Mega cities are not the only major human impact though. The atlas also estimates that 90,000 square kilometres of forest–an area the size of the British Isles–is being lost each year.
But the greatest impact to the world has come through global warming. The availability of digital satellite images, which can be compared year by year, has revealed with shocking clarity the shrinkage of ice fields and the evaporation of lakes.
“We are seeing things that you would not have seen 10 or even 15 years ago, changes that we can see by overlaying versions of our satellite images,” said Sheena Barclay, the atlas’s chief cartographer. “And we are seeing a lot of concerning things.”
The Aral Sea in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, once the world’s fourth largest lake, is now only the tenth largest. Since 1975, the surface of the Dead Sea has dropped by 17 metres. But perhaps the most compelling indication of global climate change (which is occuring, whether it’s caused by humans or not) became apparent during the preparation of this year’s edition of the atlas, when cartographers had to redraw the coastline of Antarctica after the Larsen ice shelf disintegrated last year.
Apparently the US McMurdo station in Antarctica may have been even further stranded by the immense iceberg that split off in the region 3 years ago.
By the way, one thing that really gets me is the “whether it’s caused by humans or not”. The media like to be “fair” to both sides of an issue, but this is far, far worse than the “whether OJ was the killer or not” type of fairness. Scientists always express doubt, but in this case the evidence is so overwhelming – the logic has been there since Arrhenius first looked into it over 100 years ago. In short form, here it is: human industrialization raises the levels of CO<sub>2</sub> in the atmosphere (this is extremely well documented, and not in dispute by anybody), and increased CO<sub>2</sub> acts as a force that increases temperatures (again not in dispute). Any normal human being looking at that theoretical proof and all the physical evidence for increased temperatures the last decade or two and would conclude – “yes, our actions are indeed causing global warming”.
There’s no real evidence for any other forcing mechanism (there’s been some tiny changes in solar output, and solar changes have certainly been associated with some cool periods in the past – but the scale is wrong), and there are certainly positive and negative feedback effects that increase or diminish the effects caused by humans (by the way, positive feedback means Earth’s climate is inherently unstable, an unsettling thought) – but Arrhenius had it about right with his very first calculation back in 1896: doubling CO<sub>2</sub> will cause a global temperature rise of a few degrees; the only thing he got wrong was that it’s happening in a matter of decades now, not millenia.
Personally, I agree that we are responsible. And it drives me nuts that the slight amount of dissent among scientists is used by politicians and corporations as a reason to study the situation further but not actually act–such as by reducing emissions, reducing our use of fossil fuels, etc., even if it does hurt our economy. So in retrospect, I probably shouldn’t have tried to be so objective via the weany little "whether it’s caused by humans or not" phrase. Glad someone called me on it, actually. :)
It’s nice that you are agreeing with each other and all that, but I just got to say that obvious logic can be flawed.
OK, every human drinks water (extremely well documented, not in dispute). Every human eventually dies (again not in dispute). Any norman person has to conclude that water is the most poisonous liquid and should be avoided at all costs.
P.S. to the site maintainer: it’s quite safe to add <sub> and <sup> tags to the list of allowed tags.
Leipzig Declaration
Seems Dr. John Christy would also disagree with you:
Dr. John R. Christy
Professor and Director, ESSC
Earth System Science Center, NSSTC
NASA Bio
And his Congressional Testimony
It’s the worst kind of science that ignores evidence it does not like, and fabricates the evidence it would like to find.
From Christy’s testimony:
at the start:
and
at the end. If you read his testimony in detail, it’s mainly a scientific dispute over whether the CO2 increase has caused a 0.7 degree rise or a 0.3 degree rise in global temperatures in recent years. Read the statement at the beginning and at the end – Christy is AGREEING that humans have caused an increase in CO2, and that increase is a force in increasing global temperatures. The dispute is how much, which is exactly what I said.
And 99% of climate scientists have evidence that’s a lot stronger than what the hand-picked Christy has to say about it.
You’ll find polly-anna’s in every field – and I certainly like to be an optimist myself. But the basic scientific implications: humans have increased CO2, and increased CO2 forces global temperatures to rise, are not in dispute.
The logic of my statement was:
A implies B. B implies C. Therefore A implies C.
The logic of your statement was:
A implies B. A also implies C. Therefore B implies C.
See the difference? The first is a foundation of rational thought. The second has other uses, but not generally in science.
Water causes death. Some people drown, some choke to death. My logic is just as sound as yours :-)
A implies B. B implies C. But D, E, F, G and possibly X also imply C. Prove that A is the primary cause of C.
