Interesting point of view (global warming debate)

[Jenksismyhero]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

 

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

 

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

 

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

 

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

 

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

 

 

I'm beginning to realize more and more the political machine that is behind the global warming debate. I find it fascinating that large governmental bodies like the UN are behind the global warming theories, but major independent scientists are still skeptical of the human element involved. Who's to believe? Is there an agenda? Could the liberals be using fear as a means to get control of the country again (something they accused Bush of doing with terrorism)? Is Al Gore REALLY being considered for a Nobel Prize?

 

I'm very confused by this issue. I'll be the first to admit that I know nothing of the science behind the debate, other than the basics. I just don't understand how the Earth can actually cool down for a period of time (30 years ago) when the Earth is supposedly getting hotter and hotter. How does southern Texas or California get snow for the first time in 15-20 years while glaciers are melting in front of our eyes?

 

I know we've discussed global warming ad nauseam here, but I dunno, this guy brings up a point. Is there a public backlash for people who question the level of human effect on global warming? Is it already hard scientific fact that we're causing our own demise? Is it even debatable anymore?

[YASNY]

How's that global warming effecting Chicago right now?

[Texsox]

Liberal agenda? What are we doing to try and protect our environment that is wrong and would be part of a liberal agenda to take over the country? For example, I just don't see where driving less, and using less oil, is so bad.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm very confused by this issue. I'll be the first to admit that I know nothing of the science behind the debate, other than the basics. I just don't understand how the Earth can actually cool down for a period of time (30 years ago) when the Earth is supposedly getting hotter and hotter. How does southern Texas or California get snow for the first time in 15-20 years while glaciers are melting in front of our eyes?

 

 

How's that global warming effecting Chicago right now?

 

Without diving into the debate entirely, I am going to respond to this particular falacy. Individual days, weeks, or even seasons, are NOT indicative of climate change in any direction. That's like looking at a baseball team that went 120-42 for the season, randomly choosing one of the 42 losses, and saying "see, that team sucks". Its equally ridiculous when people point it out when its hot, or when its cold.

 

The overall trends, in reality, are crystal clear that warming is occurring. There is no logical debate otherwise. The only questions is how much of that is caused by human influence. My take, and that of the great majority if science, is that its a pretty sizable chunk. Others may think its only a small amount of it. Either way, its important.

[Cknolls]

Without diving into the debate entirely, I am going to respond to this particular falacy. Individual days, weeks, or even seasons, are NOT indicative of climate change in any direction. That's like looking at a baseball team that went 120-42 for the season, randomly choosing one of the 42 losses, and saying "see, that team sucks". Its equally ridiculous when people point it out when its hot, or when its cold.

 

The overall trends, in reality, are crystal clear that warming is occurring. There is no logical debate otherwise. The only questions is how much of that is caused by human influence. My take, and that of the great majority if science, is that its a pretty sizable chunk. Others may think its only a small amount of it. Either way, its important.

 

 

What time frame is sufficient? One that fits the warming theory?

[southsideirish71]

 

Maybe the dino's drove around in big SUVs, worked at big factories, and were too tied to Oil.

[southsider2k5]

 

Maybe the dino's drove around in big SUVs, worked at big factories, and were too tied to Oil.

 

Damn. Too bad that isn't a stock chart. EZ money

[Rex Kickass]

There's no doubt that pollution has far reaching effects... one of which may be global climate change. By reducing CO2 emissions, we can help reclaim the negative effects that it has had on our environment. It's a good thing to do regardless of global warming.

 

But if you want good anecdotal evidence - look at Mount Kilimanjaro. Look at the mountains in Montana that had snow caps year round 50 years ago.

 

The average temperature on earth today is a full degree higher than it was 120 years ago, and a full degree higher than it was at the end of the last warming "cycle."

 

[Texsox]

 

Maybe the dino's drove around in big SUVs, worked at big factories, and were too tied to Oil.

 

Maybe we don't want to be the dinos . . .

[Chet Lemon]

If global warming is real, then why am I freezing when I go outside? It is nothing more than a hoax precipitated by the powerful liberal agenda. Lets get Sen. Inhofe in the White House in '08 because he would expose the hoax as liberal fear-mongering and a boon for the Weather Channel.

[southsideirish71]

There's no doubt that pollution has far reaching effects... one of which may be global climate change. By reducing CO2 emissions, we can help reclaim the negative effects that it has had on our environment. It's a good thing to do regardless of global warming.

