Jackmannii asked me: *Did you read those papers, or just cut-and-paste a laundry list of references? *
I’ve read some of them, but certainly not all (and never claimed to). But based on the ones I have read and the quality of the journals and institutions that published them, I have no hesitation in continuing to recommend them, as I did to MGibson, as a much better sample of the real size and complexity of climate science research than the one unspecified “article on MSN” that he was basing his remarks on.
Sam Stone:The Kyoto accords would cost trillions of dollars to comply with worldwide.
But as jshore noted in an earlier post: There are several studies out there (UCS did one, 5 national labs of the U.S. government did another) that show that the costs to go most or all the way to meeting the Kyoto Protocol will be small, perhaps even negative. (This basic view has also been endorsed by a petition of some 2000 economists, I believe, including several Nobel Laureates.) There will also be other ancillary benefits in terms of cuts in pollutants.
Sam, can you tell us what the studies are that disagree so drastically with the UCS and USG studies mentioned by jshore on the costs of compliance, and what criticisms they make of those studies that might explain that disagreement?
THere is a great article in Discover this month. I can’t remember the guys name (CHristy?) , but there is this dude who has done a ton of research on the temp of the troposphere and the ground temp. He not only took extensive measurements from the atmosphere, but he also visited the ground sites where temperature is taken to see if there was anything that could be affecting the measurements.
What he found was that many of the centers where temps are taken have change dramatically in the past 30 years. For example, one such location hat the fiorest next to it cut down and a parking lot put in. Another had the trees around it cut down and the fields were then plowed for agriculture.
His findings: the temp increase is most likely a result of changes around the area of the thermometers.
Why are do so many people want global warming to be real? Remember that 25 years ago there was the same level of concern about an ice age.
Sam, you may want to check the math on that…When I multiply 0.15 deg/year by 100 years, I get 15 degrees. Did you mean 0.15 degrees per decade? At any rate, the latest prediction from IPCC is that the average global temperature rise will be 2.5 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit between 1990 and 2100. As this estimate makes clear, there is considerable uncertainty still in the exact amount, but the consensus reached by the scientists is that it is quite likely to happen and that it could have some very severe consequences.
There are a minority of scientists who argue otherwise. However, many (most?) of this small minority have ties to organizations (such as the Cato Institute) with strong political axes to grind and/or get funding from groups like the Western Fuels Association that have a strong interest in keeping up a high demand for fossil fuels. [One should also note that even the IPCC reports themselves have to be reviewed by various governments…including those of OPEC countries. Just as a few scientists think the IPCC predictions are overblown, others think they are understated!]
Over the past several years, even many major energy and automobile corporations have come on board agreeing to a greater or lesser degree that global warming is a real threat and needs to be addressed. (Examples include B.P. and Ford…both of whom have quit the Global Climate Coalition, the industry-funded group that has been at the forefront of pooh-poohing climate change.)
Yes, there are indeed various scientific issues such as discrepancies between satellite and ground-based measurements, the role of vegetation in CO2 uptake et al. that are still being hashed out by scientists, just as there are various issues in evolutionary theory that are being hashed out. (I will admit that evolution has been around longer and is on a stronger foundation at this point, but I do find it interesting the sort of parallels in the debate you see between those that attack evolution and those that attack global warming science.) By the way, I am not sure what the current belief is about the satellite data, but it turns out to be subtle…The original data showed cooling, but once one corrects for effects of the decay of the satellite orbits, that becomes warming. See Nature 394, 661 (August 13, 1998). There are also articles that have addressed that issue you raise of whether the warming could be accounted for by localized warming “urban heat island” effects and the like near the measurement sites.
So, in the end, the question becomes that, given what we know now, do we continue effectively subsidizing people to drive to the local Starbucks in their Ford Excursions or do we take some prudent actions to get on a path of greater conservation and investment in new cleaner energy technologies. It seems the real doomsday people are not the ones who claim that the climate is warming and that this could have some nasty consequences but the ones who claim that making reasonable and prudent attempts to reduce our recent trends in energy wastefulness will doom our economy. An ounce of prevention today is worth a pound of cure tomorrow. (On this point, see The American Prospect, Nov/Dec 1997, pp. 64-69.)
Why would you disbelieve something that is supported by an overwhelming majority of scientists in the field – scientists who have access to technology far more advanced than that available 25 years ago? And there is very little debate that some warming is occurring – the issue is what is causing it.
Jshore: Yeah, obviously I meant 1.5 degrees/decade.
Your argument is just another form of the precautionary principle - “we don’t know for sure, but since it might be happening let’s act now and not take chances.”
