Climate of Skepticism
Feb 11, 2010
Peter J. Leithart
In light of the recent email scandal at the University of East Anglia, James Hoggan’s new book, Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming, is an amusing read. In the exposé, Hoggan, president of a public relations firm, details the dishonesty and chicanery of global warming skeptics. Aside from accepting money from Exxon, he asserts, skeptics have coerced the mainstream media to portray global warming as controversial among scientists, paying “junk scientists” to appear on Fox and CNN and inflating the list of scientists skeptical of manmade global warming. Oh, and they take money from Exxon.
Hoggan’s greatest fault in Climate Cover-Up is his apparent disdain for evidence. It’s remarkable how many of his arguments turn on a simple appeal to expertise, credentials, or repute. Indeed, the book is liberally peppered with more “experts” and “peer-reviewed journals” than could possibly be claimed to exist. Climate change believers are invariably “leading scientists” with “impressive resumes” and “dozens of scientific papers.”
In a token gesture of fairness, Hoggan shows grudging admiration for Stephen McIntyre, the Canadian statistician who exposed flaws in Michael Mann’s now iconic 1999 “hockey-stick” graph, first published by the International Panel on Climate Change in 2001. Hoggan then inform readers that McIntyre is “not a professional scientist” but has instead shown “dogged professionalism.” Further, he can’t refrain from cheap shots: McIntyre’s work, he says, has corrected a few “very narrow points of climate science” and is published in Energy and Environment, “a less than prestigious journal.” Hoggan’s underlying motive seems to be damage control; his colleague’s research did, after all, find that Mann’s “flawed computer program can even pull out spurious hockey stick shapes from lists of trendless random numbers.” McIntyre aside, the skeptics are a pitiful bunch, Hoggan suggests, with only a handful of scientific papers to their names and nary a true climate scientist among them. Skeptics may be scientists, but they’re over the hill—they are more often weathermen and lobbyists than scientists at all.
Hoggan is keen on reporting bad behavior among the skeptics, but shows little interest in investigating their stories from alternative points of view. It’s true that Exxon pours money into think tanks that spread skepticism about global warming. But by whom are climate scientists funded? Hoggan doesn’t say, but seems to believe their work is done in an apolitical vacuum of pure scientific inquiry. That Exxon merely wants to protect fossil fuels is, to Hoggan, an obvious and sufficient explanation for climate change skepticism. Corporate interests may well drive greed and dishonesty, but do not a good number profit from green technologies as well? Hoggan doesn’t care to investigate. In opposition to hundreds of “peer-reviewed” scientific papers, Mann’s hockey stick graph smoothed out well-established warming and cooling periods from the past millennium. How was that massive revision of climate history accepted so quickly and without opposition? Hoggan is curiously incurious.
Even the most prominent voices in the global warming debate earn little attention from Hoggan. Richard Lindzen, the Albert Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, earns only passing mention. In his one lonely reference, Hoggan seems to forget Lindzen’s wholly relevant credentials. He is also silent about Lindzen’s long 1992 article revealing the pressures lobbyists exert to drive scientific “consensus.” For that side of the story, we must refer to Christopher Booker’s The Real Global Warming Disaster. A columnist for the Telegraph, Booker quotes this choice bit from Lindzen’s analysis: “these lobbying groups have budgets of several million dollars and employ about 50,000 people” and use “global warming” as a “major battle cry in their fundraising” while “the media unquestioningly accept the pronouncements of these groups.” Lindzen’s article was apparently rejected by Science after editors concluded it would not interest readers. Science readers were, however, interested in a rebuttal to Lindzen’s work published some time later.
Now that the East Anglia emails have given us a glance behind the curtain of the “peer review” process and allowed us to see a bit of the jitterbuggery that goes on among climate scientists, Hoggan’s credibility as an author is more than suspect. Sad that a book has become a relic in the year of its publication.
As it happens, Ian Plimer, another scientist not mentioned in Hoggan’s book, wrote a compelling analysis of the limitations of peer-review before the East Anglia emails were made public. A geologist at the University of Adelaide, Plimer is the author of Heaven and Earth: Global Warming—The Missing Science, the book that serves as the bible of global warming skepticism. Plimer presents the historical evidence for warming and cooling on earth prior to the use of fossil fuels, and notes that global warming and cooling occurs on other planets, where petroleum emissions are presumably not present. The culprit in the climate change trial, Plimer argues in great detail, is the sun. Small variations in solar activity can have major effects on earth’s climate, a piece of evidence largely ignored by IPCC models.
In the final chapter of his book, Plimer examines the sociology of climate science. While “the peer review process of scientific journals is probably the best process we have,” it is “highly flawed. Editors can influence acceptance or rejection by their choice of reviewers, and even impartial reviewers “normally do not ask for the primary data.” Good scientific work is often done outside the peer-review circle, especially when it breaks no new ground. As a case in point, a study from Flinders University in Australia, showing that Pacific Ocean levels are static, was denied publication after scientists concluded that “nothing happened” in the study.
Hoggan’s relentless appeal to expertise is hollow from start to finish. Skepticism about global warming has always been, at its core, skepticism about scientific hubris. If the overreaching claims of global warming inadvertently encourage a climate of skepticism, the movement will have done a service to science, putting a chip in scientism and the cult of the expert—two of modernity’s most cherished idols.
Peter J. Leithart is Senior Fellow of Theology and Literature at New St. Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho, and pastor of Trinity Reformed Church in Moscow.
Comments:
2.11.2010 | 1:02pm
Ken Zaretzke says:
Yes, there are unscrupulous scientists, and the computer models are subject to GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). But what about the clear evidence of the ice cores, which show that carbon dioxide is already dangerously high, and getting higher? And the oceans--for a long time they absorbed excess carbon dioxide, but now they are pushing back, and the end of that can only be catastrophe for the environment and for what we have been inordinately proud to call "civilization."
2.11.2010 | 1:46pm
Ricketson says:
"... Mann’s hockey stick graph smoothed out well-established warming and cooling periods from the past millennium. How was that massive revision of climate history accepted so quickly and without opposition?"
Why do you say that it was accepted quickly and without opposition? I'm guessing that you are referring to the “Medieval Warm Period” and the “Little Ice Age”.
In 2006, the National Academy of Sciences released a report on temperature reconstruction, in which the summary reads:
"Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700."
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=1
Why do you say that it was accepted quickly and without opposition? I'm guessing that you are referring to the “Medieval Warm Period” and the “Little Ice Age”.
In 2006, the National Academy of Sciences released a report on temperature reconstruction, in which the summary reads:
"Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700."
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=1
2.11.2010 | 4:45pm
michael says:
Interesting how deniers who are not scientists are considered not worth listening to. Einstein was not a scientist, so I guess all of his ideas must have been bunk too. Whatever happened to the time when we listened to people and based our opinions on what they had to say on logic, reason and rational thought, instead of what their job title is or past successes were.
2.11.2010 | 5:15pm
Stephen J. says:
"But what about the clear evidence of the ice cores, which show that carbon dioxide is already dangerously high, and getting higher?"
What ice core samples have established, to the best of my knowledge, is that CO2 levels at present are higher than they have ever historically been. They also, unfortunately, establish that historical increases in natural CO2 levels have lagged *behind* temperature increases by about 800 years.
This does not prove the two have no relation; the usual AGW counterargument to this point is that historical CO2 emissions were triggered by increasing temperatures and then further aggravated that increase (which is not implausible in itself, but it's conveniently unfalsifiable). However, it does strongly undermine the key AGW assertion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the *only* possible explanatory candidate for the primary climate forcer behind the 1975-1998 observed temperature increases -- which in turn undermines the case that significantly reducing industrial activity immediately and worldwide, by whatever measures are necessary, is the only possible and effective way to prevent imminent catastrophe.