An example for you. Drog mentions Aral lake (or sea as it’s more often called). Drog does not say it directly but implies that Aral dries up due to global warming. But that’s just not the case. It dries up because its primary inlets Amudaria and Syrdaria rivers are taken apart by local population for irrigation. Check the literature.
Disaster? Yes. Man made? Yes. Due to global warming? No.
Ah, so you change the subject :) I didn’t mention “primary cause”, all I said was (1) human actions have increased planetary CO2, and (2) increased CO2 acts as a force that increases temperatures. Therefore human actions have had the effect of increasing planetary temperatures. People who deny this are either denying well-established facts, or the fundamental tenets of logic.
Exactly how much, and how much of the observed increase is due to human activity, is certainly a subject of debate, although the best estimates from climate scientists match pretty well with what we’ve seen – certainly human activity is a major contributor, if not “the primary” one, thus far. But unlike specific problems such as the Aral Sea (or Lake), there are actually very few other possible underlying causes for planetary-wide systematic temperature increases. The options are basically:
Fortunately all these things are measurable, and all the scientific data indicates it’s the human contribution that has dominated long-term temperature trends over the last 150 years or so. But don’t just take my word for it – check out the EPA and other Google links for all the information on this you could want.
New Scientist reports that a NASA satellite survey of the Arctic (which covers the entire Arctic, not just the regions accessible to researchers on the surface) has revealed that the overall trend of rising temperature over the past 20 years is eight times higher than that recorded by ground measurements over the past century.
Ah, splitting hairs, are we :-). If it’s not the primary cause, why bother?
Let’s assume it’s a scientifically proven fact. Now what? What fraction of the world economic output should be diverted to the reduction of CO2 emissions? What fraction of your income are you willing to sacrifice? What would you like to achive? Keep in mind that 100 years at the present rate of progress acceleration is about equal to eternity.
Whether or not the human contribution is primary right now, our actions in continuing to burn fossil fuels are causing the human contribution to get bigger and bigger. The evidence indicates we’re already the primary contributor to the warming of the past few decades; either way, we’re the only contributor we have any control over!
You ask a variation on the standard “conservative” line:
but this presumes another set of hidden assumptions – the worst of which is that conservation and CO2 reduction are part of a “zero-sum game” with the economy. There are a variety of economic models for renewable energy that come up with cost numbers that disagree FAR more than the climate modelers, ranging from tiny to huge fractions of current GDP. If CO2 reduction measures really cost more than, say, our defense budget ($400+ billion/year in US) then they probably don’t make sense. On the other hand, the climate modelers have some pretty good guesses on the disastrous economic impact of continued global warming
Even the sign of the effect of CO2 reduction measures on the economy is disputable – conservation measures can in fact result in an increase in economic activity through a reduction in wasted resources.
In fact, the Kyoto countries seem to be doing economically quite a bit better than the United States the last few years – at least from comparison of GDP growth rates.
And some renewable options are economically viable now – moving more of our electricity generation to wind turbines would actually free up capital to grow our economy, at current costs. Costs for other renewable options could easily drop as well, with a more focused R&D effort. Why is it that this country can spend billions on R&D for nuclear power and oil and coal every year, spend hundreds of billions on efforts to assure our fossil-fuel supply, and yet begrudge even the $400 million requested for renewable energy R&D this year?
Anyway, the first step is recognizing we have a problem that we have some responsibility and control over. Far too many people are in denial about this, including those holding power in the US.
This is not a very strong argument. It’s like suggesting to searching for a dropped coin under a street light instead of a dark alley where the coin was lost :-). A pointless effort is worse than no effort at all.
OK, at last we agree on something. The world economy is based on burning carbon-based fuel. I believe massive switching to alternative energy sources (nuclear fission) in a matter of a few decades would cost a lot more than the US military spending (don’t call this thing “defence”). The only real alternative to burning carbon is fission. This will remain so for at least another 20 years. Do you agree to have a nuclear plant in your area?
If it is true, then leave it to the market to decide. Don’t ask for more government regulation and spending.
Somehow I doubt the reduction of CO2 emission is possibe without government intervention. Consequently I doubt it’s economically efficient. The GDP statistics of Kyoto countries is not representative because the period is too short. Besides, it’s not a god given fact that Kyoto agreement, even if ratified by everybody, would have any impact on the warming.
We observe a trend. If this trend is projected 50 years into the future, it’s believed to cause some economic problems, like changes to agricultural areas, melting permafrost, flooding, extreme weather. These are all primarily economic problems which may happen in a few decades. Yes, lives will be lost. But life is lost now too for economic reasons, for example due to the lack of an affordable medical care. What are the options? We can divert massive resources now, expecting that it may reduce the impact of the economic problems which may happen in a few decades. Or we can direct those resources to more immediate needs like starting nice little wars all over the world to get reelected, giving fat contracts to friendly oil companies in the process. But I digress. Really, there are worthy things to spend money now. Or just reduce taxes.
