"Faith based Science" and Global Warming. [Archive]

Collounsbury

03-15-2001, 07:45 AM

Ahem, I believe some people may need to update:

First, we need to dispel a bit of confusion and distinguish between "pollution" and greenhouse gases, which are two different concepts not of necessity related. Reduction in point pollution may have little to do with greenhouse gas release, depending on local practices, etc. They are, therefore, seperate issues. I might add that since climate is a global system, North American reductions in pollution (generally a local or regional issue) and/or greenhouse gases (seperate issue, global in scale) are not necessarily fully relevant. Rather, global aggregates are.

Second, we should refer to recent research, which more or less points toward significance of human generated greenhouse gases. I direct your attention towards the following:

Most recently, from Nature confirming greenhouse gas scenarios:

Harries et al: "Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997" _Nature_ 410 (355-357) 15 March 2001
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0_fs.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/289/5477/217e

Reporting study of Andronova and Schlesinger, indicating:
"They find that anthropogenic greenhouse forcing has become the dominant external factor, but a residual factor, presumably associated with the internal dynamics of the climate system, has influenced the global climate, too..."

Further, we can refer to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
http://www.ipcc.ch/
And in particular the Working Group report
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf
which contains a great deal of data and discussion. Again, balance of data points to important human role in change, with caveats. Although this is a policy oriented publication, you will find references at the end to direct you towards substantive research.

Further, a cautionary article from PNAS
Hansen, J., Oinas, V. "Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario" _Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci._ USA, v. 97, 18, 9875-9880, Aug 29, 2000

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/97/18/9875.pdf

Stresses variability but clearly accepts important human component to global warming. Issue re which gases and possible variable effects.

Further, there is
Stott, Peter 1* et al. "External Control of 20th Century Temperature by Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings" _Science_ Science 2000 290: 2133-2137.

Which observes again that "comparison of observations with simulations of a coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation model shows that both natural and anthropogenic factors have contributed significantly to 20th century temperature changes" and adds that more "than 80% of observed multidecadal-scale global mean temperature variations and more than 60% of 10- to 50-year land temperature variations are due to changes in external forcings." Somewhat complicated view, but nonetheless supports meaningful human contribution to global warming.

In addition I should mention the commentary at
Zwiers and Weaver, "CLIMATE CHANGE: The Causes of 20th Century Warming." _Science_ 2000 290: 2081-2083.
Wherein the authors opine: "The agreement between observed and simulated temperature variations strongly suggests that forcing from anthropogenic activities, moderated by variations in solar and volcanic forcing, has been the main driver of climate change during the past century."

My reading of the body of the evidence is that there is no longer a basis to deny significant human contribution towards recent global warming. Of course, climate is a complex system and any mono-causal explanation will be false, however that being said I do not believe the evidence supports Badtz assertion in re no significant evidence nor Spoofe. We should also not confuse the issue of pollution/clean air with global warming, for they are seperate not necessarily connected issues.

In short, I believe the concensus position is
(a) Human contribution to global warming is real and significant, although non-human sources of change are also significant.
(b) Unclear however to what extent policy can effect this, nor which gases are best addressed nor how.
(c) Kyoto style addressing of the issue is at this stage possibly inappropriate on both scientific and economic grounds(*).

(*: e.g. Toman, Morgenstern, and Anderson "THE ECONOMICS OF "WHEN" FLEXIBILITY IN THE DESIGN OF GREENHOUSE GAS ABATEMENT POLICIES" _Annu. Rev. Energy Environ_ (1999) 24:431-460.)

However, I can't say that I have a complete grasp of the literature nor am I necessarily fully up to date. With that caveat, I hope this is useful.

Ivorybill

03-15-2001, 08:45 AM

I think I see where the O.P. is going... to paraphraze: Why are people ignoring that the earth is heating up, especially since many scientists believe that we're the ones making it happen?

If my interpretation of the O.P.'s question is correct, then there are nearly too many possibilities to consider. If you mean globally, many folks are more worried about the fact that they didn't eat yesterday, don't have anything to eat today, and probably won't eat tomorrow: they've more immediate concerns and probably don't know much about the climate, anyway.

If you mean the U.S. and other high CO2 producing countries, that narrows down the geography somewhat but not the reasons why people aren't universally concerned with the possibility that global warming is largely human-induced. Among these are folks who have tired of the mainstream environmental "chicken little" and "help, Wolf!" approaches to some of these issues. In the 1960s the theory was that smog, etc. would lead to global cooling and we'd all freeze. The Club of Rome study from MIT indicated that if we didn't shape-up we'd all starve before the year 2000. Ditto Paul Erlich's work. You can think up other examples of this type. The end result: environmentalists and many climatologists **might** be right this time, but folks aren't listening.

Another possibility is that policy action that is likely to make people pay a little bit right NOW to avert a condition that might happen much later (politically speaking), and which might not be tied as closely to human activity as some might think, and which might happen anyway despite corrective action from the human side is just too sketchy a proposition for many policy makers to take action about (Collunsbury's citations considered, of course; but many other scientists don't interpret these data the same way and don't publish their opinions). Of course, we've our own share of folks who are too worried about other, immediate concerns and/or have no idea that we even have a climate to get too concerned about it. And yes, there are probably some who think that no matter what we do, God won't let it happen (Sodom and Gomorrah's examples aside, of course, since, well, those folks deserved it, right?)

So, if you want more focused debate on this topic, revise the O.P. so that we can hone in, otherwise we're speculating.

Collounsbury

03-15-2001, 08:58 AM

A correction:

Originally posted by Ivorybill
(Collunsbury's citations considered, of course; but many other scientists don't interpret these data the same way and don't publish their opinions).

This is a silly observation. If you review the citations you will find (a) that there is a multiplicity of interpretations -- I always do try to be an honest citer, and in citing to scientific literature one can find citations to the body of the science done, ergo one can critique-- (b) if one follows the evolution of what is being published in peer-reviewed journals, the trend over time is toward confirmation of human effects (c) if you don't publish your opinions in a scientific field, you're not actually doing research in it, ergo your opinion is largely irrelevant. I am annoyed by such "silent majority" theories, which are baseless and unfounded.

In re lack of action on global warming, there are two main influences
(a) Denial, based on whatever suppositions.
(b) Lack of clarity on what would be the appropriate action to take.

In regards to the two, (a) is unsupportable and ignorant --at least at the policy-maker level. However,(b) is supportable because we are unclear as to how to grapple with this and inappropriate and expensive early action may do more harm than good, e.g. the poorly concieved Kyoto style targets on CO2, per the literature cited above re other gases etc. Also see the final cite in my prior posting.

december

03-15-2001, 09:05 AM

Only a few decades ago, the diaster du jour was a worldwide fall in temperature, which would be caused by above-ground nuclear tests.

I'm not an atmospheric scientist, so I can't judge the global warming debate on its scientific merits. What bothers me is that many ecologists are using the threat of global warming to promote a pre-selected remedy. Someone who was truly concerned about global warming would be looking beyond greenhouse gasses for solutions. When environmentalists start advocating more above-ground nuclear explosions, then I'll know that they're sincerely worried about global warming.

Collounsbury

03-15-2001, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by december
Only a few decades ago, the diaster du jour was a worldwide fall in temperature, which would be caused by above-ground nuclear tests.

Relevance? Nuclear winter was in the case of full scale nuclear war, not above-ground tests, where were opposed for other reasons, like radiation poisoning.

I'm not an atmospheric scientist, so I can't judge the global warming debate on its scientific merits.

Well, to the extent you see big, peer reviewed science journals publishing serious articles on the issue, you can assure yourself this is not an instance of 'enrivonrmental radicals' squawking.

