Climate researchers; They call this science? more

Great Debates
1

I understand scientists can have different hypotheses and even come to differing conclusions, but this is downright ridiculous.

A January 2001 study in the journal Nature claims; While the rest of the world has generally been warming up, much of Antarctica has been cooling for the last 35 years.

Here’s USA Today’s article http://www.usatoday.com/news/healthscience/science/cold-science/2002-01-13-antarctic-cooling.htm

Alright, fine I say…I always had a sneaking suspicion there were some ulterior motives in the doom and gloom predictions of the Global Warming crowd.

Then, 2 months later, just when I’m ready to mail a donation to the Dixie Lee Ray memorial fund, I hear this;

A massive Antarctic ice shelf has collapsed into the sea, shattering into thousands of icebergs and alarming researchers. David Vaughan, a glaciologist with the British Antarctic Survey, noted that since the 1998 prediction, “warming on the peninsula has continued and we watched as piece by piece Larsen B has retreated.”
It’s hard to believe, he said, that 720 billion tons (enough ice for 290 trillion 5-pound bags) of ice sheet has disintegrated in less than a month.

Here’s MSNBC’s story http://www.msnbc.com/news/726247.asp?cp1=1

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but something’s not adding up. I’m no Albert Einstein, or Willard Scott for that matter, but I’m pretty sure that for all that ice to suddenly “disintegrate”, warmer than average temperatures would be required for alot longer than 8 weeks. I know size is relative, but to report on one hand much of the Antarctic is cooling only to see a chunk 6000’ thick the size of Rhode Island leave the nest seems pretty substancial to me.

How does the scientific community (or for that matter the journalists that write the headlines) come up with two completely polarized (pardon the pun) findings?

Damnit…I wanna know if that property investment I was planning to make in the Canadian Tundra is gonna pay off.

2

Well, not all of Antarctica is cooling. In fact, from that first article,

Antarctica is a big place. So, what we have is the Dry Valleys cooling for some reason, probably related to decreased winds, and the Antarctic Penninsula, including the Larsen B Ice Shelf, warming up, likely due to global warming.

3

I’m not sure what the problem is. Antarctica is a continent, not merely an island. The dry valleys where the temperatures have been dropping are in a particular location where the prevailing winds and the position of mountains create a specific climate. While the climate on the shores of the Ross Sea and the Larsen Peninsula to the East have been warming, the weather patterns in the dry valleys have been cooling.

In the U.S. we see different parts of the country undergo changes in general climate all the time.

If they were claiming that the entire climate of Antarctica was both warming and cooling, I could see calling them out. To note that parts of Antarctica are warming while parts of Antarctica are cooling (as both stories did mention) would seem to be simple observation.

4

Sure the world is warming up, but it’s a little conceited of us to assume that we are having a measureable affect on this. The world as a system ought to be capable of coping with the minor changes we can put into it.

To put it into perspective, the world has been steadily warming up since the Ice Age (except for a minor cold patch 100 years ago). As far as I am aware, the wooly mammoths weren’t running power stations and driving trucks to work, and yet far larger chucks of ice than the latest small shelf in Antartica were melting.

5

You have to be careful about your perception of “global warming” here. The warming trend is just a mean, an average of many points on the globe. Many models show that this overall warming will cause some areas to actually get vastly colder. I am not sure about the Canadian Tundra, but I have seen models that predict that Europe will again be covered by glaciers due to an altered path for the Gulf Stream - which is caused by increased temperatures in the tropics.

So, in knowing this, it is not at all suprising that different temperature trends should be observed in two different regions. As other posters have pointed out, this also applies to an area the size of Antarctica.

6

So then, if I am reading this correctly, we are not experiencing “global warming”. What we seem to be observing is an entire change in global environments. I have long said that we don’t know enough to determine if global warming is real or chicken little syndrome. I do think that it is a bad idea to continually pump pollution into the atmosphere, but I still am not convinced that it is the sole cause of “global warming”.

7

Stopping pollution is one thing, but limiting harmless carbon dioxide emissions - thus hurting companies’ competitiveness - on the basis of dubious computer models is ridiculous.

Despite the cries of “foul” from the international community, Bush was quite right to pull the US out of the Kyoto Agreement - it is crazy to harm a nation’s economic interests for no reason.

8

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Chicken Little not too long ago (I think within the last 20 years or so) screaming that we were on the verge of another Ice Age?

