Comments on: Why the world’s top scientists underestimated how fast we’re destroying the climate

By: Richard Pauli

Richard Pauli — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 01:07:20 +0000

Correcting myself… or rather extending my thanks to Elizabeth Grossman for this article .. and to Joe for bringing her to us as a guest posting.

Looking forward to the book.

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:53:28 +0000

underestimated — Nope. Still within the error bars.

By: underestimated

underestimated — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:54:38 +0000

Nice but wrong title. What scientists have underestimated is the rate of increase of CO2. Whether they have underestimated its consecuences or not remains to be seen. But according to what we have seen so far in the 21st century, it seems like the warming will be less than estimated. Current temperature trends are nearly outside the 95% confidence interval of the average of the models predictions… because of actual temperatures not being as hot as predicted. This can be weather of course. Or it can be not. But the thing is that you cannot claim that you have underestimated warming when all you can actually see in the temperature trends is an overestimation.

By: jorleh

jorleh — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:03:11 +0000

And scientists were hiding the facts they knew, all other but Hansen. They were hiding behind politicians. I think the silenced scientists are as guilty as politicians. Remember Galileo…

By: Harrier

Harrier — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:40:25 +0000

I suppose, in the end, my one concern is that Earth is able to continue to support human life. How much human life, and in what kinds of forms and concentrations, doesn’t matter as long as that life is able to endure in a fundamental sense.

By: Arjan Wilkie

Arjan Wilkie — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:39:09 +0000

In relation to global dimming; a recent book called “Climate: Code Red” talks a lot about this factor and the aerosol effects of cooling generally.

The biggest surprise for me was that efforts to remedy particulate emissions (smog. soot) will reduce this cooling effect and this will then add about 0.5 to 1 degree to the warming trend, so its the case that the smog is masking some of the warming attributable to Co2. When we reduce fossil fuel use as we are compelled to do (esp. coal) these particulates will diminish and so to will the aerosol effect. So global dimming is not actually great news – it is more bad news.

Interestingly, this “aerosol effect” is the science behind geo-engineering proposals in relation to using sulphur compounds in the upper atmosphere (to be released by airliners, so the idea goes). This will continue the global dimming cooling but without the associated Co2 emissions that currently underpin it. These ideas are only suggested in the context of ‘desperation stakes measures’ to buy us time to decarbonise our energy production systems.

I fear we are in for a “lovelockian” population collapse, as any species that overshoots the carryng capacity of their local environment must experience. It is depressing, i have 3 small kids.

By: Martin Hedberg

Martin Hedberg — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:43:05 +0000

All the carbon that is brought up from the ground will eventually turn up in the atmosphere or ocean. Whatever carbon from biomass that is cut down and not reforested will do the same.
Isn’t it time to go from talking about cutting emissions to actually stop the carbon at its initial source?
And we must not forget the effect of aerosols (for example the atmospheric brown cloud), both warming and cooling – definitely affecting climate and ecosystems. Most of it comes from inefficient burning of biomass. These problems can be addressed by fairly simple technologies. Why don’t we?
But again, whatever carbon that the mining/energy company brings to the surface will within a few months increase the greenhouse effect or lower ocean pH.

By: Dorothy

Dorothy — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:19:04 +0000

One of the things that concerns me is that the sustainablitiy folks may be inadvertantly impeding people/voters from thinking about what they really need to do to reduce not just CO2 emissions, but the atmospheric CO2 content.

One of the activists where I live speaks of our town as being successful in cutting emissions. She points to the fact that we now have a community bus, so people here have an alternative means of transportation. Nonetheless, our total emissions continue to rise, with more light trucks now on our roads. And people, feeling good about our ’success’ don’t feel appropriate outrage at the negligence of our federal government.

Thank you for posting this article, Joe. If anything can cause the seeds of dissent to sprout, this should.

We also posted one you might want to today by an Australian earth and paleoclimate scientist: Copenhagen Climate Change Conference News – http://westcoastclimateequity.org/?p=2607

By: Misha Jacoby

Misha Jacoby — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:02:26 +0000

I was very surprised to find no mention of “Global Dimming” in this article.
Could it be possible that a significant number of “top scientists” are unaware of this scientifically verified phenomenon. If you are among them, you may start here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ science/ 2003/ dec/ 18/ science.research1

Hope this issue starts getting a lot more attention and begins being factored into the equations.

By: Christopher Mims

Christopher Mims — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:53:09 +0000

On the other hand, I have had several intelligent, politically aware friends tell me that the sense that it’s already too late leads them to a point of paralysis.

But perhaps people with those attitudes were always beyond reach, anyway.