Global warming

[framed]

Hey Andy,

I'm close to your thinking on this being a big crock, but unfortunately having looked at it for a few days, theres just too much data out there for me to parse and truly understand it on my own. There are natural cycles and equilibriums, and there are human caused changes to the environment. The existence of a natural cycle doesn't preclude a man made cause to current warming trends. So unfortunately to me, while the whole thing smells wrong, I don't feel I have enough an understanding of those cycles and balances to go against 2,500 PHDs who say "we're 90% sure".

To your point about consensus not being science, I definitely agree. But since I cant do the science myself I have to trust the consensus opinion of scientists. I can't do relativistic physics experiments, but I trust in that physics because people trained to do good science have done it and peer reviewed their tested theories. Also - Lacking a testbed climate you can't test out scientific hypothesis. So while consensus isn't good science, its the best we have if we want any predictive ability on our climate without having a spare planet to experiment around with.

All that said I still feel in my heart that this is bunk. I'm remembering back to the original "safe our forests" eco-movement, where we preventing logging and boosted fire protection over our national forests in order to "preserve the balance". What we learned was that it was a horrible idea to prevent forest fires, because they were part of the cycle of life, and by delaying them we caused them to burn hotter and do more damage than had we just ignored it. This smells awfully similar in that regards. The concept that nature is or was ever at perfect balance and equilibrium, or that mankind is personally charged with keeping it that way seems bogus.

Bottom line for me: I don't like it, but if my best and brightest scientists are telling me that I am changing the climate for the worse, and I have the ability to correct it and thereby improve quality of life substantially down the road because of it, I feel like I have to listen.

Take Care.

 

[Andy D]

Framed,

I think your post makes a lot of sense. However, I would caution you before you rush out and join those believing the apocalypse is pending. Just because you can’t do the science, doesn’t mean that others aren’t doing the science. The vast majority of support for Global warming is anecdotal, and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that Global warming is incorrect. Almost all of the predictions made by the global warming scientist in the 1980’s and early 1990’s were wrong. Don’t forget that many of the supporters of global warming have a vested interest in seeing the theory continued. Many of them are operating off of grants from various governments. If they prove that Global Warming is a myth, suddenly that money vanishes.

There are some good books and arguments against Global Warming. I would encourage you to look at those before you make up your mind.

 

[framed]

Andy,

How are you deciding which scientists to listen to? I agree that there are people out there doing good science, but since I cant evaluate it all on my own I need to decide to trust some group. Thats the reason I'm looking at the IPCC concensus as compelling. The IPCC is a group of 2500 scientists from 137 countries. While I'm sure most of them have their own agendas, at least in a group that large with such a diverse background you'd have a better chance of those agendas cancelling out or at least coming to light.

When you accept that both sides (big oil, as well as the tree huggers) have their own interests to protect, I just don't see how you decide what scientists to trust. I could easily dig up scientists to refute global warming, then choose to believe them... but if I do that I'm really just seeking out the facts to confirm my own beliefs while ignoring the contrary evidence on the table.

I guess the jist of my question is: If the IPCC isn't that group of balanced scientists, who is and how do you know you can trust them? If the IPCC is that group, how can you ignore "we're 90% sure."?

 

[tater03]

Did anyone happen to hear that Canada is now saying they wished they had never signed on with Koyto? I heard this in passing on the news last night.

 

[dong]

To Andy: I'm genuinely curious to know more about the ozone layers, so I'll look that up shortly. I'm not sure that your question 2) is actually relavant, but as for question 1), your point is well taken (see below about misanthropic principles)...but remember that the cattle population has been artificially boosted by the beef industry- for which man is directly responsible!

To both Framed and Andy: I actually think we're all alot closer together than I initially thought (always good for a bit of argument!) At this point I'm guessing also that it is important to disregard who is saying something but rather what is being said. Of course this requires one to be able to spot bias when they see it.

To go into a little more detail, I think people are conflating too many things, and so the discussion of global warming along with every other ecological concern like peak oil and non-renewable sources of energy gets sucked into the mix. By definition, our very presence and activity (essentially if you accept the principle of entropy) dictates that we have some kind of irreversible effect on nature, but on the other hand, it's also important to note that misanthropic principles that humans are what disturbs a perfect natural equilibrium can be largely misguided.

All in all, what would be most valuable from this would be to examine the connotations in discussions of what we might do to help keep the Earth a healthy place to live on. We don't have to do some giant reversionism/primitivism, etc. that some extremists may be implying, but nonetheless there are certain issues, if not global warming, that must urgently be addressed.

Tater: I'm interested...would anybody be so good as to find out details?


P.S. I don't think I've been exposed much to the waves of paranoia that must be wreaking some kind of discursionary havoc around the world, which is what shapes my attitude so.