And at the risk of a hijack (but I think these two subjects are along the same lines): everyone is screaming about the hole in the ozone layer in Antarctica. Isn’t one of the primary components of smog ozone? (True question; I’m not sure of this) Maybe we should move L.A. to the Antarctic?
My point is that WE DON’T KNOW!!! We can speculate all we want (and rightfully should), but we’re operating on insufficient data here. We should take actions that we think necessary/prudent, but it should be with the thought firmly in mind that it would be based on nothing more than an educated guess.

9

Toaster: Basically, ozone irritates the lungs, but also blocks out harmful UV radiation. So, it’s a bad thing to have at ground level (hence we don’t want it being formed down here), but a good thing to have way up in the upper atmosphere (which is why we don’t want to destroy the ozone layer).

10

Yes, ozone (O3) is an important component of smog - but no, it won’t help the ozone layer. Ground level ozone formation is catalyzed by Nitrogen Oxides from car exhausts and uv light. It is known to complicate asthma and cause other respiratory problems. Ground level O3 will break down well before it could possibly have the slightest chance of travelling high enough in the atmosphere to aid the ozone layer - it’s too heavy and too reactive.

11

Toaster: From my limited understanding an Ice Age is caused by global warming. Global warming melts stuff, evaporates water and sends clouds up into the atmosphere shielding the Earth’s surface from the warmth of the sun causing an Ice Age. This is a MUCH MUCH oversimplified understanding of it, but that’s the idea anyway. That’s what they taught us in HS, but my HS teachers were not too bright so I could be wrong.

Erek

12

And yet, it’s NOT. As we now know with ozone, what we are doing is having a MAJOR, not a minor, impact. In the case of ozone, the cause has definitely been connected to human actions via isotopic signatures. In the case of global warming, the science is not yet so clear cut, BUT if we have reasonable cause to believe that

-world ocean levels will rise, drowning inhabited areas
-droughts/floods will cause millions of deaths
-major climate changes will make large area uninhabitable

then isn’t “we don’t know yet” a great reason for being cautious and limiting the potential impact until we DO know?

Well, yes, Earth’s climate has been and will continue to be variable. But remember, the woolies are all DEAD now. Do we want to trigger an event that will cause that to happen to us?

13

Quick question; Is it true or untrue atmospheric ozone in a “renewable resource” that is constanly created by UV rays striking the atmosphere?

I’ve heard this stated as fact many times. The argument being the antarctic ozone hole only exists in the southern hemispheric winter when sunlight ceases to shine. The ozone hole quickly closes back up when the vernal equinox returns sunlight to the area.

True? or propaganda from the CFC ban naysayers?

14

Sirjamesp, I think you need to actually read up on the subject before you start saying things like this. The science of climate change is not based on “conceit”. Try looking at the IPCC report ( http://www.ipcc.ch/ ) or the NAS reporton the subject ( http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument ). They both explain exactly what the scientific community has cocluded we know and don’t know about global climate change.

Remember, The Straight Dope is supposed to be about reducing our ignorance not increasing it by just talking idly based on our own very limited knowledge.

15

JohnBckWld: Yes, you have it exactly right. The ozone layer is constantly replenished. The issue was never that it would be permanently destroyed, but that the constant influx of CFC’s would cause it to break down faster than it was being replenished, leading to overall thinning. I don’t think anyone on either side of the issue ever claimed that it was a permanent change, but I’ve certainly run into more than my share of environmental protestors who were not aware of that.

FriendRob: Your argument represents the basic fallacy behind the ‘precautionary principle’. Your attitude is that since Global warming MIGHT cause huge amounts of damage, then it’s only smart to take precautions. What you ignore is that those precautions may well be more expensive than the damages they MAY prevent. For instance, the annual cost of the Kyoto treaty was estimated to be more than 300 billion dollars. How much good could you do in the third world with that kind of money? Answer: you could feed and clothe every poor child on the planet. And in the end, all Kyoto would do is move the curve of global warming by six years (i.e. wiithout Kyoto the Earth will be about as warm in 2100 as it would be WITH the Kyoto treaty in 2106).

To really eliminate CO2 production in a meaningful way would be so expensive as to just about halt economic growth for a long time.

So we know what the cost is. Now we need to figure out what the cost of not doing it is. That’s a lot tougher, because our atmospheric models are still rough approximations, and because our models are still wrong about many things and we don’t know why (i.e. measurements of the troposphere don’t show the kinds of temperate trends the models predict based on ground temperature changes).