What bothers me is that many ecologists are using the threat of global warming to promote a pre-selected remedy.

Depending on who you are actually talking about I might agree. Do you mean Greenpeace? Sure, Kyoto is being pushed when it is in fact staggeringly misconcieved. However, if this is a broad brush to paint all concern about Global Warming....

Someone who was truly concerned about global warming would be looking beyond greenhouse gasses for solutions. When environmentalists start advocating more above-ground nuclear explosions, then I'll know that they're sincerely worried about global warming.

Why the fuck would anyone want to induce nuclear winter? What fucking madman would think this was a solution! Good lord, exchanging radition poisoning for global warming? This is just nutty.

Ivorybill

03-15-2001, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Collounsbury
A correction:

This is a silly observation.

Thanks, C, for personalizing the argument and for staying with the O.P. parts of the thread. I'd think that you'd be secure enough in your reputation on this board as a person who engages in scientific and thoughtful debate that you'd take the chip off your shoulder.

(c) if you don't publish your opinions in a scientific field, you're not actually doing research in it, ergo your opinion is largely irrelevant. I am annoyed by such "silent majority" theories, which are baseless and unfounded.

My experience, as a scientist who publishes my work in peer reviewed journals, is (1) I don't do research on all my ideas. Not enough money or time. I have an educated opinion about many environmental issues however, but no research to publish. Does that mean I cannot speak on the topic? (2) I wasn't referring to "silent majority" theories, just commenting that scientists who have an educated opinion on global warming don't interpret the data the same way as did the folks you cited. (3) Hi Opal!

In re lack of action on global warming, there are two main influences
(a) Denial, based on whatever suppositions.
(b) Lack of clarity on what would be the appropriate action to take.

In regards to the two, (a) is unsupportable and ignorant --at least at the policy-maker level. However,(b) is supportable because we are unclear as to how to grapple with this and inappropriate and expensive early action may do more harm than good, e.g. the poorly concieved Kyoto style targets on CO2, per the literature cited above re other gases etc. Also see the final cite in my prior posting.

My experience in the environmental policy arena (where I work, BTW) is that very few politicians are willing to take a fiscally unpopular, but environmentally sound, policy stance where the payoff is hard to measure and likely extends beyond the next election cycle. Ditto the current politics of global warming.

Now, you're welcome to jump back and nit-pick this post all you will. It's irrelevant to the O.P. at this point, IMHO.

Duck Duck Goose

03-15-2001, 09:39 AM

Eh, to address the OP:

There are lots of people who don't believe that global warming is really happening, who don't necessarily chalk it all up to a benevolent God who wouldn't allow such a Bad Thing to happen to us.

originally posted by Squink:
The global warming debate seems to be nothing but the evolution/creation debate all over again.

Er, um, wha'--huh? Who HAVE you been talking to, dear child? :D There are atheists and Special Creationists on both sides.

It'd still be interesting to hear about the thought processes that lead the most people to dismiss global warming.
Er, um, it's a "thought process" insofar as one uses one's thought processes to process scientific information that comes across one's desk, and to decide whether this particular scientific information has merit, or whether its purveyor is simply another researcher with an ax to grind, looking for a sound bite.

It's not a "faith" thing. It's a "science" thing. Again, who HAVE you been talking to? :D

originally posted by December:
Only a few decades ago, the diaster du jour was a worldwide fall in temperature, which would be caused by above-ground nuclear tests.

Eh, C-bury, what he's talking about is Cold War nuclear testing in general, not the 1980s "nuclear winter" thing. Yes, people really did think that nuclear testing was changing the weather. (I was there. :) )

http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/IceAgeTheories.html
. In the 1950s, changes in the weather were attributed by many people to nuclear testing...

I'm with December: First it was "A New Ice Age!" Then it was "Global Warming!" then it was "A New Ice Age!" again, and now it's "Global Warming!" again. Every couple of years, there's a new factoid in the media, a new press release from some researcher. "Global Warming!" "Global Cooling!" "Global Warming!" "Global Cooling!" I've stopped paying attention.

Anyone following the Puff Daddy trial? Have they called J-Lo yet? :D

Collounsbury

03-15-2001, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by Ivorybill
Originally posted by Collounsbury
A correction:

This is a silly observation.[/B]

Thanks, C, for personalizing the argument and for staying with the O.P. parts of the thread. I'd think that you'd be secure enough in your reputation on this board as a person who engages in scientific and thoughtful debate that you'd take the chip off your shoulder.

Fair enough, I mis-read your point. Rebuke accepted (although I don't think saying something is a silly observation is personalizing per se, I was commenting on a specific point.) and I apologize.

(c) if you don't publish your opinions in a scientific field, you're not actually doing research in it, ergo your opinion is largely irrelevant. I am annoyed by such "silent majority" theories, which are baseless and unfounded.

My experience, as a scientist who publishes my work in peer reviewed journals, is (1) I don't do research on all my ideas. Not enough money or time. I have an educated opinion about many environmental issues however, but no research to publish. Does that mean I cannot speak on the topic? (2) I wasn't referring to "silent majority" theories, just commenting that scientists who have an educated opinion on global warming don't interpret the data the same way as did the folks you cited. (3) Hi Opal!

Again, fair enough, I read you as going with the silent majority thing -- one does encounter this rather often-- and it gets on my nerves. A mis-reading, for which I apologize.

That being said, I do believe that of greatest relevance to the issue at hand is the folks who are concentrated on the issue and publishing in it. As such, insofar as the concesus seems to be evolving in a certain direction, I find that to be more significant than non-published opinion. I think we can agree on that.

My experience in the environmental policy arena (where I work, BTW) is that very few politicians are willing to take a fiscally unpopular, but environmentally sound, policy stance where the payoff is hard to measure and likely extends beyond the next election cycle. Ditto the current politics of global warming.

Agreed, I think I was saying the same thing. And I think this is a valid to an extent, insofar as my reading of the issue is that Kyoto was a mistake.

Now, you're welcome to jump back and nit-pick this post all you will. It's irrelevant to the O.P. at this point, IMHO.

Is it? The OP was about understanding global warming and responses to it. How can we comment w/o this background?

Or perhaps I am an obsessive. Or both?

Squink

03-15-2001, 09:55 AM

" think I see where the O.P. is going... to paraphrase: Why are people ignoring that the earth is heating up, especially since many scientists believe that we're the ones making it happen?"

That's a better phrasing of the question than I came up with. People are so eager these days to cloak their opinions in a mantle of scientific respectability, that the actual reasons they have for holding an opinion can be hard to discern.

The groups that are more concerned with getting enough food, those who prefer to live with their heads in the sand, and those who think this is all just another "chicken little" type scare are easy to understand. What's harder to grasp is the rationale behind the loud and at least quasi-informed denial of even the possibility that human induced global warming could be a problem.

If we look at the responses to several large scale yet unlikely threats:
-
1 When confronted with the remote possibility of asteroid strikes, resources get allocated to finding and watching rocks in near earth orbit.
2 When someone claims that Iraq or Korea might be able to produce a nuke that could reach the US within the next decade or so, we start considering a half trillion dollar missile defense system.
3 When evidence appears that indicates half of Florida may well disappear beneath a rising sea within the next hundred years, it is treated as a "fringy" sort of non-issue ?
-
The response to the possibility of global warming stands out as atypical.
The vehemence of that response suggests that there is a strong motivation to NOT accept the possibility of anthropogenic warming. So, science aside, what are those reasons ?

