Two brief climate notes
Very clever! (a comparison of tobacco-doesn't-hurt-you and climate-change-denier arguments) Hat tip to Tamino.
Great resource. (For those who love to wallow in data and want the freshest graphs for their students.) Hat tip to ClimateSight.
Great resource. (For those who love to wallow in data and want the freshest graphs for their students.) Hat tip to ClimateSight.
Labels: climate change, global warming, politics
6 Comments:
Callan, YIKES!... I started doubting some of the AGW concerns about the time George Bush expressed conviction of AGW.
My first and continuing concern is and has been that there was a political correctness imposed on the discussion that stifled the free flow of information. Now, people are beginning to have more freedom to oppose the fear related to AGW and scientists are “coming out of the closet”.
Not following proper methodology people have been moving weather stations right next to buildings over time - and many sites are in growing cities that are getting hotter thus skewing some warming findings.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
The guy Watts who runs that site has solar panels on his roof, drives an electric car, helped put solar panels on a local school, but he has put up many pictures of the weather stations supposed to keep track of ground temperature. Some of them are right outside buildings in smoking areas-right above the cigarette disposal unit. Another unit was right outside a building next to a barbecue grill. Other units were next to airport runways or newly built parking lots. (It isn't hard to see how placement near a building, a patio, or asphalt can raise temperatures at these sites by a few degrees.)
Al Gore's worth (now well over $100 million) has jumped about a hundred-fold since the 2000 election and it was last rumored/leaked that his house consumed 20-times the power of the average American house. (link supports his financial growth)
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-gore.html
Many alarmists talk about deserts growing bigger - but don't mention that warming can also shrink deserts.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
Historically, CO2 increase lags hundreds of years behind temperature increases. Confusing??
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
There is a yet uncalculated volcanic component to Arctic or Greenland ice melting.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080120160720.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22246005/
Sometimes warming is good for an area.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/5916353/Climate-change-helped-the-Incas-build-civilisation.html
Many find an association with solar activity to temperature – and there are several controversial theories explaining the observed correlation. Another attempt here -- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090721090127.htm
I also see history programs on TV that talk about Vikings living on Greenland, ancient armies going through passes that are today impassable due to glaciers etc – such things hint of warmer times in the past.
The thing that bothers me the most (a person who likes to keep an open mind) is the contempt and self-assuredness exhibited by AGW people who believe the science is “settled”. This makes scientifically minded people across the political spectrum very uneasy – science is a process that involves testing and checking. Many are skeptical of large uncertainties in the current modeling - that is - relying on water vapor forcing to drive up the bulk of the temperatures.
This link here argues for a decrease in CO2/temperatures over millions of years – which is in contrast with typical charts showing a century or maybe a 600-700 thousand year time frame.
http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif
I appreciate your geological insights Callan and I hope you don’t mind me expressing my thoughts.
Thomas Donlon
Hi Thomas,
Anthropogenic global warming appears to be a reality. The vast majority of geologists I know, of various political parties (including the two main ones) are quite convinced (and have been for a decade or more) that the Earth is warming on average, and that human CO2 emissions are a principle cause. There's very little doubt about it. I'm convinced by the data.
You can certainly find a number of vocal contrarians, especially on the internet, but I haven't seen a thing that suggests they're right and 95% of trained scientists are wrong. Al Gore's net worth, or the several sketchily-placed weather stations that Watts has pointed out don't change that one bit. The data are clear, the connection logical, and the science robust. I'm fascinated to see how it all plays out, though I do have concerns for the effects on the biosphere, including our species.
I'd advise you to take an Environmental Geology course to get the skinny on how these things work, both in the past and the present day. Then the paleoclimactic CO2 lag might not seem so confusing.
Good luck with it.
CB
Hi Again, Callan,
First off congratulations on your link to this post from:
http://geoblogs.stratigraphy.net/
There is no doubt that the world warmed in the last century.
Certainly, humans play a role in some ways - including in some not understood ways. How much climate change is caused by deforestation?
There is dispute about the Medieval Warm Period. Some say it was a localized weather pattern - others think it may have been warm worldwide. The Maunder minimum also correlates with a colder period but again, was it localized cooling or worldwide?
I agree with your thought “I'm fascinated to see how it all plays out”.
Still, do you find the preponderance of historical data suggesting that the earth as a whole will be worse off if it warms? I will certainly concede that sea levels have varied greatly in the last million years - and many of today's coastal cities could experience flooding if significant Artic or Greenland ice melting occurs.
As for your offered belief that 95% of climate scientists believe in global warming - I tried to verify it and came across a study done by John Mason University.
“Over eight out of ten American climate scientists believe that human activity contributes to global warming, according to a new survey released by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University.”
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html
It states “Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring”.
And guess what? - the way the survey was worded I would have been among the 84%.
More telling is other information in the study.
