Jul
9
Giving Witness
Filed Under Uncategorized
By Shockwaver
Several days ago a thread on Cabbie’s blog got into a discussion of the existence of God. I thought I might put in my 2-cents worth.
I am a scientist who believes in God.
Science does not prove or disprove anything about the existence of God but it does humble the mind.
Some things are to be believed but not understood. For instance consider the case of a pair of photons of light, generated from a single atomic process; one sent north and the other one south. If someone fiddles with the north -going photon (say runs it through a polarizer) after it has gone 100 miles, the south-going photon is immediately altered even though they are 200 mile apart and going in the opposite directions at the speed of light. Actions at a distance? Communicating faster than the speed of light? How can the second photon be affected by something you did to the first one? Impossible they said.
It turns out that these “twin” photon’s futures are forever linked. It’s called quantum entanglement and was predicted and ridiculed before it was established as fact. Theorists explain: even though they are separated by 230 miles (the present record), their separation in space-time is zero. That is, in space-time, they have not moved apart at all. They are forever entangled. And there is no limit on distance either. Next clear night when a bit of light from a distant star is captured by your eye, be aware that its twin, millions of light years away, is altered. The entire universe is coupled in unimaginable ways.
This intuition – defying phenomenon can be predicted and quantified by theorists but can never be reconciled with human experience, rational thought, logic or any of the other tools non-scientists use to determine the truth of something. It is to be believed but never understood in the way we usually mean that word.
That shows me that I can believe in something with no hope of ever understanding it. But, you complain, you may not “understand” the above example but at least you can verify that it is true. Correct. I only used that example because the critical experiment is easily described to non-technical people that might frequent this blog. There are hundreds of examples that are too complicated to go into here: empty space is deformed causing gravity; empty space is also filled with latent particles lurking just beneath the vacuum, awaiting sufficient energy to be made real; time disappears as you look backward to the big bang, a particle can be in more than one place at the same time, etc. I believe all these to be true but verification is lacking.
When I look at the flora and fauna around us I am reminded that evolution randomly formed branches of life to form a non-unique life set that is in equilibrium. When I look at the sun and other stars I can imagine the accretion of cosmic dust and with the larger blobs of matter, crushed by gravity, spontaneously undergoing nuclear fusion and getting very hot. I think the 10 commandments contain great wisdom for a stable and good society. When I look at the earth I see turmoil with the crust completely churning every 100-million years or so giving us all of the geology we see. All of these things are well within my comprehension. But when my mind peers down into the sub-atomic, very-short-time-scale world of quantum mechanics, I must leave my intuition and common sense understanding behind. This is a world of extraordinary mathematical complexity and beauty where symmetry, uncertainty and probabilistic behavior rule. The more I study it, the more spiritual I become. How could all of this exist without the hand of God?
There is another branch of science that is relevant to this discussion: cosmology. P.C.W. Davies’ popular science book The Accidental Universe contains a remarkable insight. Mathematical models of the evolution of the universe and all its parts down to the sub-atomic level are governed by a small handful of physical constants: the gravitational constant, the speed of light, Planck’s constant that determines the scale and intensity of quantum-mechanical interactions and a few more. Davies notes that this suite of constants is quite unique. If any of these constants were slightly different, the universe would not be as we know it. If the weak nuclear force was not almost exactly balanced by the force of gravity our proton – rich universe would be mostly neutrons with essentially no elements formed shortly after the big bang and no chemistry — and no life. If gravitation were a little stronger or a little weaker, stars like the sun would be rare and short-lived becoming dwarfs or giants. And so on, with dozens more examples of the unlikeness of the universe we live in.
This uniqueness of the suite of fundamental constants is widely accepted and cosmologists and philosophers conjure reasons why. Most propose the “anthropic principle” that you can find on Google if you care to know about it. It basically has multi-universes, each with a different suite of constants and only those with our suite can have “beings” there to think about these things. Less favored but still considered is Divine design where the texture of the universe is hand-stitched by God so that we can have this remarkable world that we enjoy.
