Now that we have experienced the “pause” in global warming and have begun to rest easy about the climate future, what is there really to deter us from continuing, even increasing, our exploitation of the abundant energy available to us from shale, from oil, from coal? Obviously nothing, save for the pitiable cries of uninformed — and misinformed — environmentalists, enveloped in their drama of a planet in peril.
So goes the rationale of those executives busily engaged in their schemes of digging, drilling and pouring chemicals into the land, reaping the rich profits therefrom and expanding their sway over the fate of the Earth. Corporate return will continue to soar, carrying with it the heightening of quality of life for that handful with the vision and will to make all of this happen. To the deserving!
And who or what is there to deny these realizations of the corporate dream?
In a simple, one-word response, they would suggest “fearmongering”; those frightening exercises in phantasy, tortured reality and invented scenarios of environmental disasters. These, of course, are the stock in trade of those who claim visions of a world and future unseen by those whose common sense keeps them moored to the world that exists — that real world of the shared experience of abundant corporate profit.
I move on to commentary on “the pause” and also several examples of these “obstacles to an abundant future.”
From PlanetOz, by Graham Readfearn in the Guardian, May 28, “The ‘pause’ in global warming is not even a thing”:
“All signs point to an acceleration of human-caused climate change. So why all this talk of a pause?
“The IPCC in 2013 pointed out that more than 90 percent of the world’s extra heat is being soaked up by the oceans, rather than lingering on the surface.
“The idea that global warming has ‘paused’ or is currently chillaxing in a comfy chair with the words ‘hiatus’ written on it has been getting a good run in the media of late.
“Much of this is down to a new study analysing why one single measure of climate change — the temperatures on the surface averaged out across the entire globe — might not have been rising quite so quickly as some thought they might.
“But here’s the thing. There never was a ‘pause’ in global warming or climate change. For practical purposes, the so-called ‘pause’ in global warming is not even a thing.
“The study in question was led by Professor Matt England at the University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre.
“England told me: Global warming has not stopped. People should understand that the planet is a closed system. As we increase our emissions of greenhouse gases, the fundamental thermal dynamics tells us we have added heat into the system. Once it’s trapped, it can go to a myriad of places — land surface, oceans, ice shelves, ice sheets, glaciers for example.
“England explained how the winds help the ocean to absorb heat into the thermocline — that’s roughly the area between 100 metres and 300 metres deep. He says once the trade winds drop — which is likely to come within years rather than decades — then the averaged surface temperatures will rise sharply again.
“Media outlets across the world have extensively covered England’s paper. National Geographic noted that the study revealed how the heat had been ‘hiding’ in the oceans.
“When the salty water of the oceans heats up, it expands, pushing sea level higher. If ice that’s attached to land — such as the two major ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica — melt, they also add to the water in the ocean, further pushing up sea levels. Melting glaciers also add to sea level rise.
“So what’s been happening while global warming was apparently having a holiday?
“Global sea level continues to rise, driven by melting ice sheets, glaciers and warming and expanding oceans.
“Melting cryosphere. The cryosphere — the Earth’s icy areas — obviously don’t think much of the notion that global warming might have stopped.
“A study last year in the journal Science looked at glaciers in all regions of the world. The study found that the world’s glaciers were melting at a rate of 259 billion tonnes a year between 2003 and 2009.
“What about the ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland, which together hold about 99 per cent of the world’s fresh water? Between 1992 and 2001, ice was melting from the two main ice sheets at a rate of about 64 billion tonnes a year, according to the latest IPCC assessment of the science.
“From 2002 to 2011, the ice sheets were melting at a rate of about 362 billion tonnes a year — an almost six-fold increase. What was that about a pause in global warming?
“During this lovely comfortable hiatus when we’re told by some that global warming has stopped and so we can all stop being such worry pots, what else has been going on?
“Australia has experienced its hottest year on record after the most widespread heat wave on record. The risk of bushfires is on the rise.
“The UK is experiencing extreme flooding — again. Other research has found that globally, all this extra warmth means that monthly heat records are being broken five times more often.
“Even if we do want to look at globally averaged temperatures, the ‘hiatus’ has given the world its hottest decade since records began in 1850. We could go on and on. Not so much a ‘pause’ as a ‘fast forward.’”
From “Is Global Warming Really Slowing Down?” by Chris Mooney, Aug. 28, 2013:
“Chances are you’ve heard people say that global warming has ‘stopped,’ ‘paused’ or hit a ‘slowdown.’ It’s a favorite talking point of political conservatives like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who recently declared that there has been ‘no recorded warming since 1998.’ Climate skeptics frequently use these arguments to cast doubt on climate science and to downplay the urgency of addressing global warming. Last year, for instance, Fox News pronounced global warming ‘over.’