Current estimates don’t look anywhere near as dire as the first ones from several years ago. I believe the IPCC is now predicting warming of about .1 degree per decade, which isn’t much. Their economic models also predict that the net benefit to the Earth as a whole will be POSITIVE for warming below 2.1 degrees, because of longer growing seasons and lower heating costs in the most populous areas of the world. The poor nations will be hurt, though. But note that we could help them by just giving them aid rather than spending the money on CO2 control if we want to. Whether that’s a better idea or not is an open question at this point.

We also have some time, and are learning fast. I expect us to have a much, much better handle on what’s happening in about ten years or less. Enough that we can make intelligent decisions, which we can’t do right now. And ten years is nothing - If we implemented Kyoto ten years from now instead of today, the net difference by 2100 would be almost impossible to measure. So the smart thing to do is to increase funding for research, and then WAIT on policy until scientists give us better answers.

Also, the longer we wait the cheaper it will get to do something, as we naturally move towards cleaner technologies and renewable energy sources.

16

Sam, do you have a cite for the estimate for the Kyoto treaties costs? While you claim that we know the costs of following the Kyoto treaty, I have my doubts. I’ve heard both that it will cost a lot of money, and that it will actually be good for the economy (since it promotes r&d).

So really, if the costs of the global warming is in fact not known, and the costs of global warming are in fact known, we probably just have to go with the safest bet - limiting greenhouse gasses.

If, in fact, you are right, and the economies will improve with a limited amount of global warming, this is just one factor in the equation of whether or not it desirable. Will increased temperatures cause an increase in flooding? Hurricanes? Drought? Malaria? Other infectious diseases? Could sea levels increase? If so, how much? Could some island nations be at risk? Would the coral reefs die? Would ocean life in general thrive or dwindle? Would animal life be affected as habitats are changed? Could this increase the rate of extinction of land animals as well as sea?

Economic changes are transitory - the effects of global warming could far outlast any brief benefit we could achieve.

17

To really eliminate CO2 production in a meaningful way would be so expensive as to just about halt economic growth for a long time.

No, You’ve quoted one ludicrous estimate of the cost! Come on Sam. Avumede is right…There are studies such as one by five government labs that suggest that we could get most of the way to the Kyoto target (probably all the way especially once you account for the various ways you can get credits without directly reducing your own emissions) and SAVE money in net. (See and references, including to the 5 labs study, therein.)

And, I find it quite touching that you think of $300 billion dollars in terms of clothing and feeding every poor child on the planet. In fact, one might also think of it as the portion of Bush’s tax cut that goes to the top fraction of one percent of taxpayers over the next 10 years! At any rate, the problem of feeding and clothing the children is more an issue of distribution of resources than it is of money.

I find it amusing that the anti-Kyoto crowd tries to argue both that Kyoto will create economic disaster and that it will hardly make a dent in emissions (especially since it gives maximum market flexibility to the way emissions are reduced so the conservatives can’t even argue that it is somehow its burdensome approach that is to blame). Of course, the truth is that it is a rather modest step…It is a step to stablize emissions and to help create the correct economic incentives to put the world on a new course. [Since Kyoto only specifies emissions 'til 2012, projections of what it would do in 2100 are essentially meaningless…It depends on what you assume happens after 2012.] And, it is modest precisely because the science still has some uncertainty…Enough certainty to know there is a problem but still considerable uncertainty in the magnitude. If we were more certain we would want to take much stronger steps.

Sam, the actual estimate is 2.5–10.4 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C)…One only gets your number by taking the low end in Celsius and then rounding ~0.14 down to 0.1. I guess this is an indication of how much we can trust what your post on this subject.

Actually, the longer we wait the more drastically we will have to cut. Under the Bush goal, U.S. emissions in 2012 will be [assuming our economy grows at about the rate it has been] somewhere in the neighborhood 30 percent above 1990 levels (rather than the Kyoto number of some 7% below…although there are some other ways to get credits with carbon sinks, etc).

Also, these movements toward cleaner technologies and renewable energy sources don’t happen by magic, Sam. You have to stop subsidizing and effectively subsidizing the fossil fuel technologies. That is the whole point behind Kyoto.

