I like nature- I am a dirty, crunchy, organic-eating, bike-riding hippie.

Im not sure how banning DDT "killed 30 million people", but from the point of view of carbon emmissions, that was sure great for the earth.
I believe radical environmentalists consider humans as a scourgage on the earth; so less of us is good; more of us is bad (for the earth). You might fault a snake for gobbling up baby birds out of a bird's nest, but that is the nature of a snake. Similarly we humans will fight over, and then use all resources, until they are completely gone. That is our nature. We want our nation, our neighborhood, our family, to have some small advantage over another 'group'. Each nation wants to rise up out of poverty by using resources to add value to 'stuff' which it can sell. You can not stop that strong drive to better ones self, or ones nation.

If we were truly concerned about reducing our carbon or resource footprint, we would give up on many LW backpacking products, we would all buy "bomber" 1000 denier ballistic nylon packs and clothing which we could buy once and use literally for a lifetime. Instead, we buy a series of lighter and more 'gossmaer' products, all designed for lightness, not durability. These products will eventually be tossed into a landfill and replaced with something lighter and better. I am very guilty of this as well.

In my father's generation, he never exibited the consumerism or gear fetishism I call a 'hobby'. He could not have told you what "carbon neutral" meant, but he had one pack, one Coleman sleeping bag and stove, one fishing pole, etc.., and used this stuff until it literally wore out. Come to think of it; it was still around and servicable when he passed away! I tossed it all into a landfill because it was old, not fashionable, heavy, or un-cool. How stupid of me.

My first year reading the posts at BPL has been an amazing learning experience, really. Not just learning what is the best equipment to buy, but a moral learning experience. Now that I have my kit pretty much dialed in I am trying to 'reduce, reuse, recycle' a lot of the gear I acquired in ill-advised purchases (due to my own ignorance). My requirements set for new gear now is different than a year ago. It must be Light, certainly, but also durable, and useful in my non-recreational life (as a rain jacket, drinking cup, pot, etc..) If 'light' and 'durable' are on opposite sides of a scale from 1 to 10; Im gravitating towards a 2 or 3, not the ultralight "1".

Happily, there is SUL gear which is also recycled or re-used; pop can stoves are a great example. Titanium I believe is another example of light gear which can last many lifetimes. There are probably many more examples our posters can come up with; so those of us who care about reducing our footprint can make or buy light and durable goods.

Though a non-expert, I am enjoying an infantile obsession with global climate. Reading and rereading a number of articles over the last four months has been both frustrating and intensely fascinating. There is a fair amount of product available for web reading, and, as with most things, familiarity fosters the beginnings of understanding and respect. Without a science or technical background, my thoughts and imaginings of actual climate research conjure an image of a scientist (a synthesis of a wild haired Einstein and a retentive Mr. Goodwrench) working in a lab reminiscent of high school biology. Models remain a dark mystery.

The tone around models tends toward negative; indeed they’re unable to solve the puzzle. But that notion of respect, born of obsessive familiarity, persuades me that they must have a value. As a non-expert, I wonder if they can answer small questions, a bunch of times, with a bunch of different variables, in a bunch of small places, etc,etc, over and over and over again? And maybe some medium sized problems too, in a kind of pattern that narrows a parameter set? They must be good for something. Steve Dent?

One of the themes of my reading is narrowing possibilities. Some processes can be predicted without understanding, and possibly, contribute to the understanding of a larger phenomenon.

Some explanation of the latest GISS model is available here.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf

Code can apparently be downloaded here.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/#IPCC

..That is a rough translation of a Chinese curse. (Ben, help us out with the original?) The implication being that peaceful happy times are boring; interesting times are due to conflict and trouble.

If global climate change is really the worst case scenario I am reading about; we are in for a wild ride in our lifetimes. None of us can alter its course because we are like ants on a beach waiting for a wave to come in.
Some will profit from it, some will be ruined by it.

Some one once told me that most of the world's problems are the result of very tiny contributions by very many contributors. Try dropping down one grain of sand at time to the same point. Over time a sand pile gradually develops growing higher and higher as each tiny grain drops. Each tiny contribution hardly makes a difference to the pile.

This process flows along for many, many drops until just one meaningless sand grain suddenly and unexpectedly causes the pile to collapse.