“A new study in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society suggests there might not have even been a global warming ‘pause’ at all. Rather, the notion of a ‘pause’ may just be the result of incomplete data: In particular, a lack of weather stations in the remote Arctic region. That gap is problematic because we know that Arctic amplification is occurring and global warming is moving particularly fast there. The dramatic new low in Arctic sea ice extent in the year 2012 put an exclamation point on that finding.
“The new paper, by Kevin Cowtan of the University of York in the UK and Robert Way of the University of Ottawa, uses an array of techniques to show that the lack of Arctic coverage probably biases global temperature estimates, and particularly those from the Hadley Center in the UK, in a cool direction. Then the study uses two approaches, including one drawing on data from satellites, to try to fill this well-known gap in observational temperature data. The upshot is quite dramatic: as RealClimate.org points out, the new temperature trend over the past 15 years falls directly into line with the larger warming trend. The alleged global warming slowdown vanishes.
“… Penn State climate researcher Michael Mann commented on the new study and its significance. ‘We’ve known for some time that there’s a potential bias in some estimates of the global average temperature from not including some parts of the Arctic, where the data are sparse, but where we know most of the warming is taking place,’ Mann explained. ‘And if you don’t sample that part of the Arctic, you’re underestimating the rate at which the globe is warming.’
“The whole idea of a global warming pause is ‘really not supported by good science,’ concludes Mann.”
Of course, back in the corporate world folks are far to sharp to fall for that kind of ‘scientific’ pablum. In the world where money rules, folks can buy far better facts than that last sad lot.
Jerome Page is a Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
I wish to applaud Mr. Page for the fact that the ‘GOP’ is not mentioned, much less held to responsibility, in his latest missive which asks whether, or not, we can ‘Handle the Cold Weather’. On conclusion of reading his submission, all but composed of opaque quotations from dubious sources, I must reply.
I proffer that a perfect example of ‘Arctic Amplification’ is inherent in Michael Mann’s quote;
“The Arctic, where the data are sparse, but where we know most of the warming is taking place” suggests that data is unnecessary because pliant and subsidized scientists ‘Just Know’. I must admit the fact that I was unaware of the existence of our world-wide ‘Thermocline’ monitoring system, obviously a ‘Dark’ program funded by the taxpayers, sans cognizance, as defined on page 54,321 of ‘The Affordable Care Act’. Is it not feasible that such a vast global network could be utilized in locating the remains of flight MA-370 while simultaneously resolving the cause of ‘Global Warming/Climate Change’?
Will we ever enjoy a ‘Hiatus’ from ‘Self Serving Science’? Will we ever take a ‘Holiday’ from the ‘Pablum of Politics’? Will we ever take ‘Pause’ to consider the fact that we know less about the Earth’s climate than we know of the winning numbers in the next ‘Powerball’ draw?
I think not.
Steve,
I thought you might find this of interest, as it serves to confirm exactly what many already knew:
It appears that on occasions the climate experts like to simply make things up based on “educated guesses”. Quoting from the link provided:
Consequently, there is either no, or only rudimentary, knowledge to support guesses about the possible abundance of polar bears in approximately half the areas they occupy. Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it cannot be used to assess population trend over the long term.”
IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group says its global population estimate was “a qualified guess”
Mr. Page – is there some other topic you can write about.? It seems to me the Global Warming story is done. I don’t think your writings are going to change anyone opinion on this subject in this forum.
That said, though I am not a Global Warming denialist, it’s happening, I don’t think you can have a reasonable discussion about the possible solutions without addressing global overpopulation. which is really at the heart of the problem, IMHO. Global warming is real, but it will also be self correcting, either by some natural process, such as a large volcanic eruption (EVI of at least a 7 or 8), think somewhere in Iceland, or as the world continues to warm, there will be massive shifts in weather patterns that will cause massive crop failures and world wide famine, resulting in a correction of the global overpopulation factor. Think of the tons of green house gasses we release getting food aid to the starving children in Africa, so they can go on and produce the next generation of starving children. My stance is heartless, but it’s based in the natural world.
The correction in human population will be the end of this current civilization, but another will rise to take it’s place. That too is part of the natural world.
I do enjoy reading your articles, but you need to find a different topic.
~ Dave
Dave said: Global warming is real, but it will also be self-correcting, either by some natural process, such as a large volcanic eruption (EVI of at least a 7 or 8), think somewhere in Iceland…
Dave,
The other day I saw a comment that one large eruption essentially negates all of the savings efforts made in one year. I am not sure if that is an exaggeration, but while seeking additional info on the subject I found the website which is linked below. The site indicates over 200 “active” volcanoes and 35 which are “erupting”.
I think most all agree that global warming is real, it is the cause and man’s impact which is debatable.