 

But if you want good anecdotal evidence - look at Mount Kilimanjaro. Look at the mountains in Montana that had snow caps year round 50 years ago.

 

The average temperature on earth today is a full degree higher than it was 120 years ago, and a full degree higher than it was at the end of the last warming "cycle."

 

 

Everytime I see a graph on global warming, its a 100-200 year snapshot of average temps. This is a bit small of a snapshot when you are talking about global climate changes. Sure we have seen an increase in temps over the last 100 years, and sure it has an affect on our climate at this point in history. But if you take a look through time, the temperature of the world has fluctuated in cycles. This is the hottest the planet has been since around 1000AD. So if it was so hot back in old 1000AD what where they doing to increase the temps. Was it the population at the time, NO. Was it the large amounts of industry or technology, NO. Then why was it so hot back then. Maybe its just a cycle that happens.

 

I know Al Gore built the internet and all but come on. For every theory on global warming being caused by people only, there are others. There is a theory that our climate is more affected on the slight deviations in the tilt of the axis of the earth and its deviations in its orbit that have slow, but farther reaching climate changes then Betsy and her SUV.

[Rex Kickass]

 

There's definitely an anecdotal link between a sudden rise in CO2 in the last 125 years and the temperature rise in CO2 in the last 125 years.

 

If the CO2 levels in the previous graph that you posted correspond with warming cycles and ice ages, and if humans have been producing CO2 in the atmosphere at unprecedented levels in the last 125 years - why is it a bad idea to try to break the best known possible link between climate change and human interaction?

[Texsox]

why is it a bad idea to try to break the best known possible link between climate change and human interaction?

Because it may benefit liberals and that is always a bad thing. So be a good conservative and pollute! Drive extra miles today. Use more oil!

 

We are so in trouble when we even divide up something as important as our environment as benefiting liberals or conservatives. Like breathing cleaner air is a bad thing.

[Balta1701]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

 

I'm beginning to realize more and more the political machine that is behind the global warming debate. I find it fascinating that large governmental bodies like the UN are behind the global warming theories, but major independent scientists are still skeptical of the human element involved. Who's to believe? Is there an agenda? Could the liberals be using fear as a means to get control of the country again (something they accused Bush of doing with terrorism)? Is Al Gore REALLY being considered for a Nobel Prize?

Some points first and foremost. You are simply incorrect when you say that the UN is behind these Global warming theories. Yes, the IPCC was organized by the UN, but that is not because the UN is taking sides, its because the UN is the only body in the world capable of organizing a summary of the beliefs of 2500 scientists from a hundred countries. There is no single government, with the exception of the United States, that could organize something as complex as a 5 year research project and summary involving that many people, and the U.S. government has no interest in doing so (in large part because of $).

 

Secondly, there is something you should understand about scientists; if you want 110% of them to agree on something before anything is done, you would still be making axe heads out of obsidian. There will always, always be people who can be found to disagree on an issue...especially when there is an awful lot of money available for people who disagree, as there is on this issue.

 

I'll give you an example from my science; the entire basis of most work in thinking about geology these days is the idea of plate tectonics; oceanic plates form at mid ocean ridges and subduct into the mantle at spreading centers. However, this theory only really began to gain wide acceptance in the 1960's, before that there were a wide number of explanations for how mountains and arcs were formed which relied on some honestly wierd ideas. But...there are still, in all honesty, some holdouts who for some reason reject the modern evidence, and say that these cracks in the earth are because the earth is expanding or shrinking or something like that. That is simply how things work; there are always some people who will refuse to accept every single idea.

 

Here is what I would say in response, as a person working in earth sciences; weigh who is speaking on each side. On one side you have a handful of people, some of questionable quality (we'll get back to that in a few minutes), and on the other side, you have 2500+ actual climate researchers just from the IPCC, plus somewhere in the thousands of physicists, modelers, geologists, and an awful lot of other folks.

 

On top of that, here's another cute one, in 2004 in Science, an article was published taking a look at what the actual research community was saying on the issue. From 1993 to 2003, the author found 928 different papers looking at climate change, and not a single one of them offered up evidence disagreeing with the consensus view that anthropogenic climate change was real. I don't like the appeal to authority explanation, but in this case, based on the sheer volume of work out there on one single side of this issue, I think it approaches foolhardy to focus so much attention on the naysayers.