Another example, think about a pond with lily pads that double every day. Today there's one lily pad, tomrrow two, etc. This continues on and on. One day there is a pond that is 1/2 full of lily pads. The next day, there is a pond that is filled to its capacity with lily pads.

My point is that there are things going on that most people are unaware of on a grain by grain basis. Of course, one days there will be a collapse. Also, when we assume that there is always time to fix or heal a growing problem, we might get squeezed.

SK,

For the GISS model described here we find an interesting comment on page 159, section e:

For numerical stability, ModelE applies an empirical
Rayleigh drag scheme at the model top…

The phrase “numerical stability” is key here. What the modelers are doing is artificially dampening the model at the upper boundary (think top of a box) to keep their model from blowing up.

A huge problem with the way most weather models are designed can be seen with a simple example from the physical world. Something many of us played around with as kids.

Take a length of rope and lay it out in a straight line your front yard. Kneel down at one end of the rope. Grab the end and give it a good snap up and then down, once. What you will see is a hump that travels down the length of the rope: linear wave motion. The hump, data, is traveling down what mathematicians call a characteristic line.

It is the way hyperbolic partial differential equations, the Navier-Stokes equations, fundamentally work. Different types of data (temperature, density, moisture) travel along different characteristic lines, in different directions, at different rates. In the Navier-Stokes equations (stiff, non-linear hyperbolic partial differential equations) the characteristic lines are not simple straight lines; think of the how waves curl over when they break near shore, or eddies swirl in a river.

Anyway, what most weather modelers do is arbitrarily specify data along all the boundaries instead of letting the characteristics specify the solution. So what they are modeling isn’t even close to the way the original mathematical equations behave, or the atmosphere in real life.

As a result, data is bounced off the boundaries (think of waves from hurricane surge colliding with a concrete wall) into the center of the model where the data is amplified over time until their models blow up. To keep the models from blowing up they introduce artificial dampening techniques that change the viscosity (drag) of air into something like honey or molasses.

It is really just a huge mess.

Reading through all the posts in this thread, I am reminded of a high school biology exercise we performed: fill a Petri dish with agar agar, inoculate with a bacteria sample,
place in a warm dark location and periodically observe. The bacteria multiply until eventually they exhaust the agar agar and die in a soup of their own metabolic byproducts. When I look at our current situation, I see an
ever expanding human race busily devouring all available resources and spewing out metabolic/industrial byproducts.
It makes me wonder how long it will take us to fill up our own Petri dish.

Steve,

Thank you for your time and response. I appreciate your ability to communicate these concepts. I’ll translate your ending phrase “huge mess” to mean that the model E used by GISS has little, limited, or no value?

In the first paragraph of the National Academy of Science article that you referenced, there is a sentence about the secondary effects of warming suggested by model simulations. Increases in rainfall rates and increased susceptibility to drought in semi-arid regions were two examples. Other examples often times sited are changes in mid latitude storm patterns and regionally or locally specific changes in weather and weather volatility. Is it during this secondary “predictive” phase that the models most demonstrate their limitations?

Regarding paragraph three, my impression (from other reading) is that the understanding of aerosols, greenhouse gases, and feedback mechanisms has grown in the last six years. Could you say the same about the modeling of these? Was my impression of increased understanding likely based on evidence from modeling?

As the article continues to GHG concentrations, aerosols, forcings, and forcing values, the qualifications diminish. This information is apparently a product of more basic science?

Solar forcings could also be measured with some accuracy, but calculations of an increased solar forcing effect on water vapor or aerosols in the upper atmosphere would probably result from modeling runs?

If you have the time and inclination to answer any of this, thanks Steve.

1) Something that is not working will sometimes reveal the truth to us by pure coincidence.

A clock with hands shows the correct time twice a day even when it is not ticking.

2) Something that is working could always hide the truth from us its very nature or design.

A clock without hands, never shows the correct time, but it is ticking.

Brian, Steve, Ernie, PJ, et al,
One factor has not, so far as I can tell, been mentioned: Population. Even at a reasonable level of consumption(if humanity could possibly reach consensus on what that might be), if population continues to expand, we shall inevitably run into environmental problems at some point in the future.
The earth is after all ultimately a finite environment. And
changing peoples' beliefs about procreation across widely varying cultures is going to be a very difficult proposition, especially given the increasingly adversarial relationships between the "Developed World" and much of the rest of humanity. We can't even agree among ourselves here in the USA on the subject.