----------------------------- quoting link-------------------
Overall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature” science, but 51% describe it as “fairly mature,” while 40% see it as still an “emerging” science. However, over two out of three (69%) believe there is at least a 50-50 chance that the debate over the role of human activity in global warming will be settled in the next 10 to 20 years.
Only 29% express a “great deal of confidence” that scientists understand the size and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases,” and only 32% are confident about our understanding of the archeological climate evidence.
----------------------------------
I more comfortable with the ‘40% [who] see it as still an “emerging” science’. You are then among the 5% that see climate change science as fully mature? You wrote, “The data are clear, the connection logical, and the science robust.”
You got any free Environmental Geology classes available that I can watch online or on You-tube to learn what you want to teach me?
Is your comment that I should take that course a reflection of the great complexity in showing why the earth has warmed before the CO2 levels went up? Or would such a class explain “Variations in the Earth's eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession [that] comprise the three dominant cycles, collectively known as the Milankovitch Cycles”?
Is that what you are hoping will unconfuse me? Or is their another specific thing or thing(s) you think I need to know on this topic?
respectfully,
thomas donlon
p.s. Now I'll go take a closer look at many fascinating pictures (rocks - yes I find rock structures captivating) that you just put up.
Hello again Thomas,
Deforestation counts as anthropogenic (including, but not limited to, warming-driven deforestation such as the decline of spruce in Alaska).
The statistic I quoted comes from a good review of the status of what trained versus untrained individuals think; it's in a January issue of EOS, which found that the more you know about the science of climate, the more likely you are to think it's primarily anthropogenic. The number is actual 96.2% of climate researchers who publish regularly about climate change. Check it out for yourself via the link above. I also would endorse reading an article cited by the EOS piece, Naomi Oreske's 2004 article in Science.
And I might sound a sholarly note of caution about checking your sources about things like this (also here). STATS is the propaganda wing of a lobbying group, though they proudly proclaim their affinity with GMU.
Yeah: this is pretty complex stuff, and it bugs me when people who don't understand it (and hold strong political beliefs of EITHER perusasion) assert that their political viewpoint takes precedence over scientific consensus. So getting educated is key. No recommendations about free courses -- the internet is free, right? You get what you pay for...
Penultimately, a word about the word "belief." I'm convinced of the reality of AGW, not a "believer" in it. If I saw evidence which suggested anything else, I'd reevaluate my understanding of the issue. (more on "belief") As it stands now, my understanding of the system is such that I'm pretty sure that the extra CO2 is what's driving the system towards higher average temperatures. You're right that it's likely to be really good for some areas; but those who understand the system the best (better than me) suggest that we are playing with fire -- risking destablilizing the climate that we and all the other organisms on our planet DEPEND ON TO LIVE. Why the hell would we want to mess that up? It baffles me that such a risk could seem acceptable. While I'm interested in climate change from a scientific perspective, I'm very worried from the civic perspective. As a scientifically-literate citizen, I have a responsibility to you and to my students and my family and my neighbors and to the grasshoppers and coccolithophores and everything else to make sure we don't seriously screw our only planet up.
Finally, say that there were an equal amount of evidence for the conclusions that the current episode of warming is being driven by humans and driven by something else. There isn't -- the evidence is strongly stacked in favor of the AGW conclusion -- but let's just pretend. Say we're really not sure... Should we take any action? This video suggests that it's kind of like playing the lotto, with two different levels of ensuing fallout if you choose wrong. Food for thought.
CB
Oh, my. How apropos.
Hi Callan,
I appreciate all the time you are taking with me.
In one statement you said, “Penultimately, a word about the word "belief." I'm convinced of the reality of AGW, not a "believer" in it. If I saw evidence which suggested anything else, I'd reevaluate my understanding of the issue.”
But regarding the DANGERS of a warming planet you say, “You're right that it's likely to be really good for some areas; but those who understand the system the best (better than me) suggest that we are playing with fire -- risking destablilizing the climate that we and all the other organisms on our planet DEPEND ON TO LIVE.”
Repeating your words, “those who understand the system the best (better than me) suggest that we are playing with fire”.
You don't know for yourself that warming is dangerous - except that you are trusting others? You don't even know that warming isn't beneficial in the aggregate - except for the predicted rise in sea levels - apart from trusting others?
And how can you tease apart natural variations from manmade ones? And could manmade warming be a welcome counterbalance should a Tambora size volcano erupt - which caused cooling and famines around the world in the 1800's?
Are you a believer in the modeling of the IPCC?
One skeptic find reasons to doubt the “belief” pushed by the IPCC.
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_climate_of_belief.html
As for the linked cartoon - if we all did as much as Anthony Watts, we would certainly be less reliant on fossil fuel.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/about/
very respectfully,
Thomas Donlon
Post a Comment
<< Home