I like the latter conjecture.
I understand agnosticism. But to me, atheism is an arrogant and intellectually inferior position, given that there is so much else in our world that cannot be reconciled with our intuition or intellect.
As said earlier, for me, science does not prove or disprove anything about the existence of God. But it opens my mind.
In the end, it is all faith.
Comments
47 Responses to “Giving Witness”
Leave a Reply
This stuff makes my brain hurt I’m afraid. I just cannot comprehend how this can be so. I’ve railed about elites elsewhere, but sometimes we really do have to put our faith in them.
Absolutely agree shockwaver. It is incredibly arrogant to think we humans can dismiss something so completely when our understanding of so much is so limited. Particle physics added new layers of complexity to the understanding of our environment. Why is it so difficult to accept the possibility of other layers yet, like the spiritual.
Atheism is not arrogant and intellectually inferior position
It’s rational.
Prove God exists! Go on I’m waiting.
THX, you will wait a very long time.
Belief in God is simply and exactly that, it’s about faith. If you need physical proof of everything then you will never get it. Period.
For me, God is nature and where I grew up it was all around me, so not needing proof for everything was easy. The spirituality of the place is overwhelming.
As for the theology. The Gospels are comprehensive, those published in the New Testament and the many others rejected at Nicea.
Ronnie
So you’re basically saying I should take your word for the existence of God.
Sorry but I need a lot more than that.
THX, you don’t need to take my word for anything. I’m not trying to convince you. what you think and believe is entirely up to you, none of my business.
I’m just making the comment that looking for proof is simply barking up the wrong tree in this case.
shockwaver,
Great post.
It certainly gives one a different take on things.
And like Ronnie, just looking at the perfection of nature is enough to convince me.
shockwaver,
Are you a physicist or something else? In what area/s do you work?
hayward
physicist. use shock waves to produce very precise and controlled conditions of extreme pressure and temperature in condensed matter for a few hundred nanoseconds to study a variety of solid state phenomena. shockwaver is less a nom de plume and more like a job title.
i just read a little about things like particle physics for amusement and am far from an expert in that area.
i do regard myself an expert in many of the underlying scientific disciplines surrounding agw although my background in meteorology is zero.
An excellent article Shockwaver and well written.
However, you say:
“I must leave my intuition and common sense understanding behind”.
I agree because the simple definition of intuition and understanding is Faith.
I have faith God exists even though I have not seen Him, but know Him through cause and effect like those light particles.
I still battle with the concept of a christian agreeing with evolution; that opinion to me is a “halfway house”.
The complete and utter lack of missing links (apart from only a handful, which are suspect at best)is the strongest argument that evolution did not occur. Also the fact that skeletons of deceased animals (that died millions of years ago) have not changed from current living species gives more evidence to my theory.
But I have no doubt that God exists and will bide my time to meet Him while the scoffers scurry on to destruction.
THX…prove God does not exist!
Here’s a little conundrum for you….”there is no such thing as an atheist because being an atheist means you KNOW there is no God and to know that you have to have the knowledge of God and if you have the knowledge of God you are God”.
OT
THX…prove God does not exist!
I don’t have to, you know that’s how it works!
OT
But liberals DO have the knowledge of God. Don’t you read their media.
THX,
I find it interesting that you take everything that Al Gore says on global warming on faith…because there is very little credible science there…yet you cannot accept there is a God, on faith.
I have to say, if we accept that some people believe and others don’t, is that not enough?
An American
You’re over reaching, firstly I have never actually watched the Al Gore film and AGW is hardly article of faith is it like god, all the respected scientific bodies in the world say it’s a fact.
Our Royal Society for one
http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278
The oldest and most venerable scientific organisation in the world
Can I suggest you park your political animosity and read the debunking the Climate Change myths section.