The rate of growth of the world's population must decrease. But it won't, of course.

We need that Close Encounters thing to actually happen, but this time they don't drop off anyone and only do pick ups with one-way tickets.

Another possibility is the Soylent Green concept.

Ah, yes, soylent green. Euell Gibbons mentioned it in "Stalking The Blue Eyed Scallop", if I remember correctly. Said it reminded him of the taste of wild hickory nuts, or something like that. Wonder what we taste like right out of the box to flesh eating bacteria? On a more serious note, I could envision a sudden and substantial decrease in human population resulting from a combination of one or more of the following factors:
AIDS getting out of control in densely populated countries such as India and China(already a very real possibility); A
pandemic such as a new strain of flu spread rapidly via air transport; Bioweapons employed by terrorist groups or a "rogue" state; The use of nuclear weapons resulting in mass civilian casualties, both initially from heat, blast, and radiation, followed by even more casualties from long term radiation, opportunistic disease as a result of compromised immune systems, and social/environmental disruption. This is increasing likely as more and more states with historical grievances acquire the requisite technology, not to mention our own government, which is reputed to be working on acquiring a first strike capability. I do not say this is an inevitable outcome, but neither is it out of the question.

Each day the news reports become more fantastically apocalyptic … The great global warming swindle.

The BBC program is about an hour long.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle&hl=en

I saw this when it was broadcast here in the UK recently. I can thoroughly recommend it, and even those who believe everything Al Gore says should watch it.

The great global warming swindle??? When organizations as diverse as The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(working under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization), The International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme(sponsored and funded by ~70 nations, including the USA), and the American Geophysical Union, together representing the consensus of thousands of scientist from all over the world, start to express concern about the effects of human activity on climate and the biosphere, I for one sit up and pay attention. For anyone who feels the whole subject of human influenced climate change is hype or a swindle, or anybody else interested in getting a better handle on what is known so far about the subject, I would highly recommend going to their websites and reading some of their reports. WARNING: It'll take longer than one hour. No hype here; no Apocalypse Now; just a lot of data meticulously assembled and analyzed by a pretty serious bunch. As for a swindle, what would these guys get out of it?

gore's alarmist performance satisfies a market

i'm amazed at how many people believe this kind of junk after watching ice chunks fall or polar bears swimming to hell without researching the subject at least a little more

i don't like or get paid by big oil whose product came from fossil fuels that did not origin during an ice age – so maybe there is a cycle thing going on

what's really bad is there will probably be a backlash caused by his exaggerations that will hurt other valid environmental concerns that are not junk and much more important

and the loser is

the recent ipcc report is only a summary

i read it and that is when i began to question the hype

some of the data as only been measured since the 1960s

please don't act like everyone who questions gore is pro-oil and lame.

Lorraine, thanks for sharing the video. They make some excellent points that the public usually doesn’t think about.

A. The earth goes through natural warming and cooling periods.

B. Temperature data has only been available on a global basis (think sea surface temperatures at many points not just at some sparsely scattered buoy locations) since the 1970s.

C. Staff at many agencies are dependent upon Climate $$$ and have a vested interest. This certainly used to be true at NCAR where politics superseded science.

Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace) is an interesting character. He reminds me of how I view the political spectrum. Normally the political spectrum is presented as a straight line with the ultra-liberals on the left and the ultra-conservatives on the right. But in my mind it is almost a complete circle with at small gap at the top: ultra-liberals on one side of the gap and ultra-conservatives on the other side of the gap. But the gap is so small that it doesn’t take much for an uber-liberal to become an uber-conservative or visa versa. Hillary Clinton, one time Goldwater Girl (1964), is a prime example. Patrick Moore seems to be another.

Anyway, the definition of climate is the “weather averaged over a long period of time.” And with any meaningful data sample there are points above the average (global warming) and points below the average (global cooling).