I'm very confused by this issue. I'll be the first to admit that I know nothing of the science behind the debate, other than the basics. I just don't understand how the Earth can actually cool down for a period of time (30 years ago) when the Earth is supposedly getting hotter and hotter. How does southern Texas or California get snow for the first time in 15-20 years while glaciers are melting in front of our eyes?

Ah, some actual science, this I will enjoy vastly more than the politics of the issue.

 

Ok, I'll start off with the basics of the theory. Every second, a certain amount of energy hits the earth from the Sun. A small additional component is radiated out from the inside of the earth. If the earth had no atmosphere (i.e. the Moon) then all of this energy would bounce quite rapidly back out into space, and the temperature would be controlled solely by how close the spot was to the sun and the angle facing it.

 

But, the Earth is a more interesting case; it has an atmosphere. More than that, it has an atmosphere containing molecules like water, O2, and CO2. These molecules are really really interesting, in that they can absorb radiation and turn it into heat, and they do so at discrete wavelengths of light. If the correct wavelength of light hits a molecule of CO2, H2O, O2, etc., the molecule will absorb that light and will begin to vibrate. Those molecules therefore have the ability to turn radiation (light) into heat (vibrational energy).

 

If the earth had no atmosphere, some fairly easy calculations can be done based on the distance from the Earth to the Sun, and the Earth would sit at an average of 255 K. 0 Degrees Celcius, the freezing point of water, is 273.15k, so without the atmosphere, all water on the earth would be frozen, and life wouldn't exist. So at least to some extent, what we call the greenhouse effect is quite useful; it makes life possible.

 

So, how does this work. When sunlight hits the earth's surface, it comes in at visible wavelengths. It is then absorbed by the surface of the earth, and then rapidly radiated back out in the Infrared (that's where the materials on the earth radiate). Without an atmosphere, all this energy would just depart. But if you start sticking molecules that absorb those IR wavelengths into the atmosphere, they form a barrier to emission of energy at those wavelengths. The earth can not radiate out the excess energy at those wavelengths if there is an absorber that converts the energy back into heat.

 

So, when this happens, the system reacts by heating up. Simple blackbody physics tells us that changing the temperature of an object will change the wavelength of light at which the object radiates away energy; in other words, if there is an absorber at the wavelength of light where a planet wants to radiate away heat, the planet will heat up until it starts to radiate away energy at a wavelength where there is not a strong absorber.

 

This is the basis of the CO2 issue in the atmosphere. Because mainly of water, the earth is unable to radiate out energy at 255k like it would want to. So the earth heats up to a temperature where water is not in the way; something around an average of 290-300K. But, it just so happens that the reason why the planet can radiate at this level is that there is not a very high concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere; CO2 is another greenhouse gas, and it absorbs radiation at these same wavelengths. The earth was in relative equilibruim at current temperatures without all this CO2, but adding that CO2 into the atmosphere means that the earth again must heat up in order to radiate out the sun's energy. And CO2 is at a much lower concentration in the atmosphere than H2O, so it does not take much additional CO2 in terms of volume to cause a significant increase in the relative abundance of CO2; thus far through the industrial revolution alone, man has caused a 30% increase in the abundance of atmospheric CO2. So by putting more CO2 there, we are making the atmosphere more able to absorb the energy the earth is trying to emit, and so to get rid of that energy, the earth has no choice but to heat up further.

 

Now, your question about places like Texas getting snow, etc. Unfortunately or fortunately (however you want to look at it), the climate system is also a very complicated mess with a huge number of different things going on at once. The long-term CO2 increase is simply not the only thing going on. First and foremost, there are repetitive cycles imposed on the Earth's climate by events which occur in the oceans and atmospheres on regular intervals. The most recognizable of these is the El Nino cycle, one of which we are going through right now. Roughly every 8 years or so, the normal pattern of warm water circulation in the Pacific ocean breaks down, leading to a pool of warm water sitting off the coast of South America.

 

The best analogy for what this does to my mind is basically like throwing a wrench into a complicated machine. Some winds strengthen because of this effect (winds which, for example, break up hurricanes). Other winds weaken. There is more moisure in some places in the atmosphere, while others are dry as a bone. This is the complexity of the climate system; small perturbations can lead to very large signals. So, because of the El Nino cycle, right now we're getting large cold snaps in some places that aren't used to them at all, dryness in some places, 85 degrees for a week in California, and on and on.