THX,
It is not true that all the respected scientific bodies believe that global warming is caused by man. There are some 7,000 ‘real’ scientists that have signed a declaration to that fact. If you look at the list you are referring to…it is filled with soft science like pychologists, etc.
I was at a scientific conference with my husband in Hawaii last year and there was a fellow there from Princeton touting global warming…Come to find out, he had big bucks coming in for his global warming research…In conversations with him, he came off as less than scientific, shrill and greedy.
THX,
This is on a completely different subject.
The closest I’ve come to the acting world is through our daughter. She was Mark Medoff’s leading lady in college. Medoff wrote the play ‘Children of a Lesser God’ which later was turned into a movie. When our daughter married instead of following the bright lights, he was pretty put out with her. I think he believed she had real talent.
But, I was glad she made that decision. It’s a tough world for young women to negotiate. And she’s had a wonderful marriage and has raised two great boys…
An American, it doesn’t matter if GW is man made or not. It just does not matter.
If the climate is changing then we have to work out how to live with it. That is the only issue and arguing about who’s fault it is is a waste of time. Time we may not have.
An American
Please send me links to real Scientific Societies that deny AGW I promise to read them.
The 7000 “real” scientists please send me the link, I always thought it was 32,000 “real” scientists .
An American
Such a shame we can’t meet up over the summer, you’re not coming to LA by any chance are you?
THX
Whilst you may be an advocate for AGW, you’re not suggesting that you want to do anything about. You will have flown to America twice this year, the building of your iphone created emissions etc. I’m not having a go at you, I defend your right to do those things, but man made efforts to control AGW requires punitive actions against the poor and undeveloped and if those that are better off aren’t able to curtail their actions, what gives them the right to impose thier values on those less well-off.
Perhaps when people like Al Gore, Prince Charles and Bono start practicing what they preach, they might get a better reaction. AGW is an elitist middle class and largely liberal way of keeping the masses in check.
THX and Ronnie
I agree that we should do everything possible to limit man’s fingerprint on earth…but, Cap and Trade won’t do anything but be another nail in the West’s coffin.
This is not my forte…but if we stopped all US emissions tomorrow…it would have little effect on the climate. I believe that man is responsible for what it has negatively created…but destroying Western society which is what bills like Cap and Trade will do, is not the answer…do your really want Russia…God, are they irresponsible. We went through one area of the Urals that had no birds or wildlife because of nuclear pollution…yet people were out in the woods picking mushrooms to eat. I imagine they glowed at night and I wasn’t too comfortable eating our host’s lunch that day.
Do we really want the worst polluters in the world like Russia, China and India calling the shots in the future?
I deal with environmentalists all the time…since I do bear conservation. In private they say we’ll ask for this but, down the line we’ll ask for more and more. I know them well, most of them are not reasonable or have sensible goals. One told me that she wanted to do away with all ranchs (she was a vegan) and have the government buy them…I told her I was raised on a ranch, my father was a third generation rancher. And I loved a good steak better than anything I could think of to eat.
I believe there are common sense environmental things that science can help us with…given the time. But Cap and Trade is a farce.
Cabbie
“You will have flown to America twice this year”
I agree with a lot of what you say and actually think me not flying is just the worst kind of tokenism.
I’m with James Lovelock and Tony Blair on this and we need to move to a Nuclear Future & technological fix not some green hair shirt Holier than thou BS
I can’t recommend James Lovelock new book The Vanishing Face f Gaia – A Final Warning strongly enough.
The solution to worldwide pollution and lower oil consumption is Nuclear power…but Obama and environmentalists believe we can get by on solar and wind…which is moronic and incredibly dangerous to the future of mankind.
Wow- we agree apart from the knocking Obama bit
Wind power is a waste of time although I did read good things about solar power with the eletricity carried by high voltage DC power lines, which means you can have huge solar farms in deserts & “pipe” the electicity to population centres 100’s of miles away.
It takes a tremendous amount of land for solar…what about the delicate desert flora and fauna that will be destroyed by hundreds of acres of solar panels.