Not lame, George, but maybe dangerously unconcerned. I could reply in the same vein about people who call climate change a swindle. As for only being measured since the 60s, some of the data they measure, e.g., CO2 levels and ocean PH, go back over 600,000 years. That covers a few cycles of climate change, doesn't it?

gore's alarmist performance satisfies a market

George I haven't seen Gore's film, but the same can be said about "The Great Global Warming Swindle". I certainly wouldn't call it an unbiased or balanced view. However, I would agree with some of it.

I don't buy the swindle game either. I think there are some very serious things happening on the planet. Some cyclical and some human related. I don't think we are helping matters by ignoring climate studies, but neither do I feel exaggerated or emotional depictions do much good. One side embraces it while the other side scoffs at it. More polarizing. Less results.

It seems like Gore and the IPCC are telling us that we need to change our ways. I agree with that but not because I'm scared that a tidal wave will hit NYC soon due to global warming. We need to change things because what we are doing is unsustainable regardless of a few degrees in temperature.

George, I completely agree with what you wrote.

George, me too. There's an interesting article in this week's N.Y. Times, Science Tuesday, about the scientific community's reaction to Gore's film. Some, predictably, dismiss it as overblown hype. The majority, however, applaud his effort, exaggerated though it may be, as exactly what is needed to shake the citizenry out of its complacency while there may still be time to avoid the worst of a number of possible scenarios for climate change.
Gore is, after all, a veteran politician and undoubtedly realizes that, without a mobilized citizenry it will be difficult to
make the necessary changes in our lifestyle that will be required. At least that seems to me to be what he is up to.

Ice core samples seem to confirm CO2 levels FOLLOW temperature rise, they do not precede it.

As for being dangerously unconcerned, it's more like asking dangerous questions that threaten the collapse of the theory behind global warming.

Questions, incidentally, that should be welcomed as an opportunity to prove the science and the theory. Why are they so unwelcome if everything is so settled? What is with the character assasination?

I find it interesting that those who publicly question are often those with already established careers like Nigel Weiss. Here’s the url to his observation that the world is about to enter a cooling period following a decrease in solar magnetic activity:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=17fad0e2-6f6b-41f3-bdd8-8e9eeb015777&k=0.

Let's take note of stories creeping out into the mainstream about how cooler temperatures are caused by some manufactured chemical or a quirk of global warming – anything but solar activity.

Fortunately there is a remarkably strong groundswell against what has been sold to us over the past decade or so. The truth is out there somewhere, and I am betting on the cosmos rather than little ol' man and his puny fumes.

The observation about the extremes in political dogma is astute but misses that Gore is a cheap attention seeker, his carbon footprint is huge, and his predictions have failed.

Hi Lorraine,
I don't recall anything being said CO2 levels preceding temperature rise, at least not by me. I was referring to ice core samples that go back 600,000+ years. As to dangerous questions threatening the HYPOTHESIS underlying climate change, I am all for questions. Let the debate rage on. That is, in part, what science is about. If you read scientific reports on what scientist think they know at this point it is usually couched in terms of relative likelihood, not certainty. As for character assassination, none intended. What I do take issue with, however, is calling the work of thousands of scientists who have devoted years to studying the issue a "great global warming swindle". That, to me, is the real character assassination. Also, no scientific report I have ever come across refers to "global warming". They use the term "climate change", which allows for both cooling and warming. Finally, I would suggest you read this Tuesday's N.Y. Times, Science Tuesday, for an excellent article on how the scientific community views Mr. Gore. I personally feel you are doing Gore a great injustice, but that is your right.

it’s more like asking dangerous questions that threaten the collapse of the theory behind global warming.

Questions, incidentally, that should be welcomed as an opportunity to prove the science and the theory. Why are they so unwelcome if everything is so settled? What is with the character assasination?

The behavior is typical in science.

Physicists were sitting fat and happy at the beginning of the 1900s. They thought everything had been explained by Newton’s work, just a few odds and ends to tie up here and there. Then along came Einstein with the Theory of Relativity. Physicists thought he was a nut job but he shook the very foundations of physics.

The same is true with mathematicians. Physicists were using impulse functions (Dirac delta functions) to solve problems but the mathematicians didn’t like it because there wasn’t a solid foundation behind it. The physicists were happy because problems were being solved and mathematicians complained and ridiculed them until someone rediscovered the work of George Green and was able to lay a solid foundation behind the technique.