DDG:
[QUOTE]
It's not a "faith" thing. It's a "science" thing. Again, who HAVE you been talking to?
[/QOUTE]

It's only a science thing among those who read and understand the science and are willing to debate it on just the scientific merits. Sad as it may be :D , my wife's aunt isn't a scientist, nor are many of the people who post opinions on the SDMBs. This doesn't prevent them from having opinions, it just makes figuring out why they have the opinions they do a bit harder.

Collounsbury

03-15-2001, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
originally posted by December:
Only a few decades ago, the diaster du jour was a worldwide fall in temperature, which would be caused by above-ground nuclear tests.

Eh, C-bury, what he's talking about is Cold War nuclear testing in general, not the 1980s "nuclear winter" thing. Yes, people really did think that nuclear testing was changing the weather. (I was there. :) )

I am running at 50% in this thread, aren't I? I apologize. Perhaps I am grumpy today.

I'm with December: First it was "A New Ice Age!" Then it was "Global Warming!" then it was "A New Ice Age!" again, and now it's "Global Warming!" again. Every couple of years, there's a new factoid in the media, a new press release from some researcher. "Global Warming!" "Global Cooling!" "Global Warming!" "Global Cooling!" I've stopped paying attention.

Sigh, that's why I provided links to scientific journals, not to popular media.

I would encourage a review of the data, above all the policy paper which includes some nice, easily understood graphical representation of trends. There is not a question that there is global warming. The actual questions are in re how to deal with it in re human action, if at all.

(The global cooling thing from the 1970s was in response to a real cooling trend which broke out. Of note is that we did not have long term data that we now do to properly contextualize this.)

Ivorybill

03-15-2001, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Collounsbury
I read you as going with the silent majority thing -- one does encounter this rather often-- and it gets on my nerves.
Gets on mine too. To be fair, my post was easy to misinterpret, especially w/o my having much of a track record here.
That being said, I do believe that of greatest relevance to the issue at hand is the folks who are concentrated on the issue and publishing in it. As such, insofar as the concesus seems to be evolving in a certain direction, I find that to be more significant than non-published opinion. I think we can agree on that.
True. If I felt that the science informing the public policy debate on global warming was somehow off-track, and wanted to have a say in changing it, I'd damn well better get out there with my own published research.
Agreed, I think I was saying the same thing. And I think this is a valid to an extent, insofar as my reading of the issue is that Kyoto was a mistake.
You were; I repeated my point to make sure I got it across.
Is it? The OP was about understanding global warming and responses to it. How can we comment w/o this background?
True. Background is good.
Or perhaps I am an obsessive. Or both?
Not going there, not even with a chess analogy.

Cheers.

dal_timgar

03-15-2001, 10:44 AM

the gods themselves contend in vain.

morons are incurable. how do you protect yourself from their side effects?

Robert Anton Wilson invented the word STUPIDYNAMICS, it covers a lot of territory.

my property isn't on a coast, so i'll wait and see what global warming does. haven't decided when i'll start stockpiling food tho. need another 10,000 rounds of ammo.

Dal Timgar

Ivorybill

03-15-2001, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Squink
The vehemence of that response suggests that there is a strong motivation to NOT accept the possibility of anthropogenic warming. So, science aside, what are those reasons ?

Squink, I don't know if we can catalogue them all, primarily because there's no way to ascertain why folks think the way they do. As you point out with your missile defense and asteroid avoidance programs, people are irrational in what they perceive to be real threats.

Global warming has been politically categorized as an environmental issue. If recast as a public safety issue, a human health issue, or national security issue (God forbid the missile silos get flooded! We've got to DO something!) perhaps we'd get a different response from Fred and Ethel.

Akatsukami

03-15-2001, 12:07 PM

Collounsbury writes: There is not a question that there is global warming. The actual questions are in re how to deal with it in re human action, if at all.
Perhaps because of a confusion of which this might be an example.

"Global warming" is not the same thing as "anthropogenic global warming leading to invariably negative results and which can be combatted only by immediate and draconian actions taken by intellectual elites armed with totalitarian powers".

Ace_Face

03-15-2001, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
Yes, we create greenhouse gasses, which can raise the temperature if they are produced in a large enough amount - but one medium-sized volcanic eruption produces more greenhouse gasses than mankind has in the last 10,000 years.

The current best estimate is that all volcanoes combined produce about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, while humans produce about 10 billion tons per year. The other major greenhouse gas contributed by volcanoes is sulfur dioxide, which is converted to sulfuric acid aresols, which have a cooling effect.

The Earth's climate changes, and it has always changed. We orbit a variable star which is currently not shining it's brightest. Through most of the Earth's history, there were no permanent ice caps at the poles. We have those now, but they may go away when the Earth warms up again. This will have nothing to do with the piddling amounts of CO2 and methane we are releasing into the air. [/B]

Piddling? The lowest estimate I've read, on an anti-warming site, is that humans contribute "only" 3% of the carbon dioxide per year. Three percent is not an insignificant number, especially when you consider the destruction of rainforests and other carbon sinks. It's not just a matter of emissions increases, sequestration decreases are also important.

Regarding the OP, I think some people view this as a kind of "apocalypse-of-the-week" type issue that will blow over when enough contrary evidence is found. I can understand this given past scientific predictions that have been way off base. But the evidence for Global Warming has been steadily mounting for a good two decades now, from a variety of fields. And the tools available to scientists are much more sophisticated now than 30 years ago.

I think there are also plenty of people who are simply sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "it's not true! It's not true!" Like creationists, these people -- more often then not -- tend to be pretty ignorant of basic science, and twist what little they know to support their contention that this is just another "enviro nutcase topic". They remember one cute statistic they heard from Rush that "proves" any observable warming is caused by the sun, and that's enough for them. I should say I don'tthink anyone on this board falls into this latter category, but enough people in the U.S. do to make me worried.

Badtz Maru

03-15-2001, 12:54 PM

3 When evidence appears that indicates half of Florida may well disappear beneath a rising sea within the next hundred years, it is treated as a "fringy" sort of non-issue ?
-
The response to the possibility of global warming stands out as atypical.
The vehemence of that response suggests that there is a strong motivation to NOT accept the possibility of anthropogenic warming. So, science aside, what are those reasons ?

Why set science aside? Scientific thought is one of the reasons why it is not given as much attention as the other issues you listed.

We KNOW that eventually countries like Iraq and Korea will have the technology to launch a missile over here, unless something is done to stop their weapons development. This has happened before. This is a REAL problem that we understand well.

We KNOW that the Earth will be struck by asteroids and/or comets in the future. We know that it has happened before, and if it happened it would be a global catastrophe. This too is a REAL problem that we understand well.

We do NOT know that mankind's production of greenhouse gasses is having a significant effect on the climate, in fact we aren't even in agreement that the world is getting warmer, or that temperature changes that are observed aren't just a natural cycle. We know that past cases of global warming that led to the melting of the ice caps really happened, and we know that they had causes totally unrelated to mankind. Some experts believe that man is a significant contributor to global warming, many are undecided, and many disagree, and this is not a political disagreement, it's just typical scientific disagreement over an unproven hypothesis.

I'm sure that if it was proven that man was causing global warming, and that global warming would be a bad thing for us, and that we could stop it, we would. Until that time, I don't think it's wise to start taking expensive preemptive measures to prevent a problem that may or may not be real. Reacting now is not the same as the case of the government reacting to the risk of an asteroid strike, as everyone agrees asteroids can hit the Earth. It would be more like the government spending money on a defense system to protect us from alien invaders. Yes, it is possible aliens might invade the Earth, but on the other hand there might not be any aliens at all, or they might all be friendly. If somebody proved that there were aliens and they wanted to conquer the Earth, then we would be justified in trying to protect ourselves from that.

