Ex-sceptic says climate change is down to humans

[weakmagneto]

BBC News
July 30, 2012

A formerly sceptical climate scientist says human activity is causing the Earth to warm, as a new study confirms earlier results on rising temperatures.

In a US newspaper opinion piece, Prof Richard Muller says: "Call me a converted sceptic."

Muller leads the Berkeley Earth Project, which is using new methods and some new data to investigate the claims made by other climate researchers.

Their latest study confirms the warming trend seen by other groups.

The project received funds from sources that back organisations lobbying against action on climate change.

Their latest study, released early on Monday (GMT), concludes that the average temperature of the Earth's land has risen by 1.5C (2.7F) over the past 250 years.

The team argues that the good correspondence between the new temperature record and historical data on CO2 emissions suggests human activity is "the most straightforward explanation" for the warming.

The paper reiterates the finding that the land surface temperature has risen 0.9C just in the last 50 years.

In a piece authored for the New York Times, Prof Muller, from the University of California, Berkeley, said: "Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming.

"Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

When establishing the project, Prof Muller had been concerned by claims that established teams of climate researchers had not been entirely open with their data.

He gathered a team of 10 scientists, mostly physicists, including such luminaries as Saul Perlmutter, winner of this year's Nobel Physics Prize for research showing the Universe's expansion is accelerating.

Funding came from a number of sources, including charitable foundations maintained by the Koch brothers, billionaire US industrialists who have also donated large sums to organisations lobbying against acceptance of man-made global warming.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19047501

[wolfhnd]

Carbon was sequestered by a living process and is now being released into the atmosphere by another life form. Removing the influence of the life form that is currently dramatically altering the atmosphere would in the natural course of events not prevent even worst changes being introduced by other life forms. What is happening is perfectly "natural". "Global Warming Led To Atmospheric Hydrogen Sulfide And Permian Extinction"


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 130549.htm

All life forms "exploit" the environment to obtain as much energy with the smallest effort possible. The biggest obstacle to solving environmental issues is the idea that mans influence is "unnatural". The solutions must in reference to the nature of life in fact be "unnatural".

[Marshall]

Magneto, I heard today that the CEO of Exxon-Mobil has come out in favor of CARBON TAX. That has been the official position of the (giant) company for several years. I didn't realize that, was somewhat surprised to hear it. Maybe someone knows more.

A carbon tax could be very effective. In a different political climate, or perhaps in europe, it might be possible. One of the few things that could really work, I think.

There is this economist and natural resource law expert at U of BC Vancouver who has come out with a serious book called The Case for a Carbon Tax. Let me see if I have the title right and can find the Amazon page.

Yes here is the author:
http://www.law.ubc.ca/faculty/hsu/

Here is the book, Amazon lets you browse a fair amount as I recall
http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Carbon-T ... 1597265314
The Case for a Carbon Tax: Getting Past Our Hang-ups to Effective Climate Policy

[wolfhnd]

Continuing my rant :-). The key factor in determining which biological agent is able to dramatically alter the environment is reproductive success. If you half the human population you would have half the climate change influence even if the use of carbon based fuels remained the same per capita. The are other issues involved, including the speed and novelty of environmental effects produced by human industrial and technological influence but the most "natural" of factors, reproduction, remains the single most influential planet changing factor. There are ways to reduce the per capita impact of human industry but reverting to more "natural" or primitive life styles without a reduction in population is not a good choice. The current population reverted to a palaeolithic life style would soon strip large parts of the world of trees for firewood and exterminate most animals for food. One of the reasons fossil fuels have been so attractive is that they are not part of the current ecosystem having been removed 200 million years ago from the bio system. If for example wood had remained the primary fuel the need to produce it in large quantities would have an equally dramatic effect on the environment as fossil fuels. Despite what appears to be a dramatic shift in which climate change induced by carbon dioxide is the major human influence on the environment up to this time agriculture has altered the planet more than any other industrial process. The adoption of agriculture is the key change that allowed humans to have reproductive success beyond the carrying capacity of the planet. Paleolithic human populations were keep in check by starvation and other stresses producing a kind of mythical balance of nature that few of us would consider desirable if forced to endure. The idea that less is more in terms of how issues are presented to the public by environmental groups ignore these fundamental realities to one degree or the other. An acceptance that the human race must treat the environment more as a garden and less as a self sustaining paradise is needed to successfully deal with the challenges we face.