Tuesday, November 02, 2010

From The Geological Society Of London

statement on climate change. My favorite bit:

What are the grounds for concern?

The last century has seen a rapidly growing global population and much more intensive use of resources, leading to greatly increased emissions of gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, from the burning of fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal), and from agriculture, cement production and deforestation. Evidence from the geological record is consistent with the physics that shows that adding large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere warms the world and may lead to: higher sea levels and flooding of low-lying coasts; greatly changed patterns of rainfall2; increased acidity of the oceans 3,4,5,6; and decreased oxygen levels in seawater7,8,9. There is now widespread concern that the Earth’s climate will warm further, not only because of the lingering effects of the added carbon already in the system, but also because of further additions as human population continues to grow. Life on Earth has survived large climate changes in the past, but extinctions and major redistribution of species have been associated with many of them. When the human population was small and nomadic, a rise in sea level of a few metres would have had very little effect on Homo sapiens. With the current and growing global population, much of which is concentrated in coastal cities, such a rise in sea level would have a drastic effect on our complex society, especially if the climate were to change as suddenly as it has at times in the past. Equally, it seems likely that as warming continues some areas may experience less precipitation leading to drought. With both rising seas and increasing drought, pressure for human migration could result on a large scale.

And the big wind-up:

In the coming centuries, continued emissions of carbon from burning oil, gas and coal at close to or higher than today’s levels, and from related human activities, could increase the total to close to the amounts added during the 55 million year warming event – some 1500 to 2000 billion tonnes. Further contributions from ‘natural’ sources (wetlands, tundra, methane hydrates, etc.) may come as the Earth warms22. The geological evidence from the 55 million year event and from earlier warming episodes suggests that such an addition is likely to raise average global temperatures by at least 5-6ÂșC, and possibly more, and that recovery of the Earth’s climate in the absence of any mitigation measures could take 100,000 years or more. Numerical models of the climate system support such an interpretation44. In the light of the evidence presented here it is reasonable to conclude that emitting further large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere over time is likely to be unwise, uncomfortable though that fact may be.

A nice, strong statement.


dizzy said...


Gerrard787 said...

All the important people and NGO's are starting to pack their suitcases and swimsuits to fly for their taxpayer paid vacation . . . oops, I mean most important "climate conference" in Cancun at the end of the month.

Scold the world for its wasteful ways AND work on your tan at the same time. Nice work if you can get it.

Holly Stick said...

So Paul, how come you're not blathering on about the Arctic ice getting thicker any more? Couldn't keep your gorge down?


The Mound of Sound said...

AGW, taken in isolation, is bad enough yet it is but one ecological challenge to our civilization's survival through this century.

World Overshoot Day, the date on which mankind consumes an entire year worth of renewables, has now advanced to early October/late September. This is manifest. It is evidenced in collapsed fish stocks, desertification and deforestation,as well as the rapidly growing freshwater crisis (that Maude Barlow holds is every bit as dangerous as global warming.

It's increasingly obvious that we can't afford to cherry pick among these environmental challenges. As Jared Diamond contends, we'll either succeed at all of them or none of them.

double nickel said...

@paul s..they probably checked out Toronto to host the conference, but quickly determined that Cancun was safer.

Gerrard787 said...

Holly, of course the Arctic is a concern. But it is still recovering from the non-AGW exteme meltoff of a few years ago.

How about you warmies tell us again how Greenland is melting dangerously? (It isn't) Or remind us how sea level rise is accelerating? (Not happening either)

Lastly, based on personal carbon emissions, I'll bet my carbon footprint is less then yours Holly.

It's just that I'm not a preachy, hypocritical scold on the subject like so many of you greenies are.

Holly Stick said...

"Greenland climate in 2010 is marked by record-setting high air temperatures, ice loss by melting, and marine-terminating glacier area loss..."


Holly Stick said...

sea level:

"...Since 1990 sea level has been rising at 3.4 millimetres per year, twice as fast as on average over the 20th Century..."



Gerrard787 said...

Thanks for the links Holly, but they tell me nothing new.

The ice melt measured from Greenland remains inconsequential to date.

Greenland is approx. 685,000 cubic miles of ice a year. Melt is approx. 58 cubic miles of ice per year. Measurements of ice melt are so imprecise that the measured ice melt is within error margins. There is no Big Melt going on there.

Sea level rise? Nothing convincing there either.

Tidal gauges, which have the longest records, show no acceleration. The claimed acceleration may simply be the use of satellite data which came online in the early 1990's, the exact moment when claimed acceleration started. Reconciling the satellite data with the tidal gauges should be a priority.

Anything else you need debunked Holly?

Holly Stick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gerrard787 said...

I don't provide sources Holly, I provide perspective.

Shiner said...

I don't provide sources Holly, I provide perspective.


Holly Stick said...

More on Greenland ice loss; the rate of loss has doubled in the past 8 years: