My point is that land already is disappearing beheath the waves. It’s not really a new idea. In the 1950s Bell Labs made a series of excellent science films for children. One of the films, Unchained Goddess, explained that Florida could turn into an underwater attraction some day if we keep putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
1 Like
Not a Hebrew Bible concept, the Hebrew Bible says the whole universe is God’s house.
The source of the quote is here:
A few more tidbits. Remember this was written in 1989.
We need to know why the prediction was wrong to have any trust in the ability to predict future changes.
That is correct. It is already too late to stop some of the delayed-effect consequences of climate change, like the flooding of low-lying island nations, unless we actively pull CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it again. I meant to emphasize that point by saying, according to my reading, that Miami and New Orleans are already committed to flooding as well at this point.
Billions of dollars worth of Florida real estate could be underwater by 2050. By 2100, the value of drowned properties could exceed a half trillion. The biggest naval base in the world in Norfolk, Virginia will have to be relocated, and hundreds of other military installations will be impacted as well.
By 2045, there could be nuisance flooding every day of the year around the edges of Washington, D.C.; Annapolis, Maryland; and Wilmington, North Carolina, as well as for most of the year in Atlantic City, Miami, and Baltimore. The areas most susceptible to sea level rise will be northeastern North Carolina, the Mississippi Delta, and south Florida. Much infrastructure will likely be lost or damaged, including airports, cities, highways, military bases, nuclear waste storage sites, oil refineries, ports, power and waste treatment plants, railroads, and recreation areas.
Sea level rise by 2100 may average between 3 to 6 feet. Seas will continue to rise at 1 foot per decade thereafter. At 3 feet of sea level rise, a third of southern Florida will vanish. At 6 feet, a half will vanish. According to the Bruun Rule, 1 foot of sea level rise equals 100 to 200 feet of shoreline retreat.
How much our present ice sheets melt, and how high our sea levels rise, will depend on how much the global average temperature rises. It nevertheless may take hundreds of years for them to stop melting even after temperatures stabilize. That’s why it’s important for us to know how much they rose in the distant past at certain temperatures, when they were at an equilibrium. So for instance, if the temperature rises to 2C or more over the preindustrial, a temperature we could hit before 2050, that would be as warm as in the Pliocene 3 million years ago, when the sea level was 50 to 80 feet higher.
That’s not to say it’s too late to do anything about climate change, only that there are potentially different levels of damage involved, depending on what we do or don’t do.
2 Likes
Well, the 10-year window was certainly wrong. All I can say is that the science has improved considerably since then, if in fact he was quoting the science (which I doubt). The potential consequences remain the same. However, the guy would most certainly qualify as an alarmist.
The temperature has now risen to 1C (1.8F) above the preindustrial. I can’t believe any scientist was saying it would increase 1 to 7 degrees in thirty years. Where is that from? I guess if the guy actually believed that, it would explain the 10-year window.
In any case, we are no longer just speculating about climate change. We are now watching it happen, and what we are seeing makes certain IPCC projections seem overly conservative – especially the rate at which the ice sheets are melting. The IPCC is having to adjust its projections upwards even from its last report five years ago.
2 Likes
Why? There is always a degree of uncertainly in complex systems. But climate change and the suffering it causes are right here, right now, in real time. This isn’t something that is far in the future, although without a doubt things will be worse. There are record heat waves, more intense hurricanes, drought, flooding, forest fires, etc.
1 Like
That estimate should also have included a certain projection for how long it would take people to reduce our CO2 emissions after hitting a peak in 2000, but I really don’t know how detailed the science really was in 1989. All of the books I read about climate change have been from the last decade or so.
Here are a few highlights of the U.S. Global Research Program Climate Science Special Report published at the end of 2018. I emphasize that this is from our own government’s scientists.
“Global annually averaged surface air temperature has increased by about 1.8F (1.0C) over the last 115 years (1901-2016). This period is now the warmest in the history of modern civilization.”