Appeals to authority do not prove a hypothesis, and demonstrations of malfeasance (as it must be called; at best it is the refusal to share data, calculations and processes, at worst deliberately concealed falsification of data) do not disprove it. What needs to be called out is the attempt to have it both ways -- to somehow claim that one is true but not the other; that "our" authority bolsters our case while "theirs" is irrelevant, or that "their" misbehaviour proves malice aforethought while "ours" is only excuseable shortcutting to a conclusion we already "know" is "right".
What ice core samples have established, to the best of my knowledge, is that CO2 levels at present are higher than they have ever historically been. They also, unfortunately, establish that historical increases in natural CO2 levels have lagged *behind* temperature increases by about 800 years.
This does not prove the two have no relation; the usual AGW counterargument to this point is that historical CO2 emissions were triggered by increasing temperatures and then further aggravated that increase (which is not implausible in itself, but it's conveniently unfalsifiable). However, it does strongly undermine the key AGW assertion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the *only* possible explanatory candidate for the primary climate forcer behind the 1975-1998 observed temperature increases -- which in turn undermines the case that significantly reducing industrial activity immediately and worldwide, by whatever measures are necessary, is the only possible and effective way to prevent imminent catastrophe.
Appeals to authority do not prove a hypothesis, and demonstrations of malfeasance (as it must be called; at best it is the refusal to share data, calculations and processes, at worst deliberately concealed falsification of data) do not disprove it. What needs to be called out is the attempt to have it both ways -- to somehow claim that one is true but not the other; that "our" authority bolsters our case while "theirs" is irrelevant, or that "their" misbehaviour proves malice aforethought while "ours" is only excuseable shortcutting to a conclusion we already "know" is "right".
2.11.2010 | 5:18pm
Ricketson says:
"He is also silent about Lindzen’s long 1992 article revealing the pressures lobbyists exert to drive scientific “consensus.”"
In the absence of any names (either for the article or the lobbying groups), I have no idea of what to think about these accusations.
However, I did look up this Lindzen guy, and read much of one his articles on the topic:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
I know nothing of Hoggin's work, but maybe he ignored Lindzen because Lindzen is prone to making defamatory statements based on shoddy scholarship. IN the above article, Linzen mentioned the legendary "global cooling hysteria" of the 1970s and mentioned two books as being behind it (by Schneider and Tickell). Having heard much about this hysteria but having never seen any example of it, I wanted to see what had been written.
While I didn't get the actual book from the library, I found several reviews and excerpts indicating that these books were in no way promoting any global cooling hysteria.
The most revealing items were these:
Introduction to Crispin Tickell's Climatic Change & World Affairs:
http://www.crispintickell.com/page80.html
(note, this is from the 1986 edition, not the 1977 edition; part of a review of the 1977 edition is here, and doesn't mention cooling http://www.jstor.org/pss/3990351)
A review of Stephen Schneider's Genesis Strategy:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1297612
Both of these items make clear that the authors were concerned with climate change in general--warming or cooling; natural or artificial. To some extent, they were merely informing the public about the existence of the "little ice age" that was referred to in this article.
Regarding Lindzen's poor scholarship, I would hope that a reputable publisher would not publish articles with poor scholarship in them--this is a large part of what peer-review is about (not about validating the analysis that was done). The East Anglica emails (that I saw) addressing peer-review showed nothing more than some complaints about a journal publishing an article with horrendous scholarship.
In the absence of any names (either for the article or the lobbying groups), I have no idea of what to think about these accusations.
However, I did look up this Lindzen guy, and read much of one his articles on the topic:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
I know nothing of Hoggin's work, but maybe he ignored Lindzen because Lindzen is prone to making defamatory statements based on shoddy scholarship. IN the above article, Linzen mentioned the legendary "global cooling hysteria" of the 1970s and mentioned two books as being behind it (by Schneider and Tickell). Having heard much about this hysteria but having never seen any example of it, I wanted to see what had been written.
While I didn't get the actual book from the library, I found several reviews and excerpts indicating that these books were in no way promoting any global cooling hysteria.
The most revealing items were these:
Introduction to Crispin Tickell's Climatic Change & World Affairs:
http://www.crispintickell.com/page80.html
(note, this is from the 1986 edition, not the 1977 edition; part of a review of the 1977 edition is here, and doesn't mention cooling http://www.jstor.org/pss/3990351)
A review of Stephen Schneider's Genesis Strategy:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1297612
Both of these items make clear that the authors were concerned with climate change in general--warming or cooling; natural or artificial. To some extent, they were merely informing the public about the existence of the "little ice age" that was referred to in this article.
Regarding Lindzen's poor scholarship, I would hope that a reputable publisher would not publish articles with poor scholarship in them--this is a large part of what peer-review is about (not about validating the analysis that was done). The East Anglica emails (that I saw) addressing peer-review showed nothing more than some complaints about a journal publishing an article with horrendous scholarship.
2.11.2010 | 5:24pm
Calvin Beisner says:
Particularly funny that the book was released on September 29, 2009--right about the time when www.ClimateAudit.org was beginning to delve into the Yamal tree-ring scandal that turned out to be an important part of Climategate, though the release of the emails from East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit didn't happen till almost two months later--after the BBC sat on it for that long!
2.11.2010 | 5:29pm
Ricketson says:
"Small variations in solar activity can have major effects on earth’s climate, a piece of evidence largely ignored by IPCC models."
Do you really want to get into the technical details of climate models?
The implication that mainstream climate researchers ignore solar variation is absolutely false. This review of Tickell's 1986 book makes clear that he was considering it then:
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/full_text_search/AllCRCDocs/tickclim.htm
This data from the 2007 IPCC report makes clear that they were also thinking about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcings.svg
Was it in the computer models? I don't know, but it doesn't matter--the models are just the icing on the cake of climate change theory.
Do you really want to get into the technical details of climate models?
The implication that mainstream climate researchers ignore solar variation is absolutely false. This review of Tickell's 1986 book makes clear that he was considering it then:
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/full_text_search/AllCRCDocs/tickclim.htm
This data from the 2007 IPCC report makes clear that they were also thinking about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcings.svg
Was it in the computer models? I don't know, but it doesn't matter--the models are just the icing on the cake of climate change theory.
2.11.2010 | 6:15pm
Ken Smith says:
I am pleased that First Things has begun to address this enormously important issue. There is, in my opinion, no issue in global culture and politics that is--at the moment at least--more important. The theory of catastrophic CO2-induced climate change is potentially the most powerful tool in existence for remaking global economic relations. The implications are myriad, and should be discussed and debated vigorously.
2.11.2010 | 7:28pm
Joel says:
Certainly one can appreciate the counterthrust of climate skeptics against a contingent of highly political warming scientists who have for years refused to publish or discuss evidence or studies contrary to the fabricated "consensus" in leading scientific journals, which also happen to be populated by "warmers". Theirs is a necessary voice, and if their science is so suspect or lacks credibility, you would think that an open debate in scientific journals could easily indicate who had the better arguments and theories. Regarding the last post, it seems that the climate skeptics claim that specific pieces of data are omitted from climate models so as to produce the results most conducive to warming theories. In other words, they admit "positive" date, not "negative" data. The fact that such scientists can in one breath mention the presence of certain factors (solar activity, medieval warming period), which you call "thinking about it", and purposefully in the same breath not include such information in their graphs and models (hockey stick), strikes me as shady. Secondly, their models have not even proven to correctly predict current phenomena, let alone future phenomena, and seem to exist more in a vacuum than the empirical world (by their model calculations, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere should be causing greater warming, but it is unfortunately not). Third, as mentioned, climate warmers are every bit as guilty of associating with partners who seek to profit from their research, as they receive millions of dollars in grants to fund their research, and will continue to receive funding provided their evidence helps the warming cause, rather than hurts it.