I see nothing wrong with private solar panels on homes, roofs for personal use. But, I hope the government forgets any kind of ‘big’ solar projects, since they are not worth the trouble.
Every time I see big windmills…they’re out of order and they kill an enormous number of bats and birds.
Nuclear is the answer. But, I’m afraid that the US government will wait until it’s too late. If we have a war and in the process, lose access to enough oil and gas to survive, we won’t have time to change over to nuclear.
The left is playing with our very survival.
Felow bloggers,
Nucular Power, from those who rail agin the gov’mint !
What brought on this fit of such cognitive dissonance?
Let us address the TCO and ROI, in other words
” Show me the Money”
For no Nuclear Generation System in the world runs without almost total taxpayer support from the scoping to he decommissioning and clean up!
1. In the US nuclear reactor development was part of the USN nuclear submarine programme under Eisenhower. Those that became involved were told that nuclear generated power would be so cheap there would be no need to meter it! Well that did not add up!
2. Actuaries make their living by working with numbers, to ascertain risk. No insurance would be available for nuclear reactor sites in the US if not for the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act which covers all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first $10 billion is industry-funded according to a scheme described in the Act (any claims above the $10 billion would be covered by the US Federal government, the tax payer as that is from where “government money” comes. Initially the Act was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power, because investors were unwilling to accept the then-unknown risks of nuclear energy without limitations on their liability. And it seems that that are still unwilling to accept the KNOWN risks.
Same again!
3. Total Cost of Ownership including energy, environmental, infrastructure and finance for the materials, construction, maintenance of the plant/s. All are blue sky figures loved by contractors, infrastructure vultures and pork barrelling legislators.
Same again!
4.True ROI costs from start up to shut down and decommissioning? Will a plant be energy positive within its payback period? Same again!
5. A big problem concerns water for cooling, given lack of fresh water for the foreseeable future. Sea water can be used, a plus in desalination BUT it is more corrosive and would require more expense in the technology to use and monitor. Same again!
6. Extraction of more uranium ore and enrichment for fuel. Energy, environmental. infrastructure and financial costs for more mines which also need vast quantities of fresh water. Costs to rise as ore grades decrease. Whole of life energy, environmental and financial costs?. Same again!
7. And last but certainly the biggest. Waste disposal. Whose backyard? How long? Energy, environmental. infrastructure and financial costs and the BIG One shipping/maintenance/security costs while in storage? Same again!
The grid is a big problem
The typical Australian scenario; for every four tonnes of coal burnt in the power station furnace, only one tonne of that coal’s electrical energy producing potential reaches the power point. Losses mainly in the form of heat make the grid 25% efficient at best. Inefficient lighting, motors and appliances reduce the overall efficiency of electricity to about 15%.
This coupled with badly designed commercial buildings and private dwellings means we still have a 19 C.supply and consumer model running in the 21C. Last century’s answer to an industrialising world won’t cut it in the 21C
You can apply the same figures to nuclear power generation and its distribution.
It would be interesting to see a study done on the grid plus the gradual tightening of energy efficiency requirements in building, electrical appliances, lighting and land transport. Money better spent for a long term solution than the so called nuclear solution.
Currently Australia has abundant LNG. So abundant that we sell it to China for c. 5c/litre. For much less than the cost of a nuclear programme and without the environmental and waste problems, it should be possible to put in place an LNG pipeline network running a distributed power system with smaller more local power generation plants. This should result in much greater energy efficiencies.
The US could probably do the same.
Hayward Good post
Did you know that plutonium in Russian decommissioned nuclear weapons ends up in US nuclear power stations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phv2I7dtvk4
Maybe the latest round of cuts in both countries nuclear arsenals can be put to good use fueling a new generation of much safer and more efficent reactors.
The latest reactor built privately for a Finnish paper mill (from a French design) seems to a have got over a lot of your issues including the waste which is buried deeply on site.