What’s erupting? List & map of currently active volcanoes
Earth’s temperature is a variable over time. Polar ice caps did not exist in the Jurassic period. I disagree with the stated article position that the Earth is a closed system. The presumption is that every single hydro-carbon molecule produced is permanent and not ever chemically changed. Rubbish.
Again the global warming alarmists draw all conclusions from models created. These models have proven to be wildly inaccurate. The true data shows the Earth is largely unaffected by man-made hydro carbons. Any other conclusion is pure speculation. The debate continues. Is global warming advancing due man made events? No one knows.
The bottom line is that there is around 100 more years of civilization using petroleum products as a primary source of energy. Solar and other forms of power generation will become more efficient and less expensive. So can the Earth survive the next 100 years using petroleum? Of course it can! Can the Earth regenerate itself and adapt? Of course it can! 100 years is a mere micro-second in geologic history.
Mr. page should take a deep breath and calm down. Chicken Little was wrong.
To: Steve Harley
That I neglected to note that the GOP holds a huge responsibility for the lamentable state of our approach to warming was undoubtedly an oversight created by my wearying of stating the obvious. “Will we ever Pause to consider the fact that we know less about the Earth’s climate than we know of the winning numbers in the next Powerball draw?” A cute comment indeed, unfortunately sans meaning, sans relevance and most lamentably sans any awareness of the huge investment of time, intelligence and resulting understandings involved for the scientific community in this crucial matter.
To: DDL
“It appears that on occasions the climate experts like to simply make things us based on “educated guesses”. To sum up all of the great amount of scientific research on climate science as making things up based on educated “guesses,” is a reach almost beyond comprehension. Remarkable!
To Matter:
A couple points. First to characterize all climate research as drawn from “wildly inaccurate models” is a reach so far as to obliterate the possibility of comprehension much less communication. “The presumption is that every single hydro-carbon molecule produced is permanent and not ever chemically changed. Rubbish. “ Not certain whose presumption that is! However try this, “ University of Chicago oceanographer David Archer, who led the study with Caldeira and others, is credited with doing more than anyone to show how long CO2 from fossil fuels will last in the atmosphere. As he puts it in his new book The Long Thaw, “The lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever. The next time you fill your tank, reflect upon this”3.
“The climatic impacts of releasing fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere will last longer than Stonehenge,” Archer writes. “Longer than time capsules, longer than nuclear waste, far longer than the age of human civilization so far.”
To: Dave
The amount of time I have spent on this, including amassing a huge collection of relevant research reports and articles has indeed become a source of discomfort for me. I surely do tire of it. Yet it continues to appear to me to be an extraordinarily crucial issue as demonstrated by the other comments above and the GOP Party embrace of denialism. (See above!)
Jerome Page stated: To sum up all of the great amount of scientific research on climate science as making things up based on educated “guesses,” is a reach almost beyond comprehension. Remarkable!
I am unclear as how you could take such a leap; from my use of ‘on occasions’ to equating that to a summation of the “great amount of scientific research” on the subject.
The subject I mentioned remains unaddressed: The studies on polar bears are seriously flawed (the scientists admit they used false numbers!)
Those two salient facts are ignored in your dismissive response.
To Jerry’ Get off your high horse.
To Jerry: Bravo!
Climate change news the community can use…
I hope Mr. Page will continue to touch on the topic of climate change, (“Yet it continues to appear to me to be an extraordinarily crucial issue”) as he sees fit. The thought provoking article below, is for Mr. Page and the wider community to consider…
“When we speak of WMD, we usually think of weapons — nuclear, biological or chemical — that are delivered in a measurable moment in time. Consider climate change, then, a WMD on a particularly long fuse, already lit and there for any of us to see. Unlike the feared Iranian bomb or the Pakistani arsenal, you don’t need the CIA or the NSA to ferret such “weaponry” out. From oil wells to fracking structures, deep sea drilling rigs to platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, the machinery that produces this kind of WMD and ensures that it is continuously delivered to its planetary targets is in plain sight. Powerful as it may be, destructive as it will be, those who control it have faith that, being so long developing, it can remain in the open without panicking populations or calling any kind of destruction down on them.”
“The companies and energy states that produce such WMD remain remarkably open about what they’re doing. Generally speaking, they don’t hesitate to make public, or even boast about, their plans for the wholesale destruction of the planet, though of course they are never described that way. Nonetheless, if an Iraqi autocrat or Iranian mullahs spoke in similar fashion about producing nuclear weapons and how they were to be used, they would be toast.”
http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/23/the-95-doctrine-climate-change-as-a-weapon-of-mass-destruction/
Will get off your uniformed High Horse.
http://teapartyeconomist.com/2014/06/02/2003-global-warming-pentagon-report-proves-hot-air/
http://www.petitionproject.org
Beyond the climate change denial crowd—
From the article below more relevant information on the ”petition project” for the community to consider…
”The petition first emerged in April 1998 and was organized by Art Robinson of the self-proclaimed “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.”