Couple all of that with the grand push for global wealth redistribution and carbon credit taxation and doomsday timelines, and one can appreciate the climate skeptic's request for more debate and research and time before we reshape global politics and finance, since there admittedly is still so much we don't know about climate science.
In the end, I've made many assertions with no specific links to back it up, so I leave you with one of the better "climate skeptics" websites where you can dig to your heart's content, and see where they have good points or shoddy arguments. Lindzen's work is there, as is Lord Monckton's and Bob Carter's and various others. The papers are interesting, but the videos are also illuminating. I've actually found them remarkably more convincing than the warmers. Wondering what ya'll think.
www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org
Couple all of that with the grand push for global wealth redistribution and carbon credit taxation and doomsday timelines, and one can appreciate the climate skeptic's request for more debate and research and time before we reshape global politics and finance, since there admittedly is still so much we don't know about climate science.
In the end, I've made many assertions with no specific links to back it up, so I leave you with one of the better "climate skeptics" websites where you can dig to your heart's content, and see where they have good points or shoddy arguments. Lindzen's work is there, as is Lord Monckton's and Bob Carter's and various others. The papers are interesting, but the videos are also illuminating. I've actually found them remarkably more convincing than the warmers. Wondering what ya'll think.
www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org
2.11.2010 | 7:40pm
Joel says:
somehow my last post was deleted when I submitted, and so rather than rewriting, I'll point you to the gist of what I would say or where I would get my information from:
www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org
It includes Lindzen's work, Lord Monckton's, Bob Carter's, and others, so you can see for yourself. The papers are quite interesting, as are the videos. Also illuminating are the quotes pages, where global warmers reveal their truer colors.
Let me know what ya'll think, but I find their science and arguments more convincing than the warmers, especially when the graphs and models proposed by the warmers continually prove suspect (admitting only of "positive" data, not "negative data) and incapable of predicting even current phenomena, let alone future phenomena, and yet the warmers hysterically want to institute global legislation and wealth redistribution without further debate and research. No wonder the skeptics are alarmed.
www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org
It includes Lindzen's work, Lord Monckton's, Bob Carter's, and others, so you can see for yourself. The papers are quite interesting, as are the videos. Also illuminating are the quotes pages, where global warmers reveal their truer colors.
Let me know what ya'll think, but I find their science and arguments more convincing than the warmers, especially when the graphs and models proposed by the warmers continually prove suspect (admitting only of "positive" data, not "negative data) and incapable of predicting even current phenomena, let alone future phenomena, and yet the warmers hysterically want to institute global legislation and wealth redistribution without further debate and research. No wonder the skeptics are alarmed.
2.11.2010 | 7:55pm
Joel says:
Hopefully third time trying to post something will work...
www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org
www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org
2.11.2010 | 9:13pm
C. Blechinger says:
Greetings,
It is interesting that in a magazine devoted to the relations between God and man, there is no consideration if God would give man such great power that the temperature of the earth, our home, would shift to the point that it would self destruct?
Are we so powerful??
I pray not and I think not.
No computer models required.
It is interesting that in a magazine devoted to the relations between God and man, there is no consideration if God would give man such great power that the temperature of the earth, our home, would shift to the point that it would self destruct?
Are we so powerful??
I pray not and I think not.
No computer models required.
2.11.2010 | 9:58pm
Martin McPhillips says:
Global warming was sold as unprecedented and dramatic warming (i.e., the hockey stick). It's neither.
About climate change it can be said that climate changes, and that Earth warms and cools.
The minimum unit of geological study here is the Holocene, the app. 10,000 year old interglacial warm period that we live in (and during which all known civilizations arose), which was established when the current (not last, we're still technically in it) ice age loosened its grip.
There is nothing unusual, unprecedented, or dramatic about the slight warming we've seen since circa 1850, when we emerged from the "Little Ice Age." And the Vikings will not soon be returning to Greenland, which was indeed green and habitable a thousand years ago.
About climate change it can be said that climate changes, and that Earth warms and cools.
The minimum unit of geological study here is the Holocene, the app. 10,000 year old interglacial warm period that we live in (and during which all known civilizations arose), which was established when the current (not last, we're still technically in it) ice age loosened its grip.
There is nothing unusual, unprecedented, or dramatic about the slight warming we've seen since circa 1850, when we emerged from the "Little Ice Age." And the Vikings will not soon be returning to Greenland, which was indeed green and habitable a thousand years ago.
2.11.2010 | 11:29pm
vonMises says:
Science has shown that is takes 10 years to master a given field of human endeavor. Being fairly smart this means if I put in the time and sweat I could become a climatologist in that amount of time. I have chosen other fields for different reasons. What that shows is that a lay person may not know the exact details but, once they know the jist of the subject they can smell a rat. Especially with a little research with honest checks and balances.
Scientists problem is that they build up specialization as if that makes them super smart. When in fact they most likely just put in the time and sweat. It doesn't increase their innate intelligences. It just saves them time and helps us all, most of the time. This should make any specialists weary of Hubris and bad philosophy in defense of slight evidence, in themselves or others. They may be on the other end of the problem eventually. Smart people often hide behind special language to avoid sharing knowledge. They also may just not be smart enough to explain to busy people as smart or not as smart at them what they are doing.
That is what half of this Climate thing is all about. Trust us where the experts. While most of the time is correct. If it comes to light that something is amiss, the experts should be happy to quickly correct the data in a courteous manner, anything else becomes suspect to those who know better. Experts are people who happen to have special knowledge, but not unknowable to anyone else knowledge, they are therefore only as trustworthy as the data and explanations they provide.
This reminds me of the chapter in Freakonomics where the author discusses Relators. They have special knowledge that helps sell houses faster. Sometimes that knowledge leads them to sell houses faster for less money because they have some conflict of interest. This is bore out by the way they sell their own houses. Scientist have special knowledge and until more people understand their conflicts of interest we have will have weaker science.
Scientists problem is that they build up specialization as if that makes them super smart. When in fact they most likely just put in the time and sweat. It doesn't increase their innate intelligences. It just saves them time and helps us all, most of the time. This should make any specialists weary of Hubris and bad philosophy in defense of slight evidence, in themselves or others. They may be on the other end of the problem eventually. Smart people often hide behind special language to avoid sharing knowledge. They also may just not be smart enough to explain to busy people as smart or not as smart at them what they are doing.
That is what half of this Climate thing is all about. Trust us where the experts. While most of the time is correct. If it comes to light that something is amiss, the experts should be happy to quickly correct the data in a courteous manner, anything else becomes suspect to those who know better. Experts are people who happen to have special knowledge, but not unknowable to anyone else knowledge, they are therefore only as trustworthy as the data and explanations they provide.
This reminds me of the chapter in Freakonomics where the author discusses Relators. They have special knowledge that helps sell houses faster. Sometimes that knowledge leads them to sell houses faster for less money because they have some conflict of interest. This is bore out by the way they sell their own houses. Scientist have special knowledge and until more people understand their conflicts of interest we have will have weaker science.
2.12.2010 | 11:41am
Steve Macdonald says:
To anyone who has objectively followed this issue for the past ten years, it is patently obvious that the whole thing is a massive left-wing stalking horse. The amazing thing to me is that so many seemingly rational people of faith (or otherwise) still lend this absurd "theory" any credence whatsoever.
"Global Warming" is merely the latest "progressive" attempt to appropriate science to further their godless agenda. The last time they tried anything on this scale was the notorious and frankly evil Eugenics movement of the early 20th century (from whence Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood emerged).