This is all about money.
This is my least concern regarding the present US government. I really don’t like JWB, but this is one of the very few things which make sence to me. I believe Kyoto is primarily a way for EU regulators to get more money and power.
The nuclear option is really a non-starter, except possibly in countries that have accepted a lower safety/radiation standard than most Western nations. Aside from capital cost for “safe” plants, the other problem is that (barring extracting uranium from sea-water) there is not enough minable uranium to sustain world energy needs for very long, unless we use breeder reactors, which introduces an even more dangerous plutonium cycle into the process.
Unless we come up with viable fusion reactors, the only real solution is going to be expanding and creating the true renewables – bio-fuels, wind, and direct solar (terrestrial and space based). Hydro already provides a substantial portion of world energy needs in a renewable fashion, but that can’t be expanded much further.
Your faith in market solutions optimizing overall economic growth rates is naive. Market players are selfish, and can easily be trapped in sub-optimal solutions that government regulations are capable of overcoming. “Game theory”, which is the relevant model, is a rather complicated subject… Today’s favored market environments (for example the NY Stock exchange) are in fact heavily regulated to ensure fairness and openness in dealings, and would not survive without such regulations.
Similarly, in the energy business, selfish private players may see better gain in Enron-style hidden deals that raise prices monopolistically while buying government favors. Since many renewable sources (like Wind) are intermittent, government regulations on energy distribution that exist now can either favor or hinder the introduction of these new sources, regardless of actual cost differences; it is not automatic that the lowest-cost energy balance for the end-user will actually establish itself in such an environment.
I guess I should respond to this too.
Given our earlier discussion (which you seem to be agreeing on), reductions in human-generated CO2 WILL act as a force to lower climate temperatures. The question is whether this force is large enough to counter the others in place – previous human CO2 releases, and possible natural effects. Since this is a one-dimensional question, a much better analogy than searching for a coin is, stopping a vehicle before it crashes into a barrier. We know the vehicle has a lot of existing momentum. Right now we’re stepping on the gas pedal, but some huge fraction of climate scientists see the wall up ahead – and they think that if we just switch from the gas to the brake over the next couple of decades, we might have enough braking force to stop in time. We can’t be sure. If we don’t have enough force, then it may well be the effort is pointless – on the other hand, no matter how little breaking force we have, doing what we can will at least somewhat reduce the destruction on impact. And that’s the import point.
No, my “argument” isn’t strong. But it is the truth we have to work with, and that is why a lot of the world is so worried right now…
By the way, an interesting article today in the New York Times on the game of chicken, in this regard, being played between the US, China, and India right now.
The coin analogy was in responce to your statement that you never said the human CO2 production was the primary cause but the only one we had control over
NO. It MAY reduce the rate of increase in temperatures. Reduce the rate of increase != lower temperatures. It’s higher temperatures anyway, but maybe not as soon.
Wrong analogy. It’s not stepping on the brake, but reducing the pressure on the gas a little for a large price. Which seems to be rather pointless compare to the level of investment required to make a real difference.
This is the problem with the majority of environmentalists. When faced with a hard real-life choice, they tend to escape into imaginary world with cheap space-based solar power stations and such.
It has to be grown. It means it competes with food production, which is not universally acceptable (China). But it’s somewhat economically acceptable and requires no special government intervention. On the other hand, growing biofuel on the scale of even 10% of the current oil production does not seem possible in the near future.
Requires strong sustained winds. Expensive. Noisy. Occupies large area of land. Bad for birds.
Cloud cover. Expensive. Occupies large area of land.
Does not exist. Likely to be expensive. Safety not assured (what happens if the microwave beam goes off-target?)
Exactly. Also quite bad for fish
I can just as easily call you naive for believing in govenment’s good intentions and abilities to effectively apply public money.
First, reducing human-generated CO2 production to pre-industrial levels WILL cause a decline in CO2 in the atmosphere, which will act to lower temperatures. You seem to be assuming I am arguing for just a reduction in the rate of growth – no, we have to reduce the actual CO2 usage, which is what the Kyoto treaty asked (as a first step, of the industrialized nations). Reducing CO2 will lower temperatures, just as increasing CO2 raises them. No real question about it. The analogy with stepping on the gas or the brake is absolutely accurate – of course we have to go well beyond Kyoto to really start braking, but Kyoto was only a first step – one which would have allowed us to make some good estimates on what it would take to do the whole job.