Anyway, global warming could very well be a good thing for humanity. There's a lot of land that could be producing food but isn't because it's too cold, and a small change in the average temperature could drastically change our climate in other ways that might actually be beneficial.

tracer

03-15-2001, 01:59 PM

SPOOFE Bo Diddly wrote:

For what it's worth, I haven't seen much evidence to debunk the possibility that current climate increases may be the result of natural shifts. What I DO know is that the air in America is generally cleaner than it was thirty or forty years ago (or, at least, it is here in So-Cal).
I hate to lay a turd in the punch-bowl here, but:

The chemicals that cause air pollution (O3, CO, SO2, NO2, and various photochemically-reactive incomplete combustion products) are not the same chemicals that are alleged to cause global warming (CO2 and CH4). In fact, a perfectly-tuned non-polluting automobile engine would put out nothing but CO2 and H2O.

Collounsbury mentioned the distinction between "air pollution" and "greenhouse gases" earlier in this thread, but it bears repeating. (You don't want to fall into the same category as those eco-alarmists who confuse global warming with ozone-layer depletion, either. ;) )

Ace_Face

03-15-2001, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
We KNOW that the Earth will be struck by asteroids and/or comets in the future. We know that it has happened before, and if it happened it would be a global catastrophe. This too is a REAL problem that we understand well.

A couple points. We also know that the earth's climate has changed dramatically in the past, and that this has been a catastrophe at least for some species. So, setting aside whether the causes are human or natural, climate change is also a potential threat. Agreed? There may be some positive aspects to warming, as you state. But will these offset the negative impacts? Doubtful, I think.

Also, one can assign probabilities to global warming scenarios. Taking a very conservative approach, let's say there is a 50% chance the earth really is warming and will continue to warm in this century if nothing is done. Now let's say there is 20% chance that this warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity by the end of this century. 50% times 20% = 10%. This risk is much higher than the danger posed by asteroids, even using very conservative estimates. (The threat of a catastrophic astroid strike this century is approximately .000001%)

december

03-15-2001, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Ace Face
[QUOTE]
Piddling? The lowest estimate I've read, on an anti-warming site, is that humans contribute "only" 3% of the carbon dioxide per year. Three percent is not an insignificant number, especially when you consider the destruction of rainforests and other carbon sinks. It's not just a matter of emissions increases, sequestration decreases are also important.

I don't know whether your figures are right or wrong, but they seem inconsistent with your concluson. Bear in mind that we could not eliminate human CO2, but could only only reduce it by some percentage.

E.g., suppose that we succeeded in making a 20% reduction in human-contributed CO2 worldwide. Using your figures, that would reduce total CO2 by 20% of 3% = 0.6%. In other words, the CO2 level would be at 99.4% of where it would have been in the absence of human CO2-reduction activities.

Ace_Face

03-15-2001, 02:29 PM

Err, the threat of a civilization-destroying impact per century is roughly .03%. My earlier number (which should have been .0001%) was for an extinction-level event. Mea culpa. But I stand by my point that the risks from global warming appear to be much greater than the danger posed by asteroids.

december

03-15-2001, 02:46 PM

Ace Face wrote:

"Also, one can assign probabilities to global warming scenarios. Taking a very conservative approach, let's say there is a 50% chance the earth really is warming and will continue to warm in this century if nothing is done. Now let's say there is 20% chance that this warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity by the end of this century. 50% times 20% = 10%. This risk is much higher than the danger posed by asteroids, even using very conservative estimates."

Ace makes a good argument for not ignoring global warming (although his/her probabilities are quite controversial.) However, the proper action must also depend on cost and the likelihood of success.

Suppose that a huge CO2 reduction has only 1 chance in 100 or 1 in 1000 of avoiding disaster, and suppose it would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Then, it would be better to do more research before using up so much resource for something that's so unlikely to solve the problem.

Fortunately, the potential disaster is a hundred years away, so we have some time to make sure that our global warming remedy is truly effective.

Collounsbury

03-15-2001, 03:08 PM

I do get very cross when I think people have not followed up my citations.

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
Why set science aside? Scientific thought is one of the reasons why it is not given as much attention as the other issues you listed.

I would question this assertion. Rather the contrary.

We KNOW that eventually countries like Iraq and Korea will have the technology to launch a missile over here, unless something is done to stop their weapons development. This has happened before. This is a REAL problem that we understand well.

Eh, feh. Well this is another discussion.

We do NOT know that mankind's production of greenhouse gasses is having a significant effect on the climate,

Badtz, you know how agitated I get when I feel that people are not following up. Your comments strongly suggest that you have not reviewed the evidence to the contrary which I have just somewhat laboriously collected and proferred.

in fact we aren't even in agreement that the world is getting warmer,

Statements like this are what lead me to this feeling. The world is clearly getting warmer. Denial of fact is not helpful. The real controversy lies elsewhere.

or that temperature changes that are observed aren't just a natural cycle.

And this also suggests you did not bother to address my citations.

As I suggested, although I invite people to check the bona fides through the citations provided, consensus runs towards a declaration that your statements above are factually unsupported, that is false.

However, I readily admit I am not as well-read in this as I should be. If anyone has substantive corrections I welcome them.

We know that past cases of global warming that led to the melting of the ice caps really happened, and we know that they had causes totally unrelated to mankind. Some experts believe that man is a significant contributor to global warming, many are undecided, and many disagree, and this is not a political disagreement, it's just typical scientific disagreement over an unproven hypothesis.

I believe your placement of "some" and "many" are misplaced.

Again, please review the citations.

I'm sure that if it was proven that man was causing global warming, and that global warming would be a bad thing for us, and that we could stop it, we would.

Well, that really depends. Firstly the problem is "proof" -- the nature of the problem does not lend itself to clear proofs, but rather best guesses given this is a chaotic and large system and that there are a large number of variables.

I will comment below on the negatives.

Until that time, I don't think it's wise to start taking expensive preemptive measures to prevent a problem that may or may not be real.

I can partially agree here. Partially. I believe the evidence is clear the problem is real. That is not in question. However, I will also agree that expensive pre-emptive measures have to be justified, and since the processes are not well-understood, nor the dynamics of the various gases, Kyoto protocol style solutions are not appropriate.

As I mention below, proper responses may in fact be beneficial (e.g. pressure towards increased energy efficiency is likely, if done in the proper market-oreinted context, to lead to long term gains.). I sympathize with a reluctance to jump in bed with Greenpeace. On the other hand, denial is no good either.

Reacting now is not the same as the case of the government reacting to the risk of an asteroid strike, as everyone agrees asteroids can hit the Earth.

No, I disagree, this is a matter of an easily visualized, easily understood problem but one of staggerlying small liklihood. Goes to emotion and simple responses. Climate change is very complex, not easy to understand and frankly not terribly emotional (and when done so, produces inappropriate responses per Kyoto IMHO).

Anyway, global warming could very well be a good thing for humanity.

No, it will not be. Uhuh. We're abstracting away from a whole bunch of very nasty transition costs in grasping at this little straw.

There's a lot of land that could be producing food but isn't because it's too cold, and a small change in the average temperature could drastically change our climate in other ways that might actually be beneficial.

Not bloody likely, you have to abstract away a lot of things to get to this such as extinction events as rapid climate change stresses systems, flooding/salt inundation of productive lowlands, instability in rainfall and decline in long term productivity based on this, soil stress, expansion of disease zones....

Just because it gets warmer doesn't mean better nor does it mean "cold lands" will in near term be productive as lands stressed through desertification/drought.