 

If you talk to anyone who understands this issue well, they will tell you that it's virtually impossible to tie any single climate event to anthropogenic climate change. Hurricane Katrina, for example, was not caused by global warming. What a scientist will tell you is that as you increase the temperatures, you make extreme events, like ungodly strong hurricanes, more likely. They will also tell you that you will see many more gradual effects; like migrations of animal and crop populations northward following their normal climate, gradual melting off of glaciers as the average environment in which they formed is on average slightly warmer each year, and so on. No single Hurricane, drought, heat wave, cold snap can be tied to global warming. But what the science will say is that dumping CO2 into the atmosphere and driving up the earht's temperature will make a lot of those events more likely.

 

You also refer to the cooling period in the 60's. This is another little blip imposed on the long-term trend. The general thinking on this right now is that it was actually caused by aerosol emissions; basically, you stick more soot into the atmosphere and it helps seed slightly more clouds. It's another little feedback in the system. The problem is, the added CO2 has simply outraced what adding Aerosols can do. And overall, the weather patterns in the 60's were still warmer than they were during the 40's anyway. Here's a useful graph to show the scale of these changes:

 

 

And one other note; personally, knowing something about the science, I really dislike using the phrase "Global warming" because that's not actually what happens. On average, the earth does heat up, but not every single place on the earth will heat up. One wierd thing about global warming is that it can actually make places on the earth significantly colder on average. Europe and Northeastern North America might well be candidates for this at some point, because the current climate change system may well lead to a weakening of the Gulf Stream, the gigantic current in the Eastern North Atlantic which takes warm water from the equatorial regions and moves it northwards towards Europe. Slow that system down somewhat by dumping Fresh Water into the North Atlantic from Glacial meltwater, and Europe can begin to cool down because the waters off of Europe are colder on average.

I know we've discussed global warming ad nauseam here, but I dunno, this guy brings up a point. Is there a public backlash for people who question the level of human effect on global warming? Is it already hard scientific fact that we're causing our own demise? Is it even debatable anymore?

Let's put it this way; anything, and I mean anything is up for research if someone can provide evidence for it. The problem is, in this case, the people who are saying it isn't happening simply aren't providing evidence to back up their claims. And it's not for lack of trying, it's for a lack of actual evidence. For example, the guy Tim Ball you cite, well, he has a bit of a checkered background on this issue. First of all, there has been some amount of legal action, and some degree of admissions (not sure about the outcome of the legal action) where Ball was accused of lying about his background, claiming to have been the first climatologist in Canada when there were clearly people before him, accused of adding extra years to his resume, etc.

 

But beyond that, just on the actual matter of scholarly work, Ball is somewhat lacking. Specifically, he hasn't actually published anything in terms of actual results that would argue against anthropogenic climate change. He has only published a handful of scholarly papers, and most of the things he cites on his own CV aren't actually scholarly publications. He mainly seems to spend a lot of time giving lectures and writing media pieces on global warming, without publishing anything on the subject. This is the general pattern of many of these guys; either they don't have a strong background on the subject, or they don't publish anything of scholarly value on the subject, but they mainly make a living giving lectures, talking to politicians, and writing op-ed pieces.

 

There are actually a few, as I said, genuine scientists who do publish on the contrary side. Where that is done, they do generally receive scholarly responses. For a wide variety of reasons, the overwhelming majority of scientists think they're wrong, but they do manage to gain significant amounts of public notoriety, because the folks who want to make it appear that this issue is still up for debate have an awful lot of money and political power, and use it to build up the few examples of contrarians actually doing work that they do have.

 

Whew, that was a bit of a mouthful. Feel free to fire back more questions.

[Chisoxfn]

Everytime I see a graph on global warming, its a 100-200 year snapshot of average temps. This is a bit small of a snapshot when you are talking about global climate changes. Sure we have seen an increase in temps over the last 100 years, and sure it has an affect on our climate at this point in history. But if you take a look through time, the temperature of the world has fluctuated in cycles. This is the hottest the planet has been since around 1000AD. So if it was so hot back in old 1000AD what where they doing to increase the temps. Was it the population at the time, NO. Was it the large amounts of industry or technology, NO. Then why was it so hot back then. Maybe its just a cycle that happens.

 

I know Al Gore built the internet and all but come on. For every theory on global warming being caused by people only, there are others. There is a theory that our climate is more affected on the slight deviations in the tilt of the axis of the earth and its deviations in its orbit that have slow, but farther reaching climate changes then Betsy and her SUV.