 

[Andy D]

Dong, very good post.

My question #2 about Mars is relevant because if the Martian ice caps are behaving similar to our ice caps, and there are no people on mars, then that would say that the ice caps melting is more of a norm and less of a bi-product of humans.

Framed,

I don’t necessarily pick and choose my scientist. I am a licensed civil engineer with a minor in geophysics. I am not an expert on the subject, but I do understand the scientific method, and I understand that the Earth is not a static environment. The Earth goes through changes we don’t always understand. When I see a report that argues for or against Global warming, I look at their method, how did they get to the conclusion they reached. Far too many reports rely on anecdotal evidence (such as melting ice caps, and increase in the overall global temperature, etc..) . While anecdotal evidence is nice to help support a tried and true theory, it isn’t very useful to prove a theory. Especially when many of those arguments have holes (for example, while some ice caps are melting, some are reaching record sizes, while the overall global temperature has increased, it has only increased within the error or margin for the test).

To sum up: I believe the Earth goes through natural climate changes that Humans can not affect. I believe we have a responsibility to protect our environment and make it a better place for our children. I also believe scientist have a responsibility to do science and leave the activism to the activist.

 

[Andy D]

I thought this might help the discussion. Here is an article from Newsweek.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16960409/site/newsweek/

 

[dong]

Dong, very good post.

My question #2 about Mars is relevant because if the Martian ice caps are behaving similar to our ice caps, and there are no people on mars, then that would say that the ice caps melting is more of a norm and less of a bi-product of humans.

To a limited degree, yes. What it may indicate to us is that humans are not solely responsible for the melting of polar ice caps. And I fully support that belief already. We'll need more extensive evidence of the links between the behavior of Mars' climate relative to the sun and Earth.

To sum up: I believe the Earth goes through natural climate changes that Humans can not affect.

I believe this is where we differ- it doesn't make sense to me to say that we cannot affect Earth's climate. Why cannot?

 

[framed]

Andy,

Thats a good article. It posits that the following things must be true for the correct course of action to be to mandate carbon reductions:

1. Global warming is happening.
2. It is our (humanity's, but especially America's) fault.
3. It will continue unless we mend our ways.
4. If it continues we are in grave danger.
5. We know how to slow or even reverse the warming.
6. The benefits from doing that will far exceed the costs.

I mostly agree with the authors assessment here, out of his 6, the only one I could see omitting completely is #4. (If you have #6 you dont need #4) #2 is also debatable. If we have a problem that has a cost to us, and we have a fix that has a lower cost, whether or not its our fault is irrelevant.

It says that we know only #1 to be true, and the rest are somehow up in the air. But I'll quote directly from the IPCC report on the others:

1: Incontestably happening
2: "very high confidence [90%] that the globally averaged net
effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 watts per metre^2" (I don't know how to convert that to temperature, but energy=heat so it follows...)
3: Follows directly from #2, we are a net +temperature influence on the climate with our current stewardship of the planet.
4: Not addressing this now.
5: We know the contributing factors of our behavior that cause us to be +temperature net impact. (Long lived greenhouse gasses, ozone, CH4, Surface Albedo, Aresol, Linear contrails - see page 4 of the report)
6: To do a cost benefit you need to know the potential benefit and the potential cost. The report articulates the benefit of action by describing the changes that can be forestalled. Obviously these arent monetized in any way, because thats really a political/economics debate. Thats clearly a key next step in the debate however. After (or in parallel to that) you need to cost out the proposed solutions. So to really address 6 we have to do three things. 1) define the benefits 2) monetize them 3) cost them.

6 Part 1: The changes we can prevent: (define)

The following events are expected to occur, and have a human contribution to their occurrence. I've put the percentage probability the scientists put to each in the following order (happening at all, has a human cause, will continue at current trajectory)

(90%,80%,99%) Warmer and fewer cold days and nights over most land areas
(90%,80%,99%) Warmer and more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas
(80%, 50%, 90%) Warm spells / heat waves. Frequency increases over most land areas
(80%, 50%, 90%) Heavy precipitation events. Frequency (or proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls) increases over most areas
(80%, 50%, 80%) Area affected by droughts increases
(80%, 50%, 80%) Intense tropical cyclone activity increases
(80%, 50%, 80%) Increased incidence of extreme high sea level (excludes tsunamis)

There are some qualifying limits on those proposed "savings":
"warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized." The report goes on to summarize 6 scenerios and the likely reductions in temperature increases. The graphics are too complicated for me to summarize, but check out pages 17 and 18.

6 part 2: (monetize)
This hasn't been done by the IPCC. I'm not aware of where it has been done. To me that makes it an imperative. We have good reason to believe there is a monetary cost to our current lifestyle. Not understanding that is irresponsible.