"Global Warming" is merely the latest "progressive" attempt to appropriate science to further their godless agenda. The last time they tried anything on this scale was the notorious and frankly evil Eugenics movement of the early 20th century (from whence Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood emerged).
2.12.2010 | 1:52pm
Ken Zaretzke says:
The ice cores, as I understand it, show not only that carbon dioxide levels are higher than they have been for the last 600,000 years, but that when they were previously as high as they will become in the next few decades (400-450ppm) if nothing is done, the climate was very different--in fact, inhospitable to humans, or at least to the development of civilization. Getting to that point might or might not take centuries, but it will be irreversible once the parts-per-million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reaches a level in which the global climate rebels and seeks a new steady-state. It is indisputable that levels of carbon dioxide have risen sharply since the onset of the Industrial Revolution. High levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere--forcing climate change that is several orders of magnitude faster than natural increases in carbon dioxide levels--is especially dangerous. And what has been discovered in the last couple of years about the acidity of the ocean suggests that time is getting very short indeed.
Also, "reducing industrial activity immediately and worldwide, by whatever means necessary," strikes me as something of a caricature. Leading AWG-ists (believers in anthropogenic or human-caused global warming) want us to use nuclear power until we find a better source of energy, and they disdain biofuels and wind farms as counterproductive and environmentally destructive. The caricature fits the Greens, but it does not fit James Lovelock or James Hansen. (The latter, incidentally, has delivered a blistering critique of cap-and-dividend, which he says cannot work and is mainly good for Wall Street. He also defends, indirectly, the Bush Administration's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol in his recently released book.)
The ice cores should be at the heart of the debate. I've noticed that the "deniers" say very little about the evidence and implications of the ice cores (at least in their books). I myself was converted from global-warming skepticism by a fascinating book, "Thin Ice: Exploring Climate Change on the World's Highest Mountains," which I would like to recommend to interested readers.
Also, "reducing industrial activity immediately and worldwide, by whatever means necessary," strikes me as something of a caricature. Leading AWG-ists (believers in anthropogenic or human-caused global warming) want us to use nuclear power until we find a better source of energy, and they disdain biofuels and wind farms as counterproductive and environmentally destructive. The caricature fits the Greens, but it does not fit James Lovelock or James Hansen. (The latter, incidentally, has delivered a blistering critique of cap-and-dividend, which he says cannot work and is mainly good for Wall Street. He also defends, indirectly, the Bush Administration's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol in his recently released book.)
The ice cores should be at the heart of the debate. I've noticed that the "deniers" say very little about the evidence and implications of the ice cores (at least in their books). I myself was converted from global-warming skepticism by a fascinating book, "Thin Ice: Exploring Climate Change on the World's Highest Mountains," which I would like to recommend to interested readers.
2.12.2010 | 5:32pm
Ricketson says:
I noticed that some of these comments (particularly Steve M's) suggest that climate change theories should be rejected because of their political or religious implications, rather than because of the science.
I suggest that the political and religious issues should be dealt with as political and religious issues. If your political and religious beliefs can't stand up to an arbitrary scientific finding, then maybe there's something wrong with those beliefs.
FWIW: no, global warming does not demand massive wealth transfers and radical expansion of government power. Also, God definitely did give humanity the power to radically reshape the Earth -- 7 billion people, nuclear fusion, mining technologies (bringing all types of junk from the depths of the earth and changing the landscape), asphalt, deforestation, hunting animals to extinction...I could go on and on.
I suggest that the political and religious issues should be dealt with as political and religious issues. If your political and religious beliefs can't stand up to an arbitrary scientific finding, then maybe there's something wrong with those beliefs.
FWIW: no, global warming does not demand massive wealth transfers and radical expansion of government power. Also, God definitely did give humanity the power to radically reshape the Earth -- 7 billion people, nuclear fusion, mining technologies (bringing all types of junk from the depths of the earth and changing the landscape), asphalt, deforestation, hunting animals to extinction...I could go on and on.
2.12.2010 | 5:54pm
Ken Zaretzke says:
Correction: cap-and-trade, not cap-and-dividend. A fee-and-dividend is the preferrable alternative.
2.13.2010 | 11:15am
Stephen J. says:
"The ice cores, as I understand it, show not only that carbon dioxide levels are higher than they have been for the last 600,000 years, but that when they were previously as high as they will become in the next few decades (400-450ppm) if nothing is done, the climate was very different--in fact, inhospitable to humans, or at least to the development of civilization."
That is a fair observation; the problem is that, as the old statistical chestnut goes, it demonstrates only correlation and not causation. The case that CO2 levels specifically are the primary temperature forcer upon climate remains unproven and, from what I have read, still highly questionable. (That they are *a* temperature forcer is not questioned; that they make enough difference to be the critical element is what many skeptics question, especially given that it has now been demonstrated in the past few years that other climate factors *can* overpower whatever warming CO2 causes.)
When you factor in the disgraceful state of the data sets (both direct and proxy), temperature stations and observational procedures, making conclusive assertions about the causes of temperature forcing, or guaranteeing the effectiveness of proposed methods to mitigate or prevent it, seems highly premature when it cannot even be stated with certainty exactly how much temperature has been forced.
"Also, 'reducing industrial activity immediately and worldwide, by whatever means necessary,' strikes me as something of a caricature. ...The caricature fits the Greens, but it does not fit James Lovelock or James Hansen."
That is also a fair observation; the problem is that neither Lovelock nor Hansen is likely to be the primary or final designer of whatever measures may actually be implemented. The caricature fits the Greens, but it is the Greens -- and the politicians who want to realize their own political or economic interests from the Greens' goals -- who will set the policy. Which in my mind makes it only likelier that any policy which *is* set will be hugely inefficient and ineffective.
(Which is exactly why Thomas Friedman spoke admiringly of China's totalitarianism recently, as the only government which could do, he believed, what he thought necessary to implement actually effective policies.)
But the plain truth is that, caricature or not, the kind of emissions reductions that have been called for, where scientists are willing to state hard figures, *will* require an unacceptable constriction in human energy generation and industrial manufacturing; put simply, evaluated in GDP terms, for our civilization to reduce emissions as required we would *all* have to return to approximately a 1920s level of industry and power, and *no* nation worldwide could be allowed to go beyond that for at least fifty years. Even assuming that was possible to do at all, it is impossible for me to imagine it being done justly, decently and humanely.
That is a fair observation; the problem is that, as the old statistical chestnut goes, it demonstrates only correlation and not causation. The case that CO2 levels specifically are the primary temperature forcer upon climate remains unproven and, from what I have read, still highly questionable. (That they are *a* temperature forcer is not questioned; that they make enough difference to be the critical element is what many skeptics question, especially given that it has now been demonstrated in the past few years that other climate factors *can* overpower whatever warming CO2 causes.)
When you factor in the disgraceful state of the data sets (both direct and proxy), temperature stations and observational procedures, making conclusive assertions about the causes of temperature forcing, or guaranteeing the effectiveness of proposed methods to mitigate or prevent it, seems highly premature when it cannot even be stated with certainty exactly how much temperature has been forced.
"Also, 'reducing industrial activity immediately and worldwide, by whatever means necessary,' strikes me as something of a caricature. ...The caricature fits the Greens, but it does not fit James Lovelock or James Hansen."
That is also a fair observation; the problem is that neither Lovelock nor Hansen is likely to be the primary or final designer of whatever measures may actually be implemented. The caricature fits the Greens, but it is the Greens -- and the politicians who want to realize their own political or economic interests from the Greens' goals -- who will set the policy. Which in my mind makes it only likelier that any policy which *is* set will be hugely inefficient and ineffective.