‘Along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, Robinson’s group co-published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.’
‘Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz (who has since deceased) a notorious climate change denier (and big tobacco scientist), who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science.’
‘Given all this it seems to me that anyone touting this as proof that “global warming is a hoax” completely misunderstands the process of scientific endeavor or has completely exhausted any real argument that rightfully brings into to doubt the reality of climate change.”
http://www.desmogblog.com/30000-global-warming-petition-easily-debunked-propaganda
http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php
The signatories of this petition represent a tiny fraction (~0.3%) of all US science graduates (petition cards were only sent to individuals within the U.S). Both my wife and I are college graduates with science degrees. Neither of us were canvassed.
So am I and I didn’t get canvassed either. Does that negate the point?
It would be difficult to negate the point, as there really does not seem to be one.
If that was the case, then why did you even bother to comment. Hmmmmm
Thomas, let me help you out. The point is that the whole global warming/man made climate change is junk science at best and there seems to be plenty of evidence to supper that simple fact. The boat load of climate change slop is based upon theory, scare tactics, conjecture and falsified data. Predictions have been made about the demise of our planet, none of which have come true. As I have stated before, it is a solution in search of a problem so that a bunch of elitists can get even richer. You can believe what you want but continuing to beat the drum along with Jerome and the rest of the obamanites will not make it come true. Sorry!
That’s all very interesting, and familiar sounding, as well (like a radio station that plays the same old songs). However, none of it helps me understand how the petitionproject is relevant to anything at all. Please consider that those that have signed it, make up only 0.3%) of all US college science graduates. I mean there has to be a reason for the link to have been posted, right? I don’t really care about a layperson’s opinion on climate change. My comment was merely meant to point out that the petitionproject offered as an argument for anything seemed pretty weak.
No need for apologies, considering you probably have no idea what my opinion is on climate change. Any attempt would be conjecture, at best.
Off topic, did you know that gravity is only a theory?
Mr. Petersen,
With an advanced degree in Geological Engineering, rest assured that I am in the category of “doubter”. And if you sent anytime on the Internet reading white papers on both sides of the issue you will quickly discern that there is a sizable scientific community that doubts the hypothesis and the degree of the problem.
If you are a true scientist you will know that initial hypothesis have to be proven via data through experimentation. The data that climate Warner’s support are models, since there is no definitive way to measure the man made carbon compounds and their direct impact on the environment. The models have proven to be wildly inaccurate by common scientific criteria (sorry Mr. Page but that is not a stretch). The scientists that still hold man made climate change as true simply dismiss the facts of model conclusions and state “the situation is too complicated to model but we know man is causing climate change.”
You call that science?
But let’s say you are correct and so is Mr. Page. What is the solution? Alternative energy? OK. Lets scientifically play this out. We cut the use of petroleum and carbon based matter for energy. Fuel prices necessarily go up. As a result, common food items, goods, services .. Price goes up. Inflation of basic living items. The poor suffer. Third world poverty population suffers. Mankind in general suffers.
All this suffering for an unproven hypothesis in which the models used for a conclusion are all incorrect. Further, carbon based energy sources are likely to be replaced largely in the next hundred years. So you and your ilk are willing to cause wide spread human suffering for the next 100 plus years based on a guess. Nice.
Finally, you will note that I never stated man made human climate change is false. I state it is unproven and therefore a doubter. If you read articles you will see many, if not most, researchers hold this position. For you to state that only 0.3% of the science community hold,this position, that is …. Unscientific.
Those that are convinced that man made global warming is true, simply choose to ignore the facts and continue to beat the drum thinking that if they beat it long enough and loud enough people will eventually just believe it. Which, unfortunately, is what usually happens.. Example: gun control. The left wing media is working hard to convince us that gun violence is on a steady increase. The facts, however, according to the government (FBI Crime statistics) show that it has dropped 50% in the last 2o years. But as usual, these facts don’t play well into their agenda so they ignore them and continue to beat the drum. Same with so-called global warming. Again, it is a solution looking for a problem. A data model does not a fact make.
“[They] simply choose to ignore the facts and continue to beat the drum thinking that if they beat it long enough and loud enough people will eventually just believe it”
Applies to guns, climate, as well as religion.
Matter, I simply don’t think that my comment deserves the reply it evoked I was simply wondering how there is any creadance to the petitionproject. Statistically speaking, it really does not mean anything (regardless of what your opinion is on climate). You stated, “What if you are correct…….”. Correct on what.? I don’t recall offering my opinion on climate. As an aside, congratulations on having made your decision.