6 part 3: (cost)
This hasn't been done by the IPCC. We understand notionally where the costs lie, but to the best of my knowledge we don't know exactly how these costs manifest and what their amounts are. Again, given what we now know, it would be irresponsible of us to not understand this.

So I guess my new opinion is that our government should commission a study to both the monetization of the benefits to reducing global warming, and the costs associated with gaining those benefits. Its not a given that the benefits are worth the effort, so we should keep an open mind about it in both directions.

Disclaimer: As you can tell, all this text on my part assumes the IPCC is trustable. If they are not, I haven't seen evidence of it. While I respect that you or others may have "armchair scientist" level understanding of global warming, the facts as far as I can tell are that it requires an enormous amount of education, time, and resources (read supercomputer time, and satellite data) to make truly valid scientific projections. While you may have a question about how mars ice caps relate to earth ice caps, you cant answer those questions without time, extensive education and resources beyond that of "recreational" scientists. I don't mean this as an insult in any way, just that theres an amount of respect that real climate scientists have earned that we cannot just reproduce sitting here typing on a forum.

 

[dong]

Andy, Framed, thank you for respectively posting the article and taking the time to post a summative assessment. I took one look at the IPCC report and balked (my term starts next week). I hope to be able to read through and verify for myself soon, otherwise I will be left champing at the bit (and my credibility as a participant on this forum will take a heavy hit!)

 

[Andy D]

A good post Framed.

I am going to take some time this weekend and look at the report. And I actually agree with your assessment of the “armchair scientist”. I will be the first to tell you I don’t understand climatology the way a professional scientist does. However, I do understand the scientific method, and I can distinguish between science and politics.

A lot of what I have seen (and again, I haven’t read the IPCC report yet) is not science but more like faulty debate. And I want to reiterate an earlier post: In Science, something is not true because of a consensus. It may gain support, but it is not true until it is proven and then it is labeled as a “Scientific Fact”. Contrary to what Al Gore and others want us to believe, Global Warming has not achieved that level yet.

Dong,

As a moderator, I want to tell you this has been the best discussion I have seen on here. You and the others running this site deserve some credit for that. As to your post a few back:

I point out Mars and the Ice caps because it is closest of the other planets to us (both in makeup and in distance). Since it’s caps are melting, I think it is safe to say that there are components other than human activity at work with ours. That is not to say there is no human activity, only that human activity isn’t the only thing affecting the caps.

To your second question, we can all agree that the Earth goes through natural changes such as Ice Ages. If there was an Ice Age starting or ending right now, there is absolutely nothing that humans could do to start or stop that process. My argument is that we are going through one of those changes currently, and even if we were to reduce our emissions to zero, that wouldn’t change.

The article I copied in here points out that over the last hundred years our global climate temperature change is around 0.7 degrees Celsius. That figure is within the margin of error for our measuring devices over that time. The other point I thought was interesting is the question: Are we sure that the climate change is a bad thing? I won’t reprint his questions, but I encourage everyone to read that.

And Finally:

I think everyone on here knows I am a Conservative. Don’t I get props for quoting MSNBC?? J

 

[dong]

Thanks Andy.

Your point is well noted (and, thankfully, one not contradicted by my posts!): we need to remember that humans are not solely responsible for the weather. Also, while there are caveats in the details, I also acknowledge that the general magnitude of weather cycles are such that humanity would not be able to control or even tweak it...it would be fair to question, depending on what we consider, whether our impact is infinitesmally small or disastrously huge. I think that's what the thrust of this debate is here.

And I echo your sentiments here: we also need to urgently examine the connotations that accompany the rhetoric here.

Last, general note- what constitutes a proof in the scientific world is evidence that is consistent to the theory...i.e. empirically defined. As such, the best that one can get is "beyond reasonable doubt"- any good scientist will at some point bow to a form of Humean skepticism by refraining from placing any a priori certainty in their claim. To throw more light on this grey would require that I study epistemology in more detail, though.

 

[framed]

Just an FYI, the IPCC folks briefed their findings to the house science committee yesterday. I watched some of the replay on CSPAN trying to fall asleep. (but I'm still awake) It was actually pretty interesting, both from seeing how a political machine takes input from science, and also the actual explanations from the climate scientists themselves.

Its like 3 hours long, so tough to just watch, but not a bad thing to listen to in the background while cooking dinner or something. Anyway heres the URL to the web cast if anyone is interested: http://boss.streamos.com/real/science/scitech07/020807.smi

 

[Andy D]

I am afraid I don't have the stamina to go through a three hour hearing. I started glancing at the report yesterday, so I think I will stick with reading it.

 

[mamab]

Okay, you guys have gotten way further into this topic than what I can keep up with! I think I'll sit back and wait for the Reader's Digest Abridged Version of that report. If it took 3 hours to discuss it, how long is the actual report?!