“It is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”
“Thousands of studies conducted by researchers around the world have documented changes in surface, atmospheric, and oceanic temperatures; melting glaciers; diminishing snow cover; shrinking sea ice; rising sea levels; ocean acidification; and increasing atmospheric water vapor.”
“For example, global average sea level has risen by about 7-8 inches since 1900, with almost half (about 3 inches) of that rise occurring since 1993. … The incidence of daily tidal flooding is accelerating in more than 25 Atlantic and Gulf Coast cities.”
“Global average sea levels are expected to continue to rise – by at least several inches in the next 15 years and by 1-4 feet by 2100. A rise of as much as 8 feet by 2100 cannot be ruled out. Sea level rise will be higher than the global average on the East and Gulf Coasts of the United States.”
“Heavy rainfall is increasing in intensity and frequency across the United States and globally and is expected to continue to increase. The largest observed changes in the United States have occurred in the Northeast.”
1 Like
The article says “A senior U.N. environmental official” which would imply he would know the science. I haven’t looked for the original IPCC report.
Not at all sure that someone described that way would be primarily a scientist, an administrator or a politician. Regardless, you don’t draw conclusions about the entire field based on the remarks of one individual, especially without knowing what his qualifications may be.
Surely you don’t doubt the potential harm of climate change. Do you advocate postponing action until more is known?
1 Like
The individual is probably a spokesperson for the IPCC and as such anything he said would have been reviewed and approved by the people with qualifications.
No but I think we need to understand how much we can trust the predictions. Weather forecasts are only accurate for 24 hours and we are expected to trust climate forecasts over decades? Ever hear of the butterfly effect?
UNEP, of which Noel Brown was the director of the New York office per your article, co-founded the IPCC in 1988, but the IPCC’s first published report didn’t come out until 1990:
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was founded in 1988 by the World Meteorological Society (WMO) and the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) to summarize and assess climate change science and related peer-reviewed studies from thousands of researchers around the world. It has published reports of such summaries and assessments in 1990, 1995, 2001, 2007, and 2013-2014. With the evolution of the research and increased observations, the IPCC assessments have become more sure about their conclusions. In 1995, the report concluded that present climate change was caused by human activities “more likely than not.” In 2001, the conclusion was “likely.” In 2007, “very likely.” And in 2013, “extremely likely.” This is because only in the late 1990s did global warming emerge as a trend from the “background noise” of natural climate variability caused by other factors. The IPCC’s findings have been endorsed by nearly two hundred scientific agencies around the world, and have been supported by independent reviews of the scientific literature.
IPCC reports include summaries of thousands of scientific studies and millions of observations, projected impacts, the potentials for mitigation, and summaries for policy makers. A given report may be over 800 pages, and may have 120 authors, 500 contributors, and 700 collaborators. In 2007, the IPCC shared the Nobel Peace Prize. Most importantly, such reports include projections of future climate change from computer models.
Climate is statistically average weather over long periods of time. Weather is often chaotic, which is why it can be predicted with only moderate accuracy in the short term. Climate is not chaotic, which means climate can be predicted with fair accuracy far into the future. It’s like the difference between forecasting if it will rain tomorrow and projecting if it will be hot next summer.
The assumption that climate is equal to weather has caused any number of confusions. No one can tell just by observing local weather events if the global climate is changing or not. Only scientists with a wide range of available information can perform the statistical analyses required to say if the climate is changing and to what degree it is affecting the weather.
First a little background. My son has a PhD in Meteorology which I think is the result of my cultivating his interest in weather starting in the 2nd Grade. So I know well the difference between climate and weather. He says “Climate is what you expect and weather is what you get.”
Now you have touched a sore point. While doing his dissertation he discovered a popular computer model for mesoscale forecasting was broken. He had to write a new micro-physics package for it as it was the model he was using in his research. When I asked him how this happened his response was basically no body had ever bothered to verify it was correct (it is hard to do and hard to get paid to do). So you can understand why I look at computer models with a jaundiced eye.