I’m not a big fan of the precautionary principle, because it tends to ignore the costs involved in taking action, both in economic and human terms. A perfect example of this was the worldwide CFC ban, which has caused significant increases in food poisoning and stomach cancer deaths in the 3rd world. Another example would be China’s draconian birth control policies, which turned out to be both unnecessary and totally ineffective. But a whole generation of Chinese people had yet another fundamental right trampled on.
My basic point is that global warming is not going to cause an instant catastrophe. We DO have time to collect data. We’re talking about an effect that won’t do significant damage for decades or more. So let’s collect the data and understand what’s going on before passing sweeping, worldwide legislation like the Kyoto accords.
Someone may be breaking into my house right now. Chances are that they will eventually. To be on the safe side, I should go home and protect my pregnant wife. In fact I should stay home every day.
Of course, I will lose my job, but hey, what can be more important than the health and safety of my wife and child? Isn’t that vastly more important than a stinking job?
I doubt that many of us are against cleaner energy and more efcficient engines. WHat I am against is making decisions with tremendous consequences to the global economy (especially countries on the edge) for the sake of some theories with no conclusive correlation to the actions taken.
Look at California. No new polluting power plants. Good idea for the environment, no? Well, it might be better for the encvironment, but it is a bitch if you need electricity to be reliable and affordable.
THe selling of the rights to pollute are, IMHO, teh poor countries levying a tax against us for being a more developed, 1st world country. “We will let the US run its factories if they pay us a billion dollars for the right to pump out CO2.”
I think a better example is this: You presumably have fire insurance on your house. I cannot believe that you are wasting all that money on the outside chance that your home will catch fire! I mean, what are the odds? Cancel your freaking home owner’s policy and save yourself the money for God’s sake!
Where we clearly disagree is not whether we should be taking drastic action with severe negative economic consequences now, but whether the Kyoto Accord represents anything like that. I argue that, despite what a few doomsayers claim, the Kyoto Accord is very cheap insurance indeed (by some accounts it WILL SAVE US MONEY!) This is discussed in several studies*, but, I also think it is quite logical on the face of it when you look at how inefficiently we are using our energy resources now. It doesn’t take a genius to conclude, for example, that we could easily raise the average mileage on our fleet of passenger vehicles! [By the way, I don’t think these studies even make any attempt to quantify the ancillary benefits such as the reduction in other pollutants, in congestion, …]
And, the idea that the developed countries are being held hostage somehow by the powerful poor countries is kind of laughable to be honest! The question is one of simply paying at least a little of the externalized costs associated with our energy wastefulness. It is we who are getting the free ride, not them!
Hey, good news! That article is available online: http://www.prospect.org/print/V8/35/goodstein-e.html.
So, you can read all about past economic doomsday scenarios when it comes to environmental protection! (Isn’t the web great?!?)
It’s interesting that many of the people who are skeptical of global warming “doomsday” scenarios are nonetheless convinced that an economic “doomsday” will result if we take any preventative action. Yeah, like economics is such an exact science. :rolleyes:
I doubt that implementing Kyoto would represent much more of a drain on the economy than Y2K preparations did (which – whatever you think of the Y2K fizzle – created thousands of jobs).
As for the changing views of climatologists over the decades… well, that is the nature of science. As data collection and analysis methods are refined, new, more accurate predictions can be made. It does not necessarily mean the current consensus is bound to be overturned (but of course it will be refined).
People once thought the sun revolved around the earth as well, until that wacky Copernicus dude came along. By the standards of some of the posters here, I guess I should believe he will be overruled eventually as well, and maybe the earth is the center of the universe.
Well, as y’all know I am no great fan of this Administration, but to give some credit where credit is due, there is cause for cautious optimism that the Bush Administration may be ready to recognize and act on the serious issue of global warming!
Check out this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64344-2001Feb27.html
Note in particular the quote from Whitman that “There’s no question but that global warming is a real phenomenon, that it is occurring.” Who knows, maybe even those doubters here on SDMB will come around eventually!?!
I, too have been very concerned about possible global climate changes, and was angry as heck that GW apparently will turn his back on any problem or issue if it benefits industry.
However, my unquestioning support of the ‘global warming is real’ concept has recently started to falter, and I’m concerned that the science of the issue is getting politicised on both sides.
This paper http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/hockey/hockey.htm has made me really question the accepted vision of global warming in the 20th century. If you are at all interested in the science behind global warming, please read it.
I hardly think that the naysayers in the GW administration are acting from anything approaching pure motives when they call the ‘global warming + CO2 == our fault’ stampede ‘junk science’. They’re self-serving assholes. However, its possible that they’re also right.
We owe it to ourselves to very very careful examine the evidence of whether global warming is or is not a cyclical event v. one trigger or enhanced by human activities. It seems the evidence is quite thin on the latter, much thinner than some would have you believe.
Well, it’s always good to be skeptical, squeegee, although if this is the first encounter you’ve had with “global warming skepticism” I must say that you did come a little late to the dance.