Now, in re good old mother nature, the long term, don't matter much. Planet fine. Human systems, short term -- change imposes real costs. Possible benefits in some areas and clear elevated risks.

Of course there is no stopping it, so there question is really in re mitigation. But let me combine this with a comment to another poster:

"Global warming" is not the same thing as "anthropogenic global warming leading to invariably negative results and which can be combatted only by immediate and draconian actions taken by intellectual elites armed with totalitarian powers"

Errr, not sure what you are getting at here Akatsumi in re the first part of your clause, for I read you as poopooing the seriousness of global warming as a risk.

Given present understanding, global warming is not likely to be positive in aggregate effects. Accepted effects such as rise in sea levels and increased climatic instability all impose costs.

Further climatic shifts perceived as marginally positive are anything but, increased warmth, perhaps growing season, also means ecological shifts (fine for mother nature in the long run, rather costly for ole humans in the short run) and expansion of tropical disease zones, increased risk of drought...

All in all I would say that reasonable efforts to mitigate global warming should be taken. Insofar as some of this might put pressure for increased energy efficiency, they could be economic positives in the medium run. I do have serious issues with Kyoto, because it uses inappropriate mechanisms and focuses on one gas w/o very much flexibility. However, that does not mean that global warming is something which only wooly headed enviros should be concerned about. It is a serious issue and it is a negative, although one which can be mitigated.

Collounsbury

03-15-2001, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by december
Ace makes a good argument for not ignoring global warming (although his/her probabilities are quite controversial.) However, the proper action must also depend on cost and the likelihood of success.

Quite true, but I think I was making the same argument, indirectly.

Fortunately, the potential disaster is a hundred years away, so we have some time to make sure that our global warming remedy is truly effective.

Hundred years away, I don't think so. But I suppose this depends on what one defines as disaster and a whole bunch of assumptions/predications.

Akatsukami

03-15-2001, 03:53 PM

Collounsbury writes: All in all I would say that reasonable efforts to mitigate global warming should be taken. Insofar as some of this might put pressure for increased energy efficiency, they could be economic positives in the medium run.
Well, leaving other issues aside (for the moment), let us deal with one thing off the bat, which I have too often seen weaselled around by those who style themselves "environmentalists".

Whilst even GISS and CRU disagree on the exact magnitude, we can accept that the world is growing warmer. That is merely a measurement (putting to one side the question of what we're measuring and how). Even the MRU data shows some warming.

Now, let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the net effects of that warming will be negative. Let us also suppose that the anthropogenic forcings are not the main cause of the warming.

Given that scenario, do you (and, of course, the rest of the Teeming Thousands posting to this thread) support taking action to combat global warming (which, in such a case, may not be limited to reducing anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases)?

Duck Duck Goose

03-15-2001, 04:47 PM

You're saying that if global warming isn't our fault, and the world is warming up anyway, all by itself, because we're in the tail end of the last Ice Age, and maybe it's not normal for a planet to have polar ice caps, that maybe we should "take steps" to make the world stop warming up?

Er, why? Do we have some kind of Mission from God to make sure Miami Beach doesn't disappear under 4 feet of water? Is it important to keep the Corn Belt in the Corn Belt, instead of up by Great Slave Lake?

And, er, how? By artificially inducing a nuclear winter by pulverizing a few extra mountains? (Nobody would miss the Ozarks...) Does the phrase "tugging on Superman's cape" mean anything? :D How about "your arm's too short to start terraforming now"? How about "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? How about "don't spit into the wind and shit where you eat by starting something you maybe can't stop"? Hello, New Ice Age!

You're cute. :)

Collounsbury

03-15-2001, 04:52 PM

Disclaimer, this is written on while pursuing my own alcohol based anti-bilharzia treatment program. Some thought processes may be lost in the process.

Originally posted by Akatsukami
Now, let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the net effects of that warming will be negative. Let us also suppose that the anthropogenic forcings are not the main cause of the warming.

Given that scenario, do you (and, of course, the rest of the Teeming Thousands posting to this thread) support taking action to combat global warming (which, in such a case, may not be limited to reducing anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases)?

Well, I'm not clear here. You wish to suppose a counter-factual that anthropogenic influences are not "the main cause of global warming"? -- Main is a troublesome word here, a little too subjective for my pickled self. I am going to presume significant, meaning human influences are not significant.

Well, the answer is it depends on the degree to which one can effect positive change through greenhouse gases oriented policy. That remains a big if. I do hope that I have been quite clear throughout that I do not support blind change. However, I do support reasonable steps to address the data, which certainly include market-oriented, efficiency oriented steps to reduce emmissions. Insofar as other factors recommend the same policy (long term questions about fossil fuel use etc.) it strikes me as perfectly prudent and reasonable, even if predictions and concensus models are wrong.

However, I sense that I read you correctly, that you are poopooing the impact of global warming. I suggest that given the more solid data that one does not need to be a chicken little to be moderately concerned in the medium term and quite concerned for the long term.

Frankly, I don't consider meself as an "environmentalist." I consider myself as someone devoted to rationale use of resources for near and long term good. Of course self-image is often distorted so I am open to correction.

Summary, reasonable steps in the context of economical change seem to me to be highly recommended. Draconian Kyoto protocol changes, insofar as they may misconstrue both the proper targets and the methods to use are not.

tracer

03-15-2001, 05:37 PM

Collounsbury wrote:

Harries et al: "Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997" _Nature_ 410 (355-357) 15 March 2001
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0_fs.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/289/5477/217e

Both of these links ask me for a username and password before I can access the articles. I don't think they're available for people who haven't subscribed to the online versions of Nature and Science.

SpoilerVirgin

03-15-2001, 07:24 PM

With all due respect to the scientists and the scientific evidence, which, as DDG points out, reads to the average layperson as "well, yes, we do think that there is global warming going on, except for those scientists over there who don't, except that their work has now been discredited, and we can't really agree on what we're supposed to do about it," I think that we've forgotten the all important "in my lifetime" argument.

Originally posted by Squink
"
If we look at the responses to several large scale yet unlikely threats:
-
1 When confronted with the remote possibility of asteroid strikes, resources get allocated to finding and watching rocks in near earth orbit.
2 When someone claims that Iraq or Korea might be able to produce a nuke that could reach the US within the next decade or so, we start considering a half trillion dollar missile defense system.
3 When evidence appears that indicates half of Florida may well disappear beneath a rising sea within the next hundred years, it is treated as a "fringy" sort of non-issue -
The response to the possibility of global warming stands out as atypical.

The vehemence of that response suggests that there is a strong motivation to NOT accept the possibility of anthropogenic warming. So, science aside, what are those reasons ??

Hmmm...let me see...

Asteroid striking earth and demolishing all life...yup, could happen in my lifetime, to me and my family.

Nuclear attack on U.S. causing death and devastation...yup, could happen in my lifetime.

Global warming causing personal destruction to me and my way of life in my lifetime? Nah, I don't think so, and even the scientists don't seem to think so.

I think attitudes toward the global warming issue have a lot more to do with how much personal impact they could have on individuals than with spiritual beliefs.

I know that I'm a lot more worried about things like hit-and-run drivers and airplane crashes, regardless of their likelihood, than about global warming, simply because the first two are things that could easily take me out.

Ace_Face

03-15-2001, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by december
I don't know whether your figures are right or wrong, but they seem inconsistent with your concluson. Bear in mind that we could not eliminate human CO2, but could only only reduce it by some percentage.