Fellow Bloggers,
I write this on 10 July which is the birthday of Nikola Tesla. The man who gave the world AC current plus a whole range of other electrical inventions.
THX1138.
Well this may be good news but:
“The latest reactor built privately for a Finnish paper mill (from a French design) seems to a have got over a lot of your issues including the waste which is buried deeply on site.”
There is a lot more buried on that site at
Olkiluoto than waste.
The Olkiluoto 3 reactor was supposed to start producing power in May 2009. However, “the plant is at least three and a half years behind schedule and more than 50 percent over-budget.”
According to Professor Stephen Thomas*, “Olkiluoto has become an example of all that can go wrong in economic terms with new reactors”. Areva and the utility involved “are in bitter dispute over who will bear the cost overruns and there is a real risk now that the utility will default”.
The project has also been criticized by the Finnish nuclear safety regulator.
*Stephen Thomas is professor at the University of Greenwich Business School, and has been a researcher in the area of energy policy for over 25 years. He specialises in the economics and policy of nuclear power, liberalisation and privatisation of the electricity and gas industries, and trade policy on network energy industries.
Hayward,
No one said going nuclear was going to be easy or cheap, but it is doable.
Here in NM, we have underground storage for some nuclear contaminated articles but the enviros have done every thing possible to try to close it up over past years. We have a company that wants to start extracting uranium ore but they have been in court…again from enviros for several years now.
When was the last time that someone died from nuclear contamination in the West…O. It is impossible to have 0 nuclear safety. Maybe we should just stay in our beds and not venture out each day.
Russia is the only country that’s had problems…and anyone that’s been to Russia knows how incredibly sloppy they are…how many nuclear subs have they lost…I believe it’s 2 compared to 0 for the west.
If everyone believes that global warming is going to do us in from man-made pollution, then nuclear is the only way to go.
You gave us the negatives on nuclear, what would you do to solve the pollution and energy supply problems. Are you anti-nuclear?
An American,
Well yes you can say I am anti nuclear in the form it is at present.
Furthermore I am at a loss to understand why you and others who are so opposed to government big spending of your tax dollars appear to be so content with such largesse to Big Energy. Below are some further indications of the true costs and why even Wall Street, back in 2008, shied away.
The new spin being put on nuclear power by Big Energy and their partners in crime is just untrue an extract from an article in 2008 http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2008/092008/slocum.html
There are 30 or so proposed new reactors in the United States. Some are barely in the planning stages, but several are close to breaking ground on construction. All come with enormous price tags. The major new reactor proposals are:
Alabama & Mississippi: NuStart, a consortium of DTE, Duke, EDF, Entergy, Exelon, FPL, GE, Progress, SCANA, Southern Co, TVA and Westinghouse. Florida: FPL and Progress Energy. FPL estimates $9 billion each for two new reactors; Progress Energy projects $8.5 billion. The Florida Public Service Commission gave the green light to both companies to recover full costs from the state’s ratepayers irrespective of whether the plants ever get built.
(Now ain’t that grand!)
Georgia: Southern Co. Estimated cost is $14 billion. Maryland: Unistar (a joint venture between Baltimore-based Constellation and French government-owned EDF). Estimated cost: $9.6 billion. South Carolina: Duke Energy and SCANA. No cost estimate yet, but Duke successfully persuaded state regulators to approve $230 million in “preconstruction costs” that will be paid by ratepayers.
(Ain’t this grand as well!) Texas: NRG, TXU, Exelon and Amarillo Power. No cost estimates yet. Virginia: Dominion Resources. No cost estimate yet.
None of these projects have even broken ground “the point where cost estimates traditionally have skyrocketed” Indeed, one just has to look across the Atlantic to Finland, where EDF is building Europes only new reactor. Construction is two years behind schedule and $4.5 billion over budget
(This is the Olkiluoto reactor in 2008 that was referred to above in 2009, so it has become even worse in cost and time overuns!)