Certainly there are still lots of unresolved questions about climate change, and certainly there are political issues on both sides of the debate. It’s still the case, however, that the basic conclusions of the IPCC—that global warming is occurring, and that there is a significant anthropogenic component to it—are accepted by the vast majority of climate scientists, and continue to be borne out by the vast majority of peer-reviewed research in the relevant fields. “Global warming skeptics” are an extremely small minority among qualified scientists, and several of the most vocal of them receive funding from the fossil-fuels industry, which again brings up the question of politicization.
As for John Daly, whose article you linked to, he is indeed a well-known global warming skeptic, but has few credentials as a climate scientist; he has no advanced degree, training, or research experience in a relevant field (in fact, I can’t find evidence for his qualifications in any scientific field, and as far as I know he has never published in a peer-reviewed journal: his online CV lists instead publications that include articles in the magazine New Woman and industry journals like Norwegian Oil Review and Australian Forest Industries Journal). That certainly doesn’t mean he can’t be right about something, but it needs to be taken into account when considering his claims to have “debunked” major findings by trained climate scientists. (Personally, I am inclined to be very dubious about any self-published online “research paper” with a background imitating a spiral-bound notebook, but that’s just my own little hangup. :))
I don’t have any use for many ‘global warming naysayers’, most of whom that I’ve heard have either a vested interest in the status quo or listen too credulously to those who do.
However, its long bothered me that the IPCC ‘hockey stick’ chart, a) does not show some well-accepted past temperature events such as the ‘little ice age’, and b) only shows the last 1000 years, which is certainly not long enough to show naturally-occuring cyclical temperature variations which may reflect on the temperature trends we’re seeing now.
I think John Daly, whatever his qualifications (as you rightly point out), makes a fairly convincing case that the IPCC chart has been politicized. At least for me, the removal of the error margins v. the original Mann chart on publication by the IPCC is a significent smoking gun in this regard. Massaging data to make an argument more pursuasive isn’t unheard of, but it’s not science.
John D. also makes a very good case that tree ring cores make a very poor climate record v. other types of reporting. All of this seems very glossed over at best in the IPCC report. I’m not saying John D. has answered all the questions, but that paper casts enough doubt, at least for me, to stop unquestioning acceptance of the IPCC conclusions.
I’m not saying that global warming isn’t occuring – of course it is! But is this a cyclical event? And has it occurred recently (and perhaps more severely in the case of the Middle Ages) and what was the global fallout when this has occurred before? These questions certainly beg more research.
And, personally, I think GeorgeW should put our money where his mouth is and assign, say $1b/year toward answering some of these questions.
I don’t want to let the ‘there are still questions that need to be answered’ line let anyone off the hook. I agree this problem is important – so let’s really turn up the research funds and find out what’s really going on in global climate. The last few years of research has turned up very important, and yes, even alarming new data. But we’re not done yet.
(I can’t imagine the ‘vast majority of climate scientists’ would argue that this is not true. If all climate questions are now known, they’d all be out of jobs. )
Great…and more research is currently being done. In the meantime, there is the political question of what we should do now because the atmospheric dynamics are not being put on hold pending our ability to answer the scientific questions more definitively. Which means one is faced with the scientific question of what our best current state of knowledge is. That is what is summarized in the current IPCC report and confirmed by a recent National Academy of Sciences report in response to questions posed by the Bush administration themselves.
This is a case where it is important to remember to the saying, “It is important to have an open mind but not so open that your brains fall out.” [In this case, it is more a matter not of brains falling out but of being filled with propaganda of those who have a strong economic interest in continuing to fight the scientific consensus and point out any disagreement on the part of a few individual scientists.]
P.S.–And despite how it is sometimes presented, the Kyoto accords represent a pretty reasonable compromise between what we should do if we were absolutely sure the dire scenarios predicted would actually unfold and what we should do in the event that they are incorrect. I.e., it is the prudent course to take pending further research. [E.g., just allowing everyone to continue driving around in their heavily subsidized SUV with the same degree of subsidization…just because we are not absolutely sure the exact extent of the subsidization due to the contribution of fossil fuels to global warming…is not the prudent approach.]
You appear to be changing the subject, at least if you’re responding to my post.
My point was that it is very disturbing, at least to me, that the IPCC report may show unbiased reporting of the temperature data. This is unconscionable, especially with so important a topic.
I agree, SUVs are a menace, and are resource hogs and drive up fuel prices. But this is only vaguely on-topic re: the IPCC reports and global warming in the 20th century.
Not to nitpick, but I’ve heard this quote as well, and I’ve also heard it disputed. Can anyone provide the original cite, pls? I mean, the actual study that surveys the climate scientists? Thanks.