(Which is exactly why Thomas Friedman spoke admiringly of China's totalitarianism recently, as the only government which could do, he believed, what he thought necessary to implement actually effective policies.)
But the plain truth is that, caricature or not, the kind of emissions reductions that have been called for, where scientists are willing to state hard figures, *will* require an unacceptable constriction in human energy generation and industrial manufacturing; put simply, evaluated in GDP terms, for our civilization to reduce emissions as required we would *all* have to return to approximately a 1920s level of industry and power, and *no* nation worldwide could be allowed to go beyond that for at least fifty years. Even assuming that was possible to do at all, it is impossible for me to imagine it being done justly, decently and humanely.
2.13.2010 | 5:59pm
Artaban says:
To Ricketson and Ken Z: The human contribution to CO2 levels is and continues to be minimal and is but one of many variables influencing climate. To focus on CO2 to the exclusion of variances in solar output, human and natural aerosol emissions (Pinatubo's eruption in 1991 reduced global temps by 1 degree C for two years), albedo effects, earth's orbit (and the Milankovitch cycle), etc is quite simply very poor science.
Furthermore, when one examines all the available carbon sinks, is CO2 really a problem? Consider that the Taiga--estimated by many to comprise 27% of the world's forests--contributes significantly less to carbon uptake because of the extreme colds in the forest. Trees there grow at a rate 3-4 times more slowly than the same species in warmer regions. When those forests warm, they'll absorb 3-4 times more CO2, and help reestablish lower atmospheric ppms.
Consider too statements made by Steven Chu, president Obama's own energy secretary, that converting rooftops from dark colors to white or light colors (thereby reflecting more sunlight) would be equivalent to removing between 24 and 44 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere.
Furthermore, when one examines all the available carbon sinks, is CO2 really a problem? Consider that the Taiga--estimated by many to comprise 27% of the world's forests--contributes significantly less to carbon uptake because of the extreme colds in the forest. Trees there grow at a rate 3-4 times more slowly than the same species in warmer regions. When those forests warm, they'll absorb 3-4 times more CO2, and help reestablish lower atmospheric ppms.
Consider too statements made by Steven Chu, president Obama's own energy secretary, that converting rooftops from dark colors to white or light colors (thereby reflecting more sunlight) would be equivalent to removing between 24 and 44 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere.
2.14.2010 | 12:34pm
Rickteson says:
"To focus on CO2 to the exclusion of variances in solar output, human and natural aerosol emissions (Pinatubo's eruption in 1991 reduced global temps by 1 degree C for two years), albedo effects, earth's orbit (and the Milankovitch cycle), etc is quite simply very poor science."
The above statement implies that researchers are ignoring everything except CO2, whith is simply false, as is clear from a quick glance at this data from the IPCC report:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcings.svg
This confusion illustrates the value of seeking expert opinion rather than relying on laymen to explain the strength and weaknesses of various research programs. Experts have actually read the vast and diverse research literature. They tend not to make baseless assertions about what is being overlooked by the research.
This is one of the main purposes of peer-review: to make sure that the author is not ignoring some issue that other researchers have already identified. Without that sort of quality control, authors can either make their own work seem more innovative than it really is, or they can pick and choose data that fits their hypothesis and ignore anything that contradicts it.
Experts can spot these omissions, laymen can't.
The above statement implies that researchers are ignoring everything except CO2, whith is simply false, as is clear from a quick glance at this data from the IPCC report:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcings.svg
This confusion illustrates the value of seeking expert opinion rather than relying on laymen to explain the strength and weaknesses of various research programs. Experts have actually read the vast and diverse research literature. They tend not to make baseless assertions about what is being overlooked by the research.
This is one of the main purposes of peer-review: to make sure that the author is not ignoring some issue that other researchers have already identified. Without that sort of quality control, authors can either make their own work seem more innovative than it really is, or they can pick and choose data that fits their hypothesis and ignore anything that contradicts it.
Experts can spot these omissions, laymen can't.
2.15.2010 | 4:37pm
Ken Zaretzke says:
Stephen J.:
I absolutely agree with what you say about the Greens. Their opposition to clean energy--in the form of nuclear energy--makes them enemies of any serious global-warming solution (I'm tempted to say it makes them enemies of civilization and of humanity). One of our political parties is beholden to the environmental utopians and is unlikely to push for third- and fourth-generation nuclear reactors. But the other political party should urge a Manhattan-style program to replace fossil fuels with nuclear energy. It's a political winner, and the world's future depends on it, so why not?
Some scientists, such as Richard Lindzen, believe the 33 percent Celsius greenhouse effect is overwhelmingly due to gases other than carbon dioxide (such as water vapor), while others believe carbon dioxide causes a 5-10 degree (Celsius) warming. The debate about AGW may turn on who is right about this. But I find it hard to believe, pace Richard Lindzen, that carbon dioxide can cause only about 2 percent of the greenhouse effect.
In *natural* climate oscillations, the change in the level of carbon dioxide follows temperature change by several hundred years (as you said earlier), but this might be because it takes that long for the oceans to release carbon dioxide in response to the warming, by increasing ocean turbulence (with the increased temperature itself being caused by the planet's tilt on its axis, exposing the surface of the Earth to more sun). But I don't think an increase in the level of *non-natural*--industrial--carbon dioxide is in the same boat as natural increases. And besides, if it were true that human-caused carbon dioxide is not a problem, then how do we explain the fact that the ocean is suddenly becoming ill, most visibly in the dying of coral reefs around the world--in the Caribbean, 80 percent of the corals are already dead. The pH of the ocean has been remarkably constant for millions of years--until now. Prima facie, that's extremely worrisome.
I absolutely agree with what you say about the Greens. Their opposition to clean energy--in the form of nuclear energy--makes them enemies of any serious global-warming solution (I'm tempted to say it makes them enemies of civilization and of humanity). One of our political parties is beholden to the environmental utopians and is unlikely to push for third- and fourth-generation nuclear reactors. But the other political party should urge a Manhattan-style program to replace fossil fuels with nuclear energy. It's a political winner, and the world's future depends on it, so why not?
Some scientists, such as Richard Lindzen, believe the 33 percent Celsius greenhouse effect is overwhelmingly due to gases other than carbon dioxide (such as water vapor), while others believe carbon dioxide causes a 5-10 degree (Celsius) warming. The debate about AGW may turn on who is right about this. But I find it hard to believe, pace Richard Lindzen, that carbon dioxide can cause only about 2 percent of the greenhouse effect.
In *natural* climate oscillations, the change in the level of carbon dioxide follows temperature change by several hundred years (as you said earlier), but this might be because it takes that long for the oceans to release carbon dioxide in response to the warming, by increasing ocean turbulence (with the increased temperature itself being caused by the planet's tilt on its axis, exposing the surface of the Earth to more sun). But I don't think an increase in the level of *non-natural*--industrial--carbon dioxide is in the same boat as natural increases. And besides, if it were true that human-caused carbon dioxide is not a problem, then how do we explain the fact that the ocean is suddenly becoming ill, most visibly in the dying of coral reefs around the world--in the Caribbean, 80 percent of the corals are already dead. The pH of the ocean has been remarkably constant for millions of years--until now. Prima facie, that's extremely worrisome.
2.15.2010 | 6:31pm
Artaban says:
"Experts can spot these omissions, laymen can't. "
What a laughable idea. The whole point of peer review is that experts DO overlook significant data and confounding variables. The more individuals cross-checking methodology and data, the better, as someone will hopefully (though not always) catch a mistake.
In fact, many of the breakthroughs in science were made by individuals who were not accredited "experts" in their fields--even in climatology (as the story of Milutin Milankovitch so clearly illustrates).