Now you go on about the cost again. Nobody knows what the cost will be – I have argued, with some references, that it could be quite small, or even a net positive – which when you factor in the cost of not mitigating climate change risks, it would be. But we (in the US) are not even attempting to provide the environment in which the costs of reducing CO2 use could be measured – rather the different parties are throwing around wild guesses on cost numbers. So, since you haven’t provided any references yet – what are your numbers for the cost of reducing CO2 production? Where did you get those numbers from? And what biases might your source for those numbers represent?
If the government is not effective, we have mechanisms to deal with it. If those mechanisms are becoming less effective, this being a democracy, we have other mechanisms to change things to attempt to improve our say. There may be some time-delay, and a lot of waste. I wouldn’t say either government or private markets are perfect entities, but they are run by human beings, for human beings, and they generally govern human activities in the best ways those humans collectively know how.
And you’ll notice I mentioned private sway over government regulations as a PROBLEM for renewables. The US government so far has done a lot to delay the onset of renewables here.
Thomas Friedman in a recent column for the NY Times proposed a gasoline tax to help pay for our adventures in Iraq. While not a perfect solution, combined with other tax adjustments it is (1) perfectly logical in laying the cost of oil at the feet of those who use it, and (2) allowing renewable choices (such as bio-diesel, ethanol, methanol, etc.) to compete on a more level playing field.
The government controls the rules governing almost any market; ensuring that costs are allocated fairly among the market players, with full openness and transparency, is one good way to ensure solutions optimal for economic growth (some funds should also be spent on R&D for alternatives). The US government has failed to do this as far as energy markets go, for many decades.
1W of electric capacity costs about $1. The world electric output is about 2 terawatt. This is just electricity generation, transportation and heating not included. Over 60% is carbon-burning, another 15% is nuclear, 15% hydro. Other sources are negligable (low single %% combined). Let’s say just 50% of the investment has to be scrapped. That’s 1 trillion. Not counting cars and heating. Not counting related industries. You have to invest that much to make a real difference, to actually start reducing CO2 levels.
Face the reality. There is no cheap and easy solution. There are only hard and expensive ones.
Blessed be the faithful. Tell me all about mechanisms when JWB is reelected for the second term.
Earlier I placed an upper limit of about $400 billion/year on it – for US mitigation. $1 trillion for world-wide replacement of electrical generation, spread over 20 years, would come to $50 billion/year. No, it’s not cheap, but it’s within limits that we ARE capable of tackling, if we had the will to do it.
Most of the spending to re-tool infrastructure will be private, not public, and much of it is capital that would have to be invested (perhaps over a longer period of time) in new facilities anyway. So this crude level of calculation is far from representing a real cost to the economy.
We shouldn’t commit ourselves too far without a more accurate cost estimate – and if more technology development would help cut costs significantly, investing in that first. But that means at least putting a few billions into it now, rather than the constant delay, delay, delay we’ve seen and begrudging spending of a few hundred million on renewables research.
There’s a new bill in the US senate being proposed by Lieberman and McCain: see this NY Times editorial today, with the following comment:
— $20 per family per year means about $2 billion/year. Would this have a signficant impact on global climate? Probably not much; this also should be just a first step in the process, but I find it hard to believe anyone who understands the problem could call such a first step “pointless”.
Here in the Los Angeles area yesterday the hot Santa Ana winds were blowing in ash and smoke from the fires. As I walked along, eyes stinging, it reminded me of the days of my youth, (early 1970’s) when there was often first-stage smog alerts that stung my eyes in just the same way. It’s so nice that nowadays smog alerts are quite rare.
It’s true that humans don’t cause 100% of the bad air quality in this region – the Native Americans even called the LA region “the smoky valley,” I was once told. Something to do with inversion layers due to the region’s geology. There will always be bad air quality here when there are brush fires (which is most summers) and there’s not much humans can do about that. But the smog we had in the 70’s was largely due to human activities. We bit the bullet, accepted the costs involved in reducing emissions, and there has been a remarkable improvement.
$50B/year is a lowest possible figure to replace electric power plants with an alternative of the same efficiency, i.e. the same cost per watt. Carbon buring, fission and hydro have about the same cost. Everything else is a lot more expensive, some are orders of magnitude more expensive. Plus related industries like transportation, coal mining, oil drilling etc. Electricity is going to get more expensive affecting all consumers, most notably aluminum production.
If you asked for more research spending, I would not have argued for a second. But asking to spend a huge amount of money on chasing ghosts is not a good idea.