By the way, the Bush substitute for Kyoto is pathetic and a blatant attempt to confuse people on the issue by defining something called “greenhouse gas intensity” which is greenhouse gas emissions divided by GDP and then setting a goal of about an 18% reduction in that over the next 10 years. The problem is that this goal which the President claimed was “ambitious” is anything BUT…In fact it corresponds to just about the rate that we have been reducing greenhouse gas intensity over the last 10 or so years! This Administration is becoming very adept at deception and obfuscation through lots and lots of practice!

Also be forewarned that this is an issue that has attracted junk science by the bushel-load. To really understand where the credible science is at, you either have to wade into the peer-reviewed literature yourself or look at the IPCC or NAS reports that I linked to that have reviewed this literature and summarized for policymakers (the latter responding to the Bush Administration’s specific request).

18

Insert http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/smallprice.pdf after the word “See”! Sorry!

Also, the first sentence in my last post is a leftover quote from Sam! Urgh…it’s getting late!

19

The more I read and hear, the more I’m convinced there’s alot of uncertainty from both camps. Similar to the “replenishing ozone” answer Mr. Stone provided (and as yet to be refuted) I’ve stumbled across a few more…

Like the old adage goes, I guess there are 3 sides to every story.

True / False or a little bit of both?
[ul]
[li]A great many contributing factors are excluded from Climate study models because scientists have no way or predicting them (i.e. the oceans cuurents, jet streams, etc.)[/li][li]Increased solar flare activity over the past several years may be the main culprit behind the current warming trend. I’ve seen Mars’ warming climate cited as an example.[/li][li]No one can accurately estimate mankind’s impact the Earth’s environment. I’ve read termites and volcanos pump out overwhelmingly more greenhouse gases than we as a people with all our machines could ever muster.[/li][li]One impact of global warming would be increased vegetation, leading a greater consumption of the CO2.[/li][li]Kyoto’s restrictions would be placed on “developed nations” where population growth is either slow, static or negative. Developing nations (with projected large growth in population) are for the most part exempt from greenhouse gas emission restrictions.[/li][li]At this point, the only cost effective way of producing “clean” energy is nuclear. It doesn’t seem all that clean to me, especially if I lived in Nevada where all the waste is supposed to be stored. [/li]
Side note: couldn’t we build a super-cannon like Sadaam had a few years back, encase the waste in a projectile and launch it at the sun?

Advanced fuel cells may make the internal combustion engine a nostalgic after thought before the decade is out.[/ul]

20

It’s late (I wouldn’t even be here if not for insomnia) so I won’t try to address each of your questions, JohnBckwld. But, as a general note, one way that junk science proliferates is to raise points that have been already dealt with in the peer-reviewed scientific literature; either they have been shown to be incorrect or they have been incorporated into the estimates of uncertainty in the reviews of this literature by IPCC and NAS. (After all, 2.5 F to 10.4 F is admittedly a pretty big range…By the way, I believe that estimate is at the 90% level, i.e., the IPCC estimates there is a 90% chance the warming will fall between those bounds. Or maybe it’s 3-sigma…anyway it is 90% or more.)

[quote]

[li]Kyoto’s restrictions would be placed on “developed nations” where population growth is either slow, static or negative. Developing nations (with projected large growth in population) are for the most part exempt from greenhouse gas emission restrictions.[/li][/quote]

The justification for not including the developing nations yet in restrictions is that the developed nations are responsible for the bulk of the problem (and certainly produce much more on a per capita basis) and that down the road, technology developed by these nations can be adopted by the developing nations. Remember that Kyoto is not the end of the road; rather, it is the beginning.

[quote]

[li]Advanced fuel cells may make the internal combustion engine a nostalgic after thought before the decade is out.[/li][/QUOTE]

(1) It is not clear it will happen that fast and the first fuel cells will likely not be the completely “clean” kind using only hydrogen and oxygen with the product being water. Also, even these cells don’t come for free in that you still need energy to produce the hydrogen (for example, you can use electricity to do the reaction in reverse…that is, produce hydrogen and oxygen from water). Fuel cells are good because they allow for the possibility that mobile sources of pollution such as cars could run cleanly and then the energy for the fuel cells could be produced by clean (renewable) sources elsewhere, but one still has develop those renewable sources.

(2) [And this relates to your “cost effective” issue too.] I repeat that a whole point of Kyoto is to correct for market failures that are causing fossil fuels to be priced artificially low relative to cleaner competitors because their costs are not internalized. Fuel cells will be developed more rapidly in a market system that more fully accounts for the costs of the competitors that are keeping fuel cells and other technologies from becoming as cost-effective as quickly as they otherwise would.