Moody’s Corporate Finance estimated in a May 2008 analysis that nuclear’s capital cost per kilowatt was 275 percent higher than wind and 150 percent higher than solar. The ratings and risk analysis firm projects solar’s capital costs getting slashed in half in the not-too-distant future, while those for nuclear only rising. Moody’s explains that “from a back-end regulatory disallowance risk perspective, our concerns reside in the fact that nuclear generation has a fixed design where construction costs are rising rapidly, while other renewable technologies [like solar] are still experiencing significant advancements in terms of energy conversion efficiency and cost reductions.”
“The projected cost of the currently proposed nuclear plants is causing some sticker shock: $5billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates”the Wall Street Journal reported in May 2008.
New estimates from nuclear operators such as NRG Energy, Progress Energy, Exelon, Southern Co., and FPL Group ”have blown by our highest estimates of costs” computed just eight months ago, the Journal reported.
Interestingly Wall Street itself is not too keen to go there either as shown in this extract from
What Nuclear Renaissance? @
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080512/parenti
“Wall street doesn’t like nuclear power,” says Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. The fundamental fact is that nuclear power is too expensive and risky to attract the necessary commercial investors. Even with vast government subsidies, it is difficult or almost impossible to get proper financing and insurance. The massive federal subsidies on offer will cover up to 80 percent of construction costs of several nuclear power plants in addition to generous production tax credits, as well as risk insurance. But consider this: the average two-reactor nuclear power plant is estimated to cost $10 billion to $18 billion to build. That’s before cost overruns, and no US nuclear power plant has ever been delivered on time or on budget.
As Dieter Helm, an Oxford professor and leading economic expert on energy markets, has found, there never has been and never will be a nuclear power program totally dependent on the market.
Is it to be understood that all of you on the right are Nuclear Energy Keynesians as well as Military Keynesians?
Hayward You’re just a bit scary
THX1138m
In what regard am I scary, what makes you say that?
Just the huge about of information that pours out of you.
THX1138,
Look maaaate, as we say Down Under, I work in an Academic Library. Because of that I have access to many resources. Archive material, books/e books, journals hardcopy/online, maps, microfiche/film, video but most important of all people.
I engage with my fellow workers, the other staff at the institution whether they be academic, administration or technical. Then there are students from undergraduate through to PhD onto Post Doc.
If I have something I want to find out about I can generally have a chat with someone who can point me in the right direction, indicate what areas might be of interest and I am off.
I have also worked as a fact checker and book indexer, which helps in pulling ideas and thoughts in and then organising them.
Well I’m glad you’re on board-
So AGW happening – Yes or No?
THX1138,
AGW is more than happening it is manifesting in many different ways. Tipping points are obvious indicators
Here are 9 scenarios to do with tipping points from
PNAS ISSN 0027-8424 2008 Vol,105 no, 6 pp1786-1793 Timothy M. Lenton et al.
Melting of Arctic sea-ice (approx 10+ years, small uncertainty). As sea-ice melts, it exposes a much darker ocean surface, which absorbs more radiation than white sea-ice so that the warming is amplified. This causes more rapid melting in summer and decreases ice formation in winter. Over the last 16 years ice cover during summer declined markedly. The critical threshold global mean warming may be between 0.5 to 2 degrees Celsius, but could already have been passed. One model shows a nonlinear transition to a potential new stable state with no arctic sea-ice during summer within a few decades.
Decay of the Greenland ice sheet (more than 300 years, small uncertainty). Warming over the ice sheet accelerates ice loss from outlet glaciers and lowers ice altitude at the periphery, which further increases surface temperature and ablation. The exact tipping point for disintegration of the ice sheet is unknown, since current models cannot capture the observed dynamic deglaciation processes accurately. But in a worst case scenario local warming of more than three degrees Celsius could cause the ice sheet to disappear within 300 years. This would result in a rise of sea level of up to seven meters.
Collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet (more than 300 years, large uncertainty). Recent gravity measurements suggest that the ice sheet is losing mass. Since most of the ice sheet is grounded below sea level the intrusion of ocean water could destabilize it. The tipping point could be reached with a local warming of five to eight degrees Celsius in summer. A worst case scenario shows the ice sheet could collapse within 300 years, possibly raising sea level by as much as five meters.
Collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation (approx 100 years, intermediate uncertainty). The circulation of sea currents in the Atlantic Ocean is driven by seawater that flows to the North Atlantic, cools and sinks at high latitudes. If the inflow of freshwater increases, e.g. from rivers or melting glaciers, or the seawater is warmed, its density would decrease. A global mean warming of three to five degrees Celsius could push the element past the tipping point so that deep water formation stops. Under these conditions the North Atlantic current would be disrupted, sea level in the North Atlantic region would rise and the tropical rain belt would be shifted.
Increase in the El Niño Southern Oscillation (approx 100 years, large uncertainty). The variability of this ocean-atmosphere mode is controlled by the layering of water of different temperatures in the Pacific Ocean and the temperature gradient across the equator. During the globally three degrees Celsius warmer early Pliocene ENSO may have been suppressed in favor of persistent El Niño or La Niña conditions. In response to a warmer stabilized climate, the most realistic models simulate increased El Niño amplitude with no clear change in frequency.
Collapse of the Indian summer monsoon (approx 1+ year, large uncertainty). The monsoon circulation is driven by a land-to-ocean pressure gradient. Greenhouse warming tends to strengthen the monsoon since warmer air can carry more water. Air pollution and land-use that increases the reflection of sunlight tend to weaken it. The Indian summer monsoon could become erratic and in the worst case start to chaotically change between an active and a weak phase within a few years.
Greening of the Sahara/Sahel and disruption of the West African monsoon (approx 10 years, large uncertainty). The amount of rainfall is closely related to vegetation climate feedback and sea surface temperatures of the Atlantic Ocean. Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to increase Sahel rainfall. But a global mean warming of three to five degrees Celsius could cause a collapse of the West African monsoon. This could lead either to drying of the Sahel or to wetting due to increased inflow from the West. A third scenario shows a possible doubling of anomalously dry years by the end of the century.
Dieback of the Amazon rainforest (approx 50 years, large uncertainty). Global warming and deforestation will probably reduce rainfall in the region by up to 30 percent. Lengthening of the dry season, and increases in summer temperatures would make it difficult for the forest to re-establish. Models project dieback of the Amazon rainforest to occur under three to four degrees Celsius global warming within fifty years. Even land-use change alone could potentially bring forest cover to a critical threshold.
Dieback of the Boreal Forest (approx 50 years, large uncertainty). The northern forests exhibit a complex interplay between tree physiology, permafrost and fire. A global mean warming of three to five degrees Celsius could lead to large-scale dieback of the boreal forests within 50 years. Under climate change the trees would be exposed to increasing water stress and peak summer heat and would be more vulnerable to diseases. Temperate tree species will remain excluded due to frost damage in still very cold winters.
That “Collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation”
refers in part to the Gulf Stream. If that were to change to the extent possible, NW Europe would have a climate much like Eastern and Northern Europe, very much colder in winter. With a shorter growing season. And the NE Coast of North America would become colder as well.
Thanks Hayward for such a detailed post.
I have been reading that actual measurements in the field inc sea level rise, sea ice melt & glacial retreat are in fact worse than the models predict.
Ironically I have read in Field Notes From a Catastrophe, Elizabeth Kolbert from the New Yorkers excellent book that certain parts of Anchorage are now blighted for home sales as the permafrost has melted so much that houses have subsided & in some cases been swallowed up.
The real place to look for climate change is in sea level rise, sea ice and permafrost melt and not in atmospheric temp rise as there is just too much noise.
If you want I can give you the Ice in the drink analogy and how much more energy is required to melt ice but you probably know this all already.
Rising sea levels are not really about flooding, although that will be bad enough, the real problem is the consequent change in sea temperature and the devastating changes in weather patterns. That has still to come.