2 Likes
First, here are a few of the conclusions from the first IPCC report in 1990:
“Based on current models, we predict: under [BAU business-as-usual] increase of global mean temperature during the [21st] century of about 0.3C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5C per decade); this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years; under other … scenarios which assume progressively increasing levels of controls, rates of increase in global mean temperature of about 0.2C [to] about 0.1C per decade.”
“There are many uncertainties in our predictions particularly with regard to the timing, magnitude and regional patterns of climate change, due to our incomplete understanding of: sources and sinks of GHGs; clouds; oceans; polar ice sheets.”
Yes, I can understand how that would be concerning. Computer models can range from great to awful. But even then, their projections can be inaccurate in a way which under-estimates what is likely to happen, not just over-estimates it. That’s why scientists include various qualifications and uncertainty ranges in their conclusions.
So here’s a bit more information about climate models which I picked up from my reading. (By the way, much of what I’m posting here are selections from a 50-page summary I created from my notes from reading over 50 books on the subject. The original contains over 700 references, which I still haven’t put in the correct format.)
To create their projections of likely future climate change, scientists have created elaborate computer models of the earth’s climate system, and these models have increased in number, complexity, and refinement over time. About forty different Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs), most of them funded by national governments, have been created by independent teams of scientists around the world. These take into account the full three-dimensional structure of the atmosphere and oceans, the continents including details of coastlines and surface topography, sea ice, vegetation, water vapor, ocean currents, and ice melting. These models also incorporate all natural variables, including solar irradiance, volcanic eruptions, unusual weather patterns, and so on. Since sulfate aerosols from power stations increase the earth’s reflectiveness, or albedo, they are also included since although they only have a lifetime of a few weeks in the atmosphere, they are continually emitted. These models are checked by “hind-casting” against historic and paleoclimate records to see if they can predict changes already observed. They could reproduce medieval warmth and the Little Ice Age variations, but not 20th century warming without figuring in human influences.
The results of simulation runs are compared for agreement and divergence. In all cases, only human impacts could reproduce observed warming. Model runs which did not include human-caused increases in greenhouse gases could not recreate the observed strong warming since the 1970s. Different models developed by different scientists with different assumptions in different places still show roughly the same upward trend in global temperatures and sea levels for the next 100 years. However, sea ice is presently disappearing faster than projected, perhaps due to factors like soot, algae, bacteria, and the dynamics of melting glaciers which are not yet well-modeled.
Presently, models have become so good that they can accurately simulate regional details of climate change, so we can better understand how each area will likely be affected differently.
Climate models do not make predictions of the future. They create projections of what will most likely happen as the result of a variety of scenarios with different concentrations of greenhouse gases. Those projections are based on our best information from paleoclimatology and more recent observations, and they include margins of error. Because the biggest unknown variable concerning future greenhouse gas concentrations is future human behavior, we have to plan for such different possibilities. Humanity may ignore all the warning signs and burn our remaining reserves of fossil fuels as quickly as we can, we may quickly convert to less harmful sources of energy, or we may fall somewhere in between.
2 Likes
It is apparent you have read a lot of books. Don’t take this the wrong way, but what is your background that enables you to critique what you have read? For instance:
Thanks to my son, I understand the complexity involved in this. Do you?
They are models. They produce simulations for what might happen in the future when given the correct initial conditions. The simulations will divert from actual due to a variety of factors including the butterfly effect. It was an atmospheric model that identified chaos in the first place. When the simulations don’t pan out then we need to understand the reasons why.
an important point has been overlooked in the heated debate on climate change that has great consequences on commercial considerations. This may be difficult to understand if we have not looked closely at how electricity is produced for communities. In the past, power stations were built (coal and gas) to meet predicted demand, and these were designed with a life of about 30 years - after which they were retired because they were too expensive to operate. These old stations are the highest emitters.
