PauseMyth_zps8acedf10.gif



The last time I did a post on global warming (part 2 here)I got some opposition form a conservative opponent. The right wing has really buffaloed the chruch into associated "global warming" with left wing anti-God atheism. So they really deal with the issue as though it's an affront to the very concept of religious belief. It has nothing to do with that. It's about something that our greed and fear has done too the world. We could take a theological stand on it. God gave Adam stewardship over the earth; not the right to rape the earth but the responsibility to protect it.

Now a new study has come out showing that the effects of global warming are not future effects, they are now. They are worse than we thought. The effect is greater at this stage then our estimates had it at a future stage.That means at the momentum is gaining and the real disastrous effects are just around the corner.
  1. Kevin E. Trenberth* and
  2. John T. Fasullo
Article first published online: 5 DEC 2013
DOI: 10.1002/2013EF000165

 Global warming first became evident beyond the bounds of natural variability in the 1970s, but increases in global mean surface temperatures have stalled in the 2000s. Increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, create an energy imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) even as the planet warms to adjust to this imbalance, which is estimated to be 0.5–1 W m−2 over the 2000s. Annual global fluctuations in TOA energy of up to 0.2 W m−2 occur from natural variations in clouds, aerosols, and changes in the Sun. At times of major volcanic eruptions the effects can be much larger. Yet global mean surface temperatures fluctuate much more than these can account for. An energy imbalance is manifested not just as surface atmospheric or ground warming but also as melting sea and land ice, and heating of the oceans. More than 90% of the heat goes into the oceans and, with melting land ice, causes sea level to rise. For the past decade, more than 30% of the heat has apparently penetrated below 700 m depth that is traceable to changes in surface winds mainly over the Pacific in association with a switch to a negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) in 1999. Surface warming was much more in evidence during the 1976–1998 positive phase of the PDO, suggesting that natural decadal variability modulates the rate of change of global surface temperatures while sea-level rise is more relentless. Global warming has not stopped; it is merely manifested in different ways.[1]

The average surface tempature has slowed (which is the major measurement that I find conservatives harping on) but the melting of artic ice and rising of sea levels has increased.[2]


Yet another report has also been released, this one the mandatory periodic report, the NCA, the National Climate Assessment finds that each region is pledged by it's own climate change disaster: heat wave, drought, rising sea levels.

The assessment was prepared by hundreds of the USA's top scientists. It largely agrees with a recent report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that found the planet is warming, mostly because of human activity.
The assessment provides "the loudest and clearest alarm bell to date" for immediate and aggressive climate action, John Holdren, Obama's science adviser, said at a press conference.
"All Americans will find things that matter to them in this report...
"There are a lot of troubling findings here, but one of the most striking regards sea-level rise," said Patrick Sullivan of the Center for Biological Diversity. "The report says we could see as much as four feet of sea-level rise this century, with regional variations. That will pose major storm surge and flood threats to major coastal communities like New York, Boston, and Houston." [3]
 This is the third report of the 60 person advisory committee, the most comprehensive report done on global warming in america,  250 authors were engaged in this report.[4]
 http://www.globalchange.gov/ncadac




 photo global-warming-4_zps9617ed6a.gif


Naomi Oreskes,Science historian, , speaks to the alleged lack of consensus in scientific circles:

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].[5]
Oreskes points out that all major scientific bodies in the U.S. whose members whose members expertise bear directly upon the issue have made statements similar to that above. She quotes he National Academy of Sciences report Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)].She also sites The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

 She analyzes reports as falling into six categories categories:

explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.[6]
Anyone who is anyone in academic science is lined up with the consensus. While right wing sources can find lone wolf voices the major organizations accept the thesis that man's tampering has caused the brunt of the problem.

A new study in the journal Climate Change traces two thirds of the man made end of the problem to just 90 companies, including Chevron and BP.[7]  This is a quantative analysis of the 50 leading investor-owned (plus 31 state owned and 9 nation state producers) of fossil fuel energy. The findings suggest that 63% of cumulative world wide emissions of industrial green house gases to 90 companies. This is bewteen the years 1854 and 2010. This study constitues a new methodology in tracing emmisions. Rather than just deal with nation by nation statistics they undertake to "to analyze emissions in terms of the fossil fuels produced by incorporated entities—such as investor-owned or state-owned companies—rather than states as consumers and emitters.."[8] A great deal of scientific work has gone into this study. I can't produce it all here or even summarize it. The study also reflects the harms of green house gasses in producing climate change.

The frame work set up intentionally to deal with climate change though fossil fuel emmisions seeks to chart the course for nations as emitters. This study shows us that it's just 90 internaltional companies that are responsible for most of the harm. That also reflects my own thesis about corporate feudalism, that multinational corporations have outstripped nation states in power and influence. What this really means is once again the 1% leach off of the 99% of the rest of the world. The rich and powerful and killing humanity and nature for short term profits.

This merely underscores the immediate danger of allowing the republicans to win the senate. The republican party in the U.S. are the servants of this 1% that is leaching off of our lives. If they win the Senate there will be no way to the world from disastrous climate change and worse.Republicans in congress and tea party have tried to cover up climate change by making people confused and afraid to trust the scinece. If they control congress we will never get any action on the problem.




Sources

[1]Kevi E. Trenberth and John T. Fasullo, quated by Stff Writer in Earth's Future Wiley Online Library (Article first published online: 5 DEC 2013DOI: 10.1002/2013EF000165)
 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000165/abstract
 (accessed,5/10/14)

[2] John Abraham Dana  Nuccitelli, The Guardian, (hosted blog) Tuesday 10 December 2013 09.00 EST. Blog http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/10/global-warming-unpaused-fast-forward
(accessed,5/10/14).

[3]Doyle Rice,USA Today "Report: Climate change is Here and Getting worse." May 6, 2014,
 http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/05/06/national-climate-assessment/8736743/
 (accessed,5/10/14)

[4] "National Climate Asscessment and Development Advisory Committee,"Global Change.gov U.S. Global Change Research Program. their official site. URL: http://www.globalchange.gov/ncadac
 (accessed, 5/10/14)

[5] Naomi Oreskes,"Essays on Science and Society, Beyond the Ivory Tower," Science, AAAS News.
 Dec 3, 2004. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
accessed (5/10/14) The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail: noreskes@ucsd.edu

[6] Ibid.

[7] Richard Heede, "Tracing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane emissions to fossil fuel and cement producers, 1854–2010"  Climate Change,    , Volume 122, Issue 1-2, pp 229-241,Open Access 
 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0986-y
accessed 5/11/14 

[8] Ibid, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0986-y/fulltext.html
access 5/11/14. 

2 comments:

Eric Sotnak said...

Who are you gonna believe - a bunch of egg-headed academic liberal pansies who think global temperatures measurements have to be measured globally and tracked over time, or a guy who knows how to make a snowball?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/02/26/jim-inhofes-snowball-has-disproven-climate-change-once-and-for-all/

Joe Hinman said...

I'll believe a guy who makes good deals and has been sued 500 times.