E.g., suppose that we succeeded in making a 20% reduction in human-contributed CO2 worldwide. Using your figures, that would reduce total CO2 by 20% of 3% = 0.6%. In other words, the CO2 level would be at 99.4% of where it would have been in the absence of human CO2-reduction activities. [/B]

Your argument treats all CO2 as a pollutant. Nobody advocates eliminating all CO2 -- which would mean the end of life on earth! What is important is what is happening at the margins -- the balance between emissions and sequestering.

We seem to be adding more CO2 to the air than can be sequestered due to natural processes. Thus if only .3% of CO2 is not sequestered per year, by the end of a decade you have a 3% increase in global CO2 levels. But even this rate of increase seems to be increasing.

The global increase in CO2 levels is another undisputed fact, and it correlates quite nicely with global industrialization.
http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/atmo/atmosphere/hot/anom_99/co2_in2.html

emarkp

03-16-2001, 12:39 AM

I think a number of people don't believe the claims of global warming because the people making those claims aren't acting like it's real. Take Al Gore for one, who personally showed up (late) to help with the Kyoto accord, but he arrived (of course) in his own personal 747--not exactly the most low-emission vehicle.

Also, while environmentalists are warning about warming, they're vehemently hostile towards any solution which is not either returning to preindustrial society, or using only solar power (wind power is dangerous for birds, and hydro disrupts marine ecology). For example, one person wants to drop iron in an iron-poor area of the ocean to foster a phytoplankton bloom (http://www.cnn.com/2001/NATURE/01/23/paradise.dump/) to increase the subduction of CO2 into the ocean. It could potentially eliminate the excess of CO2 in the atmosphere, and give us time to find methods to reduce our emissions.

Yet all I saw in reply to the suggestion was predictions of doom and gloom if we were to attempt to tamper with the ocean's ecology, etc. As if they weren't saying that global warming will destroy the ocean too....

So until people start acting like they're willing to go with a solution that's feasible and that the public will accept, I can't fully accept that the claims of global warming are true.

Originally posted by Ace Face
The current best estimate is that all volcanoes combined produce about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, while humans produce about 10 billion tons per year. The other major greenhouse gas contributed by volcanoes is sulfur dioxide, which is converted to sulfuric acid aresols, which have a cooling effect.Source please. I'd really like to see a good estimate of this somewhere--it would debunk one of the major arguments I've seen against global warming.

Badtz Maru

03-16-2001, 02:07 AM

Even if I saw some proof that the Earth was warming (and I don't think we have been tracking worldwide average temperature long enough to be sure that it is a long-term trend), that would not convince me that this was because of human activity. I accept that the world may be warming, it's about time for this ice age to end. Should we be looking into planning for a warmer world? Probably would be a good idea, but the change will be slow enough that we don't really need to worry about it now - what would we do, start moving people out of coastal regions before the waters rise? It's not like we are going to wake up one morning and the ice caps are melted and water levels are suddenly 30 feet higher...water levels would rise maybe a few inches a year, at most.

We neet to keep in mind that our planet's climate changes, and there is a good chance we are going through a rather major change now. IF the scientific community does come to agree that this is NOT natural and is a direct result of something we are doing, we should probably stop doing whatever is causing it. If it is natural, however, we should concentrate on adapting.

Eliminating CO2 emissions would be VERY expensive. This would reduce the standard of living for hundreds of millions of people around the world, because we would all have to pay for it. It's not a step to be taken lightly, it should only be done in the face of a real, proven problem and only if it will make a difference.

Collounsbury

03-16-2001, 04:31 AM

Becoming annoyed now.

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
Even if I saw some proof that the Earth was warming (and I don't think we have been tracking worldwide average temperature long enough to be sure that it is a long-term trend), that would not convince me that this was because of human activity.

Now I know you haven't bothered to actually read the materials I have provided. I do get annoyed by this, above all when people make arguments from ignorance.

I'm coming to the conclusion that your position is a priori and not susceptible to data. Or you just don't want to look at data.

I accept that the world may be warming, it's about time for this ice age to end.

No, actually it isn't by average, but we can't know when "it is time for" anything in re climate. A meaningless statement.

Again, I refer you to the data, and my citations.

Should we be looking into planning for a warmer world? Probably would be a good idea, but the change will be slow enough that we don't really need to worry about it now -

Oh yes we do. Large effects are rather difficult to counter, rather like stopping a barrelling freight train. Research and modest steps early in the process are much better than sitting around with a thumb up our butts saying, ah its in the future.

Other items:
Astroid crashing into the Earth in our lifetimes greater risk than....?????? Al Gore flying on a place reflecting reality of global warming????

Sometimes I become depressed running into popular ideas about risk, science and causation. Bother.

Badtz Maru

03-16-2001, 06:56 AM

Those links don't work unless you have a username and password, C. If you will give me yours I will check them out.

vanilla

03-16-2001, 09:01 AM

Isn't there news that the polar ice is melting?
I seem to recall reading that there is a lot more water spots up (or down) there than usual.
What If there was a massive meltdown?
What places would be flooded?
What if it was a sloooow melt?

Ivorybill

03-16-2001, 09:40 AM

Yep, the Polar Ice has thinned substantially in the past decade AND last summer observers noticed a slushy, not entirely frozen area of sea ice at the North Pole.

As for your questions, polar ice melting won't do much to sea level since that ice is mostly floating in the ocean already (ice already displaces the water, just as melting ice in a full drink won't cause the drink to overflow the glass).

Greenland's ice, Antarctica's ice, and other ice either on land, or supported by land, is another story. When it melts, it will send freshwater into the oceans, changing the salinity and density of ocean water while raising sea levels. This should be a gradual process. However, the Antarctic ice shelves could raise sea levels rapidly and catastrophically if they were to fall into the ocean suddenly, just as dropping an big ice cube into a full drink displaces the liquid in the drink, spills it on the counter, and gets your wife upset with you when you don't clean it up.

vanilla

03-16-2001, 09:43 AM

Does this mean Santa could drown?

;)

Ivorybill

03-16-2001, 09:49 AM

A smiley on such a serious question!

No, Santa won't drown. Fat makes people more buoyant, so he'd float long enough for the reindeer to pull him out. (Provided he met the terms of their latest contract arbitration for better work conditions.)

tracer

03-16-2001, 10:03 AM

emarkp wrote:

Take Al Gore for one, who personally showed up (late) to help with the Kyoto accord, but he arrived (of course) in his own personal 747--not exactly the most low-emission vehicle.
Actually, in terms of BTUs of energy consumed per passenger per mile, I've heard that the 747 is the second most efficient vehicle on Earth after the bicycle.

december

03-16-2001, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by vanilla
Isn't there news that the polar ice is melting?
I seem to recall reading that there is a lot more water spots up (or down) there than usual.

This comes from an erronious article from the NY Times. They breathlessly reported that there were open water spots in the North Polar ice cap, but that turned out to be a fairly normal summer phenomenon.

On the other hand, many glaciers have been shrinking for years. I saw a couple with my own eyes in the Rocky Mountains last summer -- one in Jasper Park (Canada) and another in Glacier National Park. IMHO there is considerable evidence that some sort of long-term warming has been taking place.

december

03-16-2001, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by tracer

Actually, in terms of BTUs of energy consumed per passenger per mile, I've heard that the 747 is the second most efficient vehicle on Earth after the bicycle.

But, the efficiency must be based ono a planeload of passengers. Poster says that Gore was in his own 747.

emarkp

03-16-2001, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by tracer
emarkp wrote:

Take Al Gore for one, who personally showed up (late) to help with the Kyoto accord, but he arrived (of course) in his own personal 747--not exactly the most low-emission vehicle.
Actually, in terms of BTUs of energy consumed per passenger per mile, I've heard that the 747 is the second most efficient vehicle on Earth after the bicycle.