That has been what I have long said. I think right now we are in a period of global warming but the key is that the history of the earth has had many weather cycles, some with global cooling and others with global warming. I remember in some of my college science classes a few of us were talking with the professor about issues like this and one of the things he pointed out about CO2 was that graph SSI posted (I had forgotten about it but seeing it reminded me).

 

I've long said the debate shouldn't be about the warming (although if people want to so be it) but I do know that polluting the air can't be good for us to breath and polluting the water can't be good since we eat fish out of it and rely on many of the things. I just think its common sense we should do our best to recycle/reuse things as well as consistently lower toxins that we release (not because of global warming, but because it will keep things cleaner.

 

But do I think we are going to cause the polar ice caps to melt and the entire world to flood, no. I think that is up to the earth (now if we set off a nuclear holocaust, well than who knows what will happen but that is by far a greater fear to me than dying in a flood due to the polar ice caps melting).

[NorthSideSox72]

 

Maybe the dino's drove around in big SUVs, worked at big factories, and were too tied to Oil.

1. Note that in the chart, "present" is 1950. Nice. Its the spikes since then that are really way beyond historical averages. Your chart is not accurate.

 

2. There were no dinosaurs around 400k years ago, or even close to that.

[southsideirish71]

1. Note that in the chart, "present" is 1950. Nice. Its the spikes since then that are really way beyond historical averages. Your chart is not accurate.

 

2. There were no dinosaurs around 400k years ago, or even close to that.

 

 

The chart is still accurate. The difference between the 1950's reading and the top of those spikes is about 2 degree's centigrade. How much do you think we have gone up from the 1950's as a planet.

 

The dino comment was sarcasm. However the Triassic period was about 245 million years ago which would put it right in the middle of one of those spikes.

[NorthSideSox72]

The chart is still accurate. The difference between the 1950's reading and the top of those spikes is about 2 degree's centigrade. How much do you think we have gone up from the 1950's as a planet.

 

The dino comment was sarcasm. However the Triassic period was about 245 million years ago which would put it right in the middle of one of those spikes.

Well, no. That chart goes to 400,000 years ago. The Triassic you noted at 245,000,000 years ago is orders of magnitude further back.

 

And by the way, 2 degrees centigrade in 50 years is a HUGE jump in the grand scheme of things.

 

I'll let Balta throw out the right data, because when I search for more recent charts, I either get the short-recent ones or the long-term but cut short ones (like you show). I can't find a long term chart that includes the last 50 years (which is of course very, very short on that timescale, but the rise puts CO2 and temp values way above the previous spikes).

[Balta1701]

I'll let Balta throw out the right data, because when I search for more recent charts, I either get the short-recent ones or the long-term but cut short ones (like you show). I can't find a long term chart that includes the last 50 years (which is of course very, very short on that timescale, but the rise puts CO2 and temp values way above the previous spikes).

I have to sprint to a class and Science is being a F***ing B***h and taking absolutely forever to load, but here's a random version I found for now. I'll look for a better version in a couple hours.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I have to sprint to a class and Science is being a F***ing B***h and taking absolutely forever to load, but here's a random version I found for now. I'll look for a better version in a couple hours.

 

That does the trick.

[Damen]

The author is painting a misleading picture when he talks of global cooling in the 70's.

 

Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling" surfaces...

 

...I should clarify that I'm talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we're only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.

 

Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40's to the 70's (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.

 

The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970's), based on reading the papers is, in summary: "...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate..." (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms - the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling - but didn't know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970's, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

[EvilMonkey]

If we just put muzzles on our politicians I bet we could cut CO2 by 15% or more! Add self-important celebrities to that and we can increase the percentage to over 20!!! And for the bonus, stuff a cork in Mike North and you can cut an additional 8%! Cork both ends and you get a 12% savings! Woo hoo!

[Balta1701]

If we just put muzzles on our politicians I bet we could cut CO2 by 15% or more! Add self-important celebrities to that and we can increase the percentage to over 20!!! And for the bonus, stuff a cork in Mike North and you can cut an additional 8%! Cork both ends and you get a 12% savings! Woo hoo!

Actually, Methane is another potentially severe greenhouse gas, possibly even more severe than CO2 because there's so little methane in the atmosphere right now.

[NorthSideSox72]

Actually, Methane is another potentially severe greenhouse gas, possibly even more severe than CO2 because there's so little methane in the atmosphere right now.

moooooooooooooooooooooo...

[Balta1701]

moooooooooooooooooooooo...

The amount released by livestock is thankfully orders of magnitude less than what currently exists at the earth's surface.