I find it interesting, Ricketson, that your response is to try make baseless accusations about me, rather than argue any of the substantive points in my response (concerning Chu, Taiga, Pinatubo, etc.). Who's guilty of "omission" here?
What a laughable idea. The whole point of peer review is that experts DO overlook significant data and confounding variables. The more individuals cross-checking methodology and data, the better, as someone will hopefully (though not always) catch a mistake.
In fact, many of the breakthroughs in science were made by individuals who were not accredited "experts" in their fields--even in climatology (as the story of Milutin Milankovitch so clearly illustrates).
I find it interesting, Ricketson, that your response is to try make baseless accusations about me, rather than argue any of the substantive points in my response (concerning Chu, Taiga, Pinatubo, etc.). Who's guilty of "omission" here?
2.15.2010 | 7:25pm
Artaban says:
Ken, concerning increasing pH in oceans given that we know of the extensive gassing occurs through natural processes (volcanic vents on the ocean floor), again, I think it premature to blame humanity. Sadly, it may not be within our control to stop. Additionally, I've seen several papers that hypothesized sunscreen was killing much of the coastal coral, so I'm again inclined to think a human CO2 cause overblown.
On the other hand, if you want to restore oceanic pH to previous levels, what better way than to increase the volume of water, and the melting of glacial and polar regions?
On the other hand, if you want to restore oceanic pH to previous levels, what better way than to increase the volume of water, and the melting of glacial and polar regions?
2.15.2010 | 7:43pm
T. Murphy says:
It is ironic that Leithart trashes experts and the "cult of the expert", and then signs his piece and lists his credentials. He lets us know that he is a "Senior Fellow of Theology and Literature at New St. Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho, and pastor of Trinity Reformed Church in Moscow".
2.15.2010 | 10:00pm
newscaper says:
Those people who simply claim that it is inconceivable human influence could affect the climate are wrong.
The only correct view is that the AGW'ers have grossly failed to make their case, with further monkey business coming to light since this article was written.
Do I think it would be fine and dandy if CO2 were to quadruple in the next 50 years? That's not an experiment I would want to perform. But as the AGW case falls apart it is clear that we have much, much more time to work on better energy sources, without resorting to socialism.
The uphill battle faced by the AGWers wrt CO2 is that *on the basic science* there is vastly more water vapor in the atmosphere and it actually blocks a much larger swathe of the IR spectrum than CO2. The big lie is that the greatest 'greenhouse gas' BY FAR (H2O) is left out of every mainstream article on greenhouse gases. Further, water vapor is highly dynamic and poorly modeled by the 'climate scientists' -- like cloud cover it is not modeled from the ground up on physics grounds, but is simply a set of fudge factors they fiddle with to try get the results they expect.
I don't have a PhD, but I have degrees in Mechanical Engineering (with lots of math and physics and some simulations & modelling) and Computer Science (I was a university instructor for 6 years. So I have far more knowledge of what is going on here than the average layman -- and what I see is crap. Heck, I would have flunked Physics I lab if I kept notes and data of the sorry caliber these guys did.
Interesting that Obama's massive stimulus packages did not do anything *useful* like paying for some new generation reactor demonstration projects, or money for a resumption of thorium reactor research (much more fuel supply, not suitable for weapons, and much less long lived waste).
The only correct view is that the AGW'ers have grossly failed to make their case, with further monkey business coming to light since this article was written.
Do I think it would be fine and dandy if CO2 were to quadruple in the next 50 years? That's not an experiment I would want to perform. But as the AGW case falls apart it is clear that we have much, much more time to work on better energy sources, without resorting to socialism.
The uphill battle faced by the AGWers wrt CO2 is that *on the basic science* there is vastly more water vapor in the atmosphere and it actually blocks a much larger swathe of the IR spectrum than CO2. The big lie is that the greatest 'greenhouse gas' BY FAR (H2O) is left out of every mainstream article on greenhouse gases. Further, water vapor is highly dynamic and poorly modeled by the 'climate scientists' -- like cloud cover it is not modeled from the ground up on physics grounds, but is simply a set of fudge factors they fiddle with to try get the results they expect.
I don't have a PhD, but I have degrees in Mechanical Engineering (with lots of math and physics and some simulations & modelling) and Computer Science (I was a university instructor for 6 years. So I have far more knowledge of what is going on here than the average layman -- and what I see is crap. Heck, I would have flunked Physics I lab if I kept notes and data of the sorry caliber these guys did.
Interesting that Obama's massive stimulus packages did not do anything *useful* like paying for some new generation reactor demonstration projects, or money for a resumption of thorium reactor research (much more fuel supply, not suitable for weapons, and much less long lived waste).
2.17.2010 | 11:56am
Ricketson says:
"rather than argue any of the substantive points in my response (concerning Chu, Taiga, Pinatubo, etc.). "
If you want information about these topics, why are you asking questions on a religion-themed blog rather than going to a source that actually knows something about the issue.
But since you insist, I"ll do your research for you:
Chu's 22-44 billion tons: That's only one year's worth of CO2 emissions. Anyway, this treatment would not negate the effect CO2 increases...we'd be adding energy to one part of the globe and removing it from others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Taiga: You've pointed out one proposed feedback loop among many (both positive and negative), and acted as though it were the whole picture.
Pinatubo: I did respond to this. You made a false assertion that researchers have ignored this issue. While there are probably tons of papers that I could point to to illustrate the falsehood of your statement, I am not an expert and don't know where to find them. However, I did provide evidence that experts have considered the general category of volcanic aerosols, and how they affect the heat balance of the earth.
If you want information about these topics, why are you asking questions on a religion-themed blog rather than going to a source that actually knows something about the issue.
But since you insist, I"ll do your research for you:
Chu's 22-44 billion tons: That's only one year's worth of CO2 emissions. Anyway, this treatment would not negate the effect CO2 increases...we'd be adding energy to one part of the globe and removing it from others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Taiga: You've pointed out one proposed feedback loop among many (both positive and negative), and acted as though it were the whole picture.
Pinatubo: I did respond to this. You made a false assertion that researchers have ignored this issue. While there are probably tons of papers that I could point to to illustrate the falsehood of your statement, I am not an expert and don't know where to find them. However, I did provide evidence that experts have considered the general category of volcanic aerosols, and how they affect the heat balance of the earth.
2.17.2010 | 12:11pm
Ricketson says:
If you want evidence that global warming researchers considered the effect of Pinatubo, see this:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-02/rtsu-pvr021502.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-02/rtsu-pvr021502.php
2.18.2010 | 4:22pm
Artaban says:
"If you want information about these topics, why are you asking questions on a religion-themed blog rather than going to a source that actually knows something about the issue."
Ricketson, you seem to be unable to distinguish between rhetorical questions and the doe-eyed inquiry of the uneducated, so let me illustrate the difference...When I ask if CO2 is really a problem, then follow it up with three (among many) reasons it is not, that should tip you off to the fact that I don't think it is, because I HAVE been doing research on this topic for years.
How can you say, "You've pointed out one proposed feedback loop among many (both positive and negative), and acted as though it were the whole picture," when I included in the same post references to no fewer than 3 (aerosol effects, albedo, volcanism)?
Are you seeing your own contradictions?
And even then, you've missed my entire point. Hint, it's the first sentence, where I emphasize the "many variables involved in climate". I'll give you a few more variables; sulfates (which have a net cooling effect), and the fact that up to the point where there are 750 ppm atmospheric CO2, plants increase their CO2 uptake (thus removing more from the atmo and helping restore lower levels). Since warming would expand temperate zones, and allow longer growing seasons, that's another beneficial feedback that should ameliorate CO2 fears.