Citation please. That's for a full 747, right? Not one carrying one self-important diplomat and his staff, correct? Furthermore, my comment was about emissions, not BTU's consumed.

Collounsbury

03-16-2001, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
Those links don't work unless you have a username and password, C. If you will give me yours I will check them out.

First my apologies for citing to non-public website, normally I check that, but somehow I thought these articles were non-pay.

But, no I can't share my password/username as they're not my property per se, corp. sub. However, given Science is a widely available publication in even the most sketchy of libraries.... At the very least, I should think we should not see any more statements in re not knowing of evidence. If one wishes to ignore that's one thing, however the citations are there. I also direct everyone to the other, public sites which contain a wealth of data. I do mean a wealth.

tracer

03-16-2001, 02:53 PM

emarkp wrote:

my comment was about emissions, not BTU's consumed.
If by "emissions" you mean traditional pollutants, then this has nothing to do with global warming or the Kyoto accord.

If by "emissions" you mean CO2, i.e. greenhouse gases, then this is directly related to the number of BTUs worth of fuel-energy consumed. Burning one gallon of jet fuel produces almost exactly the same amount of CO2, regardless of the fuel economy of the vehicle it is burned in, and regardless of how many unwanted pollutants the engine produces -- pollutants are usually measured in parts per million.

Badtz Maru

03-16-2001, 04:26 PM

I'm not saying I don't trust you Collounsbury, but those links you provided COULD be to articles that were extremely biased, or even articles that had nothing to do with what we are talking about.

I'm sorry that I don't have cites for my POV. I don't keep track of them, and a lot of them are from less-than-reputable (by some people's standards) sources. Every time I see something on global warming (or any other topic I have an interest in) I read it...but I don't record where I read it and it's page number...maybe I should start...but what I'm trying to say is that there is that the scientific community has not reached some kind of consensus that the climate is changing and that it is being caused by man, there are still those who disagree, and they can't just be ignored (unless you are the type to ignore those who disagree with you). There are no reputable scientists who don't believe that an asteroid could hit the Earth...there ARE reputable scientists who don't believe mankind has anything to do with global warming. I'm not saying we should ignore the issue, but I do think we should learn more about it before we jump to conclusions, that's all.

Badtz Maru

03-16-2001, 04:29 PM

sorry about the grammar and other problems in that last post, i am drunk and I forgot to reread it before hitting Submit Reply.

Badtz Maru

03-16-2001, 04:32 PM

BTW, by 'not reputable' I don't mean I am getting my info and basing my opinions on what uneducated whackos believe. I am a SF fan and I have learned a lot from Analog magazine, which also has non-fiction essays...a lot of the more knowledgeable SF authors (i.e. Larry Niven, David Brin, etc.) do not believe that humans are causing global warming, and I personally believe them, though they are not necessarily experts in their field (Niven majored in mathematics I believe, and I don't know off the top of my head what Brin is an expert on, if anything).

Collounsbury

03-16-2001, 05:11 PM

BM:

I understand your concern as well as your inebriation as I am also.

_Science_ is not of course always peer-reviewed, and so I myself approach it with caution. However, I believe if you review the other citations provided you should be able to see a trend. Insofar as peer-reviewed consensus --my references to consensus are not throwaways-- is running in a certain direction (note, not one publication but many) one should take notice. I do admit, however, that I do not follow this as closely as I should so I'm not claiming full certitude, but given what I have seen, I think this is accurate.

I'll also, since in this thread I am told I have a rep --interesting-- will lay my own rep on the line. I believe my postings were fairly delibrative. To restate, it appears that consensus is there is global warming, significant and climate-wise rapid; there is significant and meaningful human contribution, recent data reinforcing this view; however mechanisms, inputs remain unclear.

On the other hand, this is not a home run per se (as per race, for example) and so there is some room for discussion around level of significance of human role -- although I think it fair to say the burden of proof is shifting.

As such, policy should be cautious, per my original contribution.

In essence, I am stating that the data refutes a non-global warming position, as well as human role unimportant position. However, the data does not support a particular strategy or policy in re human actions. My personal position is that extreme solutions like Kyoto are wrong-headed but moderate responses whose utility goes beyond "global warming" such as moves to energy efficiency are, above all if they are market oriented.

I leave aside the opinions of SF authors who may or may not be literate in science or more directly, up to date.

Una Persson

03-16-2001, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by tracer
In fact, a perfectly-tuned non-polluting automobile engine would put out nothing but CO2 and H2O.

And SO2 from sulfur in the gas.

Drake Christensen

03-17-2001, 07:07 AM

Collounsbury, I want to compliment you on your decorum in this discussion.

If you've been following global warming on the net, then there's a good chance you've come across John L. Daly's "Still Waiting for Greenhouse" page. http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/. Specifically at http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2000/surface1.htm he makes what looks to me is some pretty strong arguments that global warming isn't nearly as well documented as your citations contend.

One of the bits you cite in your first post was:

Which observes again that "comparison of observations with simulations of a coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation model ...

Emphasis mine.

Where I have a problem with that is that, as I understand it, the current computer models suck. Hard. From what I've heard they're not very stable and blow up very easily. And when back-checked against historical data, that none of them come anywhere close to predicting our current conditions. So they're not reliable and they're not accurate.

In Scientific American's "Where Will We Be in 50 Years" issue last year they included an article by a climatologist. (I just looked for the arcticle to link to it, but I can't find it on their web site.) He described some of the shortcomings of the current models. From memory, that it has only been the last couple of years that they've even started including cloud cover, I believe a fairly major contributor to the heat budget of the planet. And, that the cell size of the current models was too large, on the order of 50 kilometers sticks in my head. IOW, fairly large contributors to energy distribution, like thunderstorms, are lost in the noise and addressed only vaguely.

This author predicted that at the current rate of computer advancement it would be 20 years before before we had enough computing power to run models which were dense enough and complete enough to yield reliable and accurate results. Though, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they get substantially better long before that.

So getting back to the original post, it appears to me that there's little new evidence of global warming (repeating the old evidence over and over doesn't increase it's validity.) And even conceding the most generous measurements, the current models are nowhere near good enough to be basing cripplingly expensive policy decisions on. And that even using the knowledge we currently have on the climate, solely addressing CO2 is unlikely to have much of an effect on man's contributions to global warming.

I believe the latter couple of sentances are close to your position.

Collounsbury

03-17-2001, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by Drake Christensen
Collounsbury, I want to compliment you on your decorum in this discussion.

Must be losing my touch, no?

If you've been following global warming on the net,

No, only through journals and as I noted, not that closely.

then there's a good chance you've come across John L. Daly's "Still Waiting for Greenhouse" page. http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/. Specifically at http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2000/surface1.htm he makes what looks to me is some pretty strong arguments that global warming isn't nearly as well documented as your citations contend.

I'm going to have to chew over these when I get a chance.

One of the bits you cite in your first post was:

Which observes again that "comparison of observations with simulations of a coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation model ...

Emphasis mine.

Where I have a problem with that is that, as I understand it, the current computer models suck. Hard. From what I've heard they're not very stable and blow up very easily. And when back-checked against historical data, that none of them come anywhere close to predicting our current conditions. So they're not reliable and they're not accurate.

I do believe the last part is incorrect. If you follow through, I believe that recent models have in fact made progress to matching historical data.

However, this is predictive and something of a supplementary issue. The PNAS cite, if I'm not getting confused, are in re current and historical observations.

[snipped models discussion]

So getting back to the original post, it appears to me that there's little new evidence of global warming (repeating the old evidence over and over doesn't increase it's validity.)