I saw a TV programme after 9/11 in which it was shown that during the period when no flights were allowed over the US the temperature actually rose very dramatically. The conclusion being that without carbon emissions acting as a partial mirror reflecting the sun’s heat, things would be much worse.
ladies and gentlemen, I think we are in a no win situation.
Ronnie
It’s called global dimming and it’s putting a brake on warming.
THX.
I’m a bit dim and I would be grateful if you could explain what you said in greater detail please.
Ronnie particulates in the atmosphere from industry, cars, airplane contrails etc reduce the amount of sunlight hitting the surface and therefore tend to cool the planet down I don’t think this is controversial.
I think this was the prog you mentioned I saw it too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml
Clean air legislation could have the unintended consequence of speeding up climate change
thx
ocean levels rise and fall. 18,000 years ago the oceans were about 120 meters lower than today. that works out to an average rise of about 7mm/year for 18,000 years. of course sometimes the annual rise was larger than this and sometimes smaller. that is just the average
i believe all of this must have started when the asians came across the exposed bering land bridge (beringia)and the new arrivals started building all those campfires. too much CO2 and not enough soot.
i did check the figures for the last ~century. the average rate of ocean rise has been about 3mm/year. funny thing though, this rate has hardly changed at all since 1880. so to my eye, the data suggest that the heavy industrial CO2 pollution (sic)of the last 50 years has not altered the trend.
just to be on the safe side, i have updated my catastrophe list to add rising oceans:
considering rising oceans, silicone breast implants, swine flu, acid rain, dioxin, red food dyes, cyclamates, ozone depletion, mad cow disease, bee colony collapse, flesh-eating bacteria, pesticide pollution, kudzu strangulation, the millennium bug, killer meteors, cell phone cancer, power line cancer, DDT, china syndrome, saturated fats and the mother of all disasters, global warming, maybe we should all run and hide under the covers.
hayward
you seem to have answered the agw question with a gw answer.
most of what you write can be characterized as if-then statements.
what do you think about agw?
shockwaver,
From most of the evidence presented, I am inclined to agree that there is AGW.
Low sea levels which existed as far as Australia is concerned from somewhere c.50,000 to 12,500 BP enabled the original inhabitants of the continent to cross:
First the sea gap between Asia/Niugini/Australia as the straits between becam much narrower and shallower;
Then that which now separates Tasmania from mainland Australia. These were are Beringaria
After c12,500 sea levels rose and formed what is now the Bass Strait there and Torres Straight to the North.
These were occasioned by great rises in sea level from the realease of hundreds of thousands of cubic kilometres of ice were stacked up on the continents as glaciers.
As for past tipping points there was a probable one was Meltwater Pulse 1A (mwp-1A), when sea level rose approximately 20 m over a 500 year period about 14,200 years ago. This is a rate of about 40 mm/yr. Recent studies suggest the primary source was meltwater from the Antarctic, perhaps causing the south-to-north cold pulse marked by the Southern Hemisphere Huelmo/Mascardi Cold Reversal, which preceded the Northern Hemisphere Younger Dryas
THX1138,
“certain parts of Anchorage are now blighted for home sales as the permafrost has melted so much that houses have subsided & in some cases been swallowed up.”
Well that is in fact another possibe tipping point.
as the vast expanse of permafrost in Siberia and Alaska has started to thaw for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago. It is caused by the recent 3+°C rise in local temperature over the past 40 years – more than four times the global average. What was until recently a barren expanse of frozen peat is turning into a broken landscape of mud and lakes, some more than a kilometre across. All only in the past 3 or 4 years.
As such upwards of 25% of Planet Earth is underlain to some degree by permafrost and in extreme conditions reaches depths of 1500 meters. This melting has the potential to release vast quantities of methane trapped by ice below the surface – billions of tonnes of methane. World-wide, peat bogs store at least two trillion tons of CO2. This is equivalent to a century of emissions from fossil fuels