With the introduction of renewables, the price of electricity has increased substantially. This has resulted in higher returns to old power stations, and it is profitable to spend money on keeping them operational - indeed many of these are more profitable now than when they were new. The result is that high emitting fossil fuelled power plant are made profitable by increases in the price of electricity, preventing the construction of new low emissions, high efficiency plant (fossil fuelled). If this ridiculous situation were avoided, new high efficiency plant, coupled with other measure, may have reduced emissions by 40%, while the price of power was lower.
The situation is complicated so I am making a general point - the emissions from fossil fuelled power plant cannot be reduced under the current politically motivated situation. Adding renewables may meet increases in day-time demand, but that is all that can be done. Renewables have also caused great increases in the price of power, and the high emitting old power stations are rubbing their profitable hands with glee. 
1 Like
It would be interesting to get your sons impression on this. But I think the apple did not fall too far from the tree. I wonder what area of science you studied and worked. I’m pretty sure Alan is a lay person who has made tremendous effort to get a grasp on the problem. As such I find what he says relatable as I too am not a scientist. It sure would be great if we could interest climate scientists to weigh in and critique the conclusions we seek to grasp.
3 Likes
He accepts that burning fossil fuels has increased CO2 levels just as I do. However I take a more critical approach to using simulations to justify major changes in our economic system. There is always the law of unintended consequences that needs to be considered.
My degree is in electrical engineering, but actually work in software engineering. Including, not surprisingly, work on various simulations of physical systems.
2 Likes
Climate change has already cost us big-time. The cost of doing nothing will exceed the cost of making changes.
Here’s something interesting that I found:
Renewable electricity beat out coal for the first time in April
2 Likes
I don’t think I’m critiquing what I have read so much as conveying what I have read as simply as possible. If you want, I can post a full list of the books I read and check on the qualifications of their authors. I have weeded out a few who I thought were alarmist or too speculative, or who didn’t have appropriate qualifications, but typically the publishers do a good job of that.
I’m just a concerned lay-person, without any special qualifications other than my determination to understand climate change better and the time to put in the effort involved. Over two years, I took over 250 pages of notes from what I read, then created over 275 notecards with selections organized under topics before I boiled it all down to 50 pages.
Could there be inaccuracies in what I wrote? Yes, and I would pay good money for a real expert to review what I wrote to make sure nothing was too out-of-line with current research. But I also added a certain number of corrections myself as I read news of current research from various reputable sources, like Michael Mann’s Facebook page for instance.
So here is the problem as I see it: you are effectively questioning whether the scientists involved are doing their work properly. Just remember that they are extensively peer-reviewed, and literally thousands of scientists are now involved in this research, which has gone on for well over 30 years now. Climate change is one of the most intensely researched problems in modern science, and the models are the best that current understanding can make them. If you think the chaos effect is involved in anything other than natural variability (see below), I have to ask you how?
Weather is chaotic, so it varies in ways which have nothing to do with the overall trends of climate. Different factors cause this natural variability, and those factors must be taken into account and averaged out, or even offset in some cases, to clearly see the overall trends in climate. Such factors include the El Niño Southern Oscillation for instance, or volcanic eruptions, increases in industrial aerosols like after the end of World War II, and temporary changes in solar output. Some variations are regional rather than global, which must also be taken into account.
The average temperature varies randomly above and below the trend line by about 0.2C, or about 0.4F. Volcanic particles lifted into the stratosphere can lead to a cooling effect which lasts for two or three years on average, followed by a slow recovery. Solar output varies by about 0.1% over the typical ten-to-twelve year solar cycle. Although no unexpected, large solar output variations have happened in the near past, further back in history they led to such events as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, according to solar proxies.
The warming caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere can be masked by such natural variability by as long as a decade or more, which is why long-term tracking of weather is so important in detecting climate change. For instance, a recent apparent pause in the upward trend of global warming temperatures was caused by a combination of volcanic activity, a short-term reduction in solar output due to the natural solar cycle, and a series of La Niña events. The background “noise” of natural variability must be taken into account to clearly see the steady “signal” of incrementally increasing temperatures. This is why natural variability was still considered a possible explanation for observed changes as late as the 1990s.
3 Likes