A valid observation if the materials were repeating old evidence only. I ask you to review the IPCC and the PNAS materials and tell me that this is all old.

And even conceding the most generous measurements, the current models are nowhere near good enough to be basing cripplingly expensive policy decisions on.

In re future effects, I absolutely agree. But I do believe I've said that all along, yes?

And that even using the knowledge we currently have on the climate, solely addressing CO2 is unlikely to have much of an effect on man's contributions to global warming.

Ditto, Kyoto is a mistake.

I believe the latter couple of sentances are close to your position.

Yes.

But in any event, I'm happy to see new data coming to the discussion. Makes things juicier.

Collounsbury

03-17-2001, 09:41 AM

Added note:
I am more than slightly uncomfortable with Daly's polemical tone.

Drake Christensen

03-17-2001, 08:54 PM

I agree. The tone is overboard, and the web site is very poorly laid out. But I find his basic facts and analysis thought-provoking.

Collounsbury

03-18-2001, 03:03 AM

Originally posted by Drake Christensen
I agree. The tone is overboard, and the web site is very poorly laid out. But I find his basic facts and analysis thought-provoking.

I perursed the site more and my sense of discomfort has risen. On one hand he certianly is not flying by the seat of his pants, on the other hand his shrill and polemical langauge is disturbing. My experience in re genetics leads me to question folks who paint with broad brushes and use political language as he does. I understand getting pissed off at the extreme greenies. However, I have trouble swallowing his wholesale assault on the peer-reviewed literature, esp. since I can't find peer publications by him nor can I discern what his qualifications are. I don't want to fall into a critique by authority, at the same time when someone's pubs and so forth all seem to be pop press or political, I have doubts.

In the final analysis, I confess to not have the time to give his critiques a full reading, and comparision with the original articles. However, with that said, I take this on advisement but remain more confident of the scientific journals. They may be wrong, of course. He certainly would be well-advised to adopt a more reasoned tone and drop the inflamatory langauge.

Mr. Svinlesha

03-18-2001, 06:00 AM

It’s important to get both sides of a debate, of course, but I’m with Collounsbury on this one. Take some of the quotes from the "Greening Earth Society's" webpage FAQ:

Our symbol: The Bristle Cone Pine
…Why? Because it’s been nutured for thousand of years with CO2…Tests on these old trees show that they’ve grown best during times of higher CO2 concentrations. We believe that the Bristle cone pine proves our point .. that nature and CO2 can grow together!

Creepy.

Or how about this?

Nature is growing stronger–bigger, greener and more resilient–as a result of what we humans are doing to promote our own growth. Research shows that plants worldwide are benefiting from the atmosphere’s increasing level of CO2…
The difference is remarkable! Research has proven that, if CO2 levels continue at their current rate of increase, in just 50 years: Soybean yields in America’s heartland will increase by more than 25 percent; winter wheat yields in Europe will increase by 30 percent; and trees worldwide will grow 27 percent better, with thicker trunks, more leaves and branches and more extensive root systems that use nutrients more efficiently.

Seems like they’re pushing a pretty clear agenda, if you ask me. And who sponsors them? None other that the Western Fuel Association, who’s web site you can find here (http://www.westernfuels.org).

WFA is a coop of what appears to be middle-sized mid-western utilities providers, all of whom are primarily coal-based. So they accuse the IPCC of pushing a political agenda, and meanwhile try to convince people that coal-burning and increased levels of CO2 are actually beneficial to the environment. Right.

PS. Collounsbury, re the secret of cheesemaking: try goat's milk.

Collounsbury

03-18-2001, 06:17 AM

RE CO2 levels:

Well, they have a point, but it strikes me that it is not an answer in its entirity to the question of the aggregate effects. I also had a disturbing sensation that the websites were attacking a straw man argument (in re global warming will cause the world to end) which to my knowledge is largely the argument of a small fringe. However it is being set up there as the argument.

Overall, I remain more confident of peer-reviewed literature which while imperfect, provide IMHO a better picture of developments than partisan web sites.

jshore

03-18-2001, 06:02 PM

We've been down much of this road before recently. Check out this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=56720

There are some important points I would like to make here:

(1) The claims made here that no "consensus" has been reached in the scientific community are incorrect. The IPCC reports operate on a consensus format and thus represent the consensus that does exist. Note that consensus does not mean unanimity. On the other hand, there are PhD biologists out there that don't believe in evolution. Getting unanimity before taking action is a prescription to never act. Admittedly, climate science is in a more uncertain state than evolutionary theory, which is why, for example, the IPCC report quotes a broad temperature range for possible warming that will occur due to human influences in the next couple of years. (I also believe their range is aiming at what they estimate to be a 3-sigma confidence level.) By the way, of the dissenters who do remain, a lot of them seem to have ties to the fossil fuels industry and far-right/ libertarian think-tanks (like the Cato Institute or the George C. Marshall Institute).

(2) I don't know why statements are being made here, even by those arguing in favor of the consensus, that Kyoto is too extreme. Studies show that the U.S. (and the rest of the world, for that matter) can reach the Kyoto targets with little cost.* In fact, by some estimates, the costs could even be negative. (Savings due to efficiency outweigh the costs of achieving them.) If you look at all of the SUVs lumbering down the road, it doesn't take a lot of brilliance to figure out that there is lots of room for improvement in energy efficiency. This talk that people in this debate are arguing going back to pre-industrial times is simply a bunch of B.S.

In summary, the climate science is certainly clear enough on global warming to justify taking rather modest and inexpensive steps such as Kyoto in order to get onto a better track with energy efficiency and alternative technologies. If we wait until the uncertainties of what is going to happen down the road is reduced still further before deciding what to do, the actions may need to be much more drastic and costly.

*I believe the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the IPCC talks about costs in general international terms. Here are links to a couple of the studies specific to the U.S.: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNL/Energy_Eff/CEF.htm http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/pubs-home.html#environment (see the publication "A Small Price to Pay"). Here's a link to another article that explains how the costs to comply with environmental regulations has historically much less than was estimated (by the government, as well as industry!): http://www.prospect.org/print/V8/35/goodstein-e.html.

jshore

03-18-2001, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by jshore

the IPCC report quotes a broad temperature range for possible warming that will occur due to human influences in the next couple of years.

Whoops...I compressed my time scales a bit there. I meant to say the next hundred years!

Collounsbury

03-19-2001, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by jshore
Note that consensus does not mean unanimity. On the other hand, there are PhD biologists out there that don't believe in evolution.

Very true, just as there are some who still believe in race despite the genetic evidence.

By the way, of the dissenters who do remain, a lot of them seem to have ties to the fossil fuels industry and far-right/ libertarian think-tanks (like the Cato Institute or the George C. Marshall Institute).

Which is unfortunately my sense in re the cited site. Certainly the polemical political language does not help his case in my POV. Vieled conspiracy theory immediately sets off alarms for me.

(2) I don't know why statements are being made here, even by those arguing in favor of the consensus, that Kyoto is too extreme. Studies show that the U.S. (and the rest of the world, for that matter) can reach the Kyoto targets with little cost.*

However, I do differ on this point and I believe that in re Kyoto targets, timeframes etc. there are real and serious issues. However, I don't have time to argue this, so let me just observe that I believe that Kyoto structure is a point of legitimate policy and science debate in re the consensus to date.

Final comment: in re steps on Global Warming. While differing from jshore in re cost of Kyoto per se, I do believe that it is clear that insofar as many actions recommended in re global warming including steps towards higher energy efficiency/conservation are recommendable on pure economic grounds, I don't see a reason not to take them. They should, of course, be taken in market frameworks in order to promote efficiency.