Here's another article for you, from NASA, which illustrates my point that it is foolish to emphasize CO2 to the exclusion of other variables, as AGW fanatics are doing:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html
Note two comments in particular: "There's a tendency to think of aerosols as small players, but they're not," said Shindell. "Right now, in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and in the Arctic, the impact of aerosols is just as strong as that of the greenhouse gases."
"This is an important model study, raising lots of great questions that will need to be investigated with field research," said Loretta Mickley, an atmospheric chemist from Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. who was not directly involved in the research. Understanding how aerosols behave in the atmosphere is still very much a work-in-progress, she noted, and every model needs to be compared rigorously to real life observations. But the science behind Shindell’s results should be taken seriously.
"It appears that aerosols have quite a powerful effect on climate, but there's still a lot more that we need to sort out," said Shindell.
Ricketson, you seem to be unable to distinguish between rhetorical questions and the doe-eyed inquiry of the uneducated, so let me illustrate the difference...When I ask if CO2 is really a problem, then follow it up with three (among many) reasons it is not, that should tip you off to the fact that I don't think it is, because I HAVE been doing research on this topic for years.
How can you say, "You've pointed out one proposed feedback loop among many (both positive and negative), and acted as though it were the whole picture," when I included in the same post references to no fewer than 3 (aerosol effects, albedo, volcanism)?
Are you seeing your own contradictions?
And even then, you've missed my entire point. Hint, it's the first sentence, where I emphasize the "many variables involved in climate". I'll give you a few more variables; sulfates (which have a net cooling effect), and the fact that up to the point where there are 750 ppm atmospheric CO2, plants increase their CO2 uptake (thus removing more from the atmo and helping restore lower levels). Since warming would expand temperate zones, and allow longer growing seasons, that's another beneficial feedback that should ameliorate CO2 fears.
Here's another article for you, from NASA, which illustrates my point that it is foolish to emphasize CO2 to the exclusion of other variables, as AGW fanatics are doing:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html
Note two comments in particular: "There's a tendency to think of aerosols as small players, but they're not," said Shindell. "Right now, in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and in the Arctic, the impact of aerosols is just as strong as that of the greenhouse gases."
"This is an important model study, raising lots of great questions that will need to be investigated with field research," said Loretta Mickley, an atmospheric chemist from Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. who was not directly involved in the research. Understanding how aerosols behave in the atmosphere is still very much a work-in-progress, she noted, and every model needs to be compared rigorously to real life observations. But the science behind Shindell’s results should be taken seriously.
"It appears that aerosols have quite a powerful effect on climate, but there's still a lot more that we need to sort out," said Shindell.
2.19.2010 | 1:30pm
Ken Zaretzke says:
Artaban,
True, carbon dioxide is just one of the many variables influencing climate, and not ordinarily the biggest one, but it is the only one that has been affected by humans (since the industrialized era began). The basic concern should be with climate-forcing by carbon dioxide that we ourselves have put into the atmosphere. The other climate-affecting variables are as they have always been, with the exception of aerosals and carbon dioxide. And there is no evidence that the aerosals are an adequate offset to increased carbon dioxide. Melting glaciers and dying coral reefs suggest as much.
Is there any evidence that dying coral reefs are due to natural processes such as volcanic vents on the ocean floor? Why would such natural processes be desrtroying something so basic to ocean life, and perhaps all of terrestrial life, as corals and plankton? Is nature really so perverse?
True, carbon dioxide is just one of the many variables influencing climate, and not ordinarily the biggest one, but it is the only one that has been affected by humans (since the industrialized era began). The basic concern should be with climate-forcing by carbon dioxide that we ourselves have put into the atmosphere. The other climate-affecting variables are as they have always been, with the exception of aerosals and carbon dioxide. And there is no evidence that the aerosals are an adequate offset to increased carbon dioxide. Melting glaciers and dying coral reefs suggest as much.
Is there any evidence that dying coral reefs are due to natural processes such as volcanic vents on the ocean floor? Why would such natural processes be desrtroying something so basic to ocean life, and perhaps all of terrestrial life, as corals and plankton? Is nature really so perverse?
2.20.2010 | 3:53am
ben says:
I'm sorry, but one minor error in IPCC projections of rate of glacial melt in the Himlayas and some poorly considered (and highly frustrated) language in *some* emails between *some* climate scientists does not change the following:
1) CO2 and other greenhouse gases have the capacity to absorb and reemit longwave radiation (demonstrated in the laboratory), with the potential to contribute to warming of the Earth's surface in increased concentrations
2) Human beings have increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 by about 40% since pre-industrial times.
3) The world has become measurably warmer over statistically significant time and distance scales – e.g. the 2000s are the warmest decade on record.
I will take the considered opinion of the field (along with some uncertainties, the occasional error – found, and itself corrected by the IPCC) over a handful of barrow-pushers. Some may be well-meaning and mistaken, some are clearly mischief-makers.
As for Ian Plimer, having seen him on television (transcript at http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2009/s2772906.htm) repeatedly refusing to answer a question as to why he attributed a finding to a scientific paper that was the exact opposite of what it actually said, and why he repeatedly declares that the US Geological Survey doesn't factor submarine volcanoes into their measurements when he knows (and has been told) that they do – well, I'm starting to wonder if I could trust him to tell me the time.
It would be great if evangelical *sceptics* would show a little less credulity when it comes to the anti-science crowd.
1) CO2 and other greenhouse gases have the capacity to absorb and reemit longwave radiation (demonstrated in the laboratory), with the potential to contribute to warming of the Earth's surface in increased concentrations
2) Human beings have increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 by about 40% since pre-industrial times.
3) The world has become measurably warmer over statistically significant time and distance scales – e.g. the 2000s are the warmest decade on record.
I will take the considered opinion of the field (along with some uncertainties, the occasional error – found, and itself corrected by the IPCC) over a handful of barrow-pushers. Some may be well-meaning and mistaken, some are clearly mischief-makers.
As for Ian Plimer, having seen him on television (transcript at http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2009/s2772906.htm) repeatedly refusing to answer a question as to why he attributed a finding to a scientific paper that was the exact opposite of what it actually said, and why he repeatedly declares that the US Geological Survey doesn't factor submarine volcanoes into their measurements when he knows (and has been told) that they do – well, I'm starting to wonder if I could trust him to tell me the time.
It would be great if evangelical *sceptics* would show a little less credulity when it comes to the anti-science crowd.
2.24.2010 | 12:03pm
Artaban says:
Ken,
A few items:
1) I appreciate your civil and logical approach to the issue.
2) Regarding sulfates and aerosols...You may remember that industrial regulations were imposed in the 60s and 70s to reduce sulfate and other particulate emissions. Some have even posited human production of those is what caused the global cooling of that period. Granted, there are other health considerations (air quality) that need considering, but one potential (low cost) solution to warming fears is relaxing of bans on industrial products that cool the globe.
3) Asking why volcanic vents in the ocean floor would kill coral is a bit like asking why drinking cyanide has a tendency to kill human beings. 99% of the species that've ever lived on earth are now extinct, and the vast majority of them without any human influence. Most of the recognized "extinction events" were caused by natural factors.
That may make nature "look perverse" to some, but it's necessary to live in anything other than a toy universe. And maybe it's partially because we're not to focus too much on THIS life.
A few items:
1) I appreciate your civil and logical approach to the issue.
2) Regarding sulfates and aerosols...You may remember that industrial regulations were imposed in the 60s and 70s to reduce sulfate and other particulate emissions. Some have even posited human production of those is what caused the global cooling of that period. Granted, there are other health considerations (air quality) that need considering, but one potential (low cost) solution to warming fears is relaxing of bans on industrial products that cool the globe.
3) Asking why volcanic vents in the ocean floor would kill coral is a bit like asking why drinking cyanide has a tendency to kill human beings. 99% of the species that've ever lived on earth are now extinct, and the vast majority of them without any human influence. Most of the recognized "extinction events" were caused by natural factors.
That may make nature "look perverse" to some, but it's necessary to live in anything other than a toy universe. And maybe it's partially because we're not to focus too much on THIS life.
2.26.2010 | 2:33pm
Ken Zaretzke says:
Artaban,
Aerosals do indeed have a cooling effect. There is a good discussion in Jim Hansen's book. As for extinction due to natural causes, here's something worth chewing on: "We must remember that the human-made climate forcing [due to carbon dioxide] is not coming on just a bit faster than natural forcings of the past; on the contrary, it is a rapid powerful blow, an order of magnitude greater than any natural forcing that we are aware of." (*Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity*, p. 274).
With our differences, how about thinking of the problem in terms of presumptions? Suppose we know that for at least the last 600,000 years, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has never exceeded 315ppm--and rarely even 290ppm--but since the beginning of industrialization has risen to 387ppm and is virtually certain to breach the 400ppm barrier within a decade. Shouldn't our presumption be that the planet may well gag on such a high level of greenhouse-enhancing carbon dioxide? Especially when the climate is acting so "weird" nowadays?
Regrettably, global-warming skeptics avoid the paleoclimate facts like the plague. Maybe they don't want to deal with the natural presumption that arises when one confronts the facts revealed in the ice cores. The only skeptics' book that I know of that deals with this is called *The Satanic Gases*--and it only goes back 11,000 years--not nearly far enough to create a powerful presumption that something has gone badly wrong with our planet. I give the skeptics points for cleverness, at least. But it's a very dangerous kind of cleverness. Should we really be playing that game?
Aerosals do indeed have a cooling effect. There is a good discussion in Jim Hansen's book. As for extinction due to natural causes, here's something worth chewing on: "We must remember that the human-made climate forcing [due to carbon dioxide] is not coming on just a bit faster than natural forcings of the past; on the contrary, it is a rapid powerful blow, an order of magnitude greater than any natural forcing that we are aware of." (*Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity*, p. 274).
With our differences, how about thinking of the problem in terms of presumptions? Suppose we know that for at least the last 600,000 years, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has never exceeded 315ppm--and rarely even 290ppm--but since the beginning of industrialization has risen to 387ppm and is virtually certain to breach the 400ppm barrier within a decade. Shouldn't our presumption be that the planet may well gag on such a high level of greenhouse-enhancing carbon dioxide? Especially when the climate is acting so "weird" nowadays?
Regrettably, global-warming skeptics avoid the paleoclimate facts like the plague. Maybe they don't want to deal with the natural presumption that arises when one confronts the facts revealed in the ice cores. The only skeptics' book that I know of that deals with this is called *The Satanic Gases*--and it only goes back 11,000 years--not nearly far enough to create a powerful presumption that something has gone badly wrong with our planet. I give the skeptics points for cleverness, at least. But it's a very dangerous kind of cleverness. Should we really be playing that game?
3.1.2010 | 2:06pm
Artaban says:
Ken, you need to check your facts again. Aerosols do not always cause a cooling effect.
As detailed at the website for the Marian Koshland Museum of the National Academy of Sciences, they can cool or warm depending on the type:
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/causes10.jsp
It depends upon the composition of the aerosol; sulfates (light colored, emitted by volcanoes) cools, while black soot (emitted by coal and wildfires) has a warming effect. Hmm...we've seen some record forest fires in the American West lately, haven't we. As far as paleoclimatic facts, we have evidence CO2 was higher than today, given the tree stomata of ancient specimens. I'll try to get you citation when I can retrieve said book from storage.
As detailed at the website for the Marian Koshland Museum of the National Academy of Sciences, they can cool or warm depending on the type:
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/causes10.jsp
It depends upon the composition of the aerosol; sulfates (light colored, emitted by volcanoes) cools, while black soot (emitted by coal and wildfires) has a warming effect. Hmm...we've seen some record forest fires in the American West lately, haven't we. As far as paleoclimatic facts, we have evidence CO2 was higher than today, given the tree stomata of ancient specimens. I'll try to get you citation when I can retrieve said book from storage.
3.4.2010 | 11:47am
Ken Zaretzke says:
Artaban,
You're right to say there have been periods in Earth's history when it was warmer than today's Holocene Era, the last such period being about 120,000 years ago. The only problem, for your argument, is that even then the level of carbon dioxide was never higher than 300 ppm, except for a relatively brief period when it rose to 315 ppm. (Compare this to the current 387 ppm.)
In fact, the difference in the level of carbon dioxide between the time of the Founders and today is the same as it was between the time of the Founders and the Last Ice Age 20,000 years ago (180 ppm in the Last Ice Age, 280 ppm in 1789, and 380 ppm today). This is prima facie alarming. The fabled Greenland of Eric the Red--which skeptics love to cite, and indeed gloat about--was warm but had a Holocene-normal level of carbon dioxide, and unlike today, there was thus no systemic climate threat. Probably solar variability caused the warming then.
As for aerosals, you are partially right. Black carbon aerosals absorb heat from the sun. But most aerosals deflect heat, and overall the aerosal effect (as I understand it) is a cooling one. The paleoclimate record accounts for the aerosal effect, whatever it is.
The global-warming debate has a dubious theological side--it's not just about science. Many Christians are in denial about the scientific validity of human-caused global warming because of the light it shines on our stewardship. That is, we humans have botched the divine command to "multiply and subdue the Earth." We have been greedy and imprudent, and the part of Creation that is essentially beyond our capacity to control--the climate system--is rebelling. To be in denial about this is natural but unfortunate--and potentially catastrophic.
You're right to say there have been periods in Earth's history when it was warmer than today's Holocene Era, the last such period being about 120,000 years ago. The only problem, for your argument, is that even then the level of carbon dioxide was never higher than 300 ppm, except for a relatively brief period when it rose to 315 ppm. (Compare this to the current 387 ppm.)
In fact, the difference in the level of carbon dioxide between the time of the Founders and today is the same as it was between the time of the Founders and the Last Ice Age 20,000 years ago (180 ppm in the Last Ice Age, 280 ppm in 1789, and 380 ppm today). This is prima facie alarming. The fabled Greenland of Eric the Red--which skeptics love to cite, and indeed gloat about--was warm but had a Holocene-normal level of carbon dioxide, and unlike today, there was thus no systemic climate threat. Probably solar variability caused the warming then.
As for aerosals, you are partially right. Black carbon aerosals absorb heat from the sun. But most aerosals deflect heat, and overall the aerosal effect (as I understand it) is a cooling one. The paleoclimate record accounts for the aerosal effect, whatever it is.
The global-warming debate has a dubious theological side--it's not just about science. Many Christians are in denial about the scientific validity of human-caused global warming because of the light it shines on our stewardship. That is, we humans have botched the divine command to "multiply and subdue the Earth." We have been greedy and imprudent, and the part of Creation that is essentially beyond our capacity to control--the climate system--is rebelling. To be in denial about this is natural but unfortunate--and potentially catastrophic.
7.9.2010 | 5:11am
May25Doreen says:
The mortgage loans are essential for guys, which want to organize their organization. By the way, that is comfortable to receive a credit loan.
Whenever James Randi, a professional skeptic, said that the deniers might have a case, Myers, Dawkins and co. became furious and quickly sought to behead one of their own. Using "scientific concensus" and "peer-review" as rallying cries (as though these are free of corporate influence), they used the best of rhetorical group tactics to rally the troops.
They pride themselves in religious skepticism, but you better not be skeptical of the scientific "concensus" or else...