Interesting article about global warming. Thoughts?

[David Wolfson]

No offense taken. The main priority is to understand more precisely what's going on and -- related -- what we might do about it.

If you're angling for an environmental absolutist argument against nuclear energy, you won't get it from me. Nuclear energy is and should definitely be part of the picture. The problems with nuclear, however are: fissionable nuclear fuel is rather scarce and most economic in forms (bred and highly refined) that are great to make bombs out of; safe, well-engineered nuclear plants are expensive to build, maintain, and decommission after their limited life; and their waste products are difficult and dangerous to dispose of.

I'm more interested in the question of why we, collectively, are spending far more in developing, safeguarding, and maintaining nuclear weapons and their delivery systems than we are in developing "low-impact" energy sources.

 

[Mike Smith]

David,

Thanks for your answer. I wasn't angling for anything...just curious to understand your position and recommendations. Thanks for sharing.

Mike

 

[Dan Robinson]

'No clear evidence' is meant exactly that - the lack of definitive proof that man is responsible for global warming and/or that the impending global warming will be catastrophic to mankind. On the contrary, there exists observations that, if interpreted a certain way, suggest the possibility of these conclusions.

I'm all for discussion and debate as we have here now. We are all after the goal of finding the real answer, whatever it may be. The main problem with this whole issue is that too many have jumped the gun and authoritatively declared that the debate is over, closed their ears to any objections, and negatively stereotyped objectors as either ignorants or conspirators.

 

[Brandon Lawson]

My Dad and I want to make T-shirts that say "Embrace Gobal Warming" on the front, and "Because warm feels good" on the back. I mean seriously, who likes to be cold?

 

[John Farley]

I have a question for those of you who, on this thread and others, keep saying "no clear evidence." (Note: I don't just mean you, Dan, as there are many others here who have said the same.) My question is: what would it take to convince you that humans are contributing to global warming?

 

[Dan Robinson]

My question is: what would it take to convince you that humans are contributing to global warming?

Simple - when we eliminate all other possible causes and explanations for what is happening. AGW is one of many possible conclusions to explain the things we are seeing.

 

[Tom Mitchell]

Why the big worry? If global warming is occurring, worst case is that the earth becomes unliveable, humans die, problem solved. Some other beings will rise out of the muck to try it all again.

Then again, many of the solutions proposed to combat global warming, such as greater reliance on renewable energy resources, emissions control, and simple awareness of one's personal energy expenditures aren't really that bad are they?

Even if global warming is not caused by humans, most of what is being proposed for controlling it are sound measures to ensure transition to a future where fossil fuels most likely will become scarce. They only real argument people have against is the economic cost, which, for all intents and purposes, is a moot point, considering how much the average person spends on golf, sun tanning salons, or aircraft carriers.

 

[Mike Smith]

Then again, many of the solutions proposed to combat global warming, such as greater reliance on renewable energy resources, emissions control, and simple awareness of one's personal energy expenditures aren't really that bad are they?

This is where I lose many of the "pro-" global warming posts. Just because some of us do not believe the scientific case has been made that CO2 is causing the vast majority of what warming we have seen and whether that warming is, on balance, a bad thing does not mean we are not in favor of a much more sensible energy policy. One most certainly does not follow the other.

simple awareness of one's personal energy expenditures

I'm sure you have seen the photos of former Vice President Gore getting off the Gulfstream jet and into a limo posted this past week. One cross country trip in a private jet uses about twice the carbon that an average American uses in a year.

While it may be a bumper sticker sentiment, it has some validity:

I'll start believing global warming is a crisis when the people who tell me its a crisis start acting like its a crisis.

 

[David Wolfson]

I think Mike highlights the fundamental issue in a way that makes me realize why I fundamentally disagree with the bumper sticker's philosophy.

We're in the arena of Egoism, or philosophical self-interest, i.e. why we do what we do. Within that arena you have a spectrum ranging from so-called "rational" self-interest through "enlightened" self-interest to "altruism". Science operates in altogether different arena of Epistemology, i.e. why we know what we know.

The objectivist-leaning individual looks at Al Gore as a hypocritical altruist for flying on a Gulfstream. The environmentalist looks on the GW skeptic as a hypocritical egoist for demanding absolute proof. Meanwhile the scientist doesn't (or shouldn't) give a **** what anyone thinks about a phenomenon.

Objectivism IMHO fails miserably when it comes to protecting the community interest where it differs from individual self-interest.

 

[Robert Dewey]

...what would it take to convince you that humans are contributing to global warming?

You are stating as though it is a fact that humans ARE contributing. I would like evidence, which is a process of elimination as Dan states. What would it take to make YOU believe that there are other possible explanations?

As Mike Smith says, just because we are skeptical to the cause does not mean we are pro pollution.

Also, David Wolfson makes an excellent point.

 

[Kevin Scharfenberg]

The objectivist-leaning individual looks at Al Gore as a hypocritical altruist for flying on a Gulfstream. The environmentalist looks on the GW skeptic as a hypocritical egoist for demanding absolute proof. Meanwhile the scientist doesn't (or shouldn't) give a **** what anyone thinks about a phenomenon.

I like David's post a lot. What Al Gore does or does not do speaks absolutely nothing to the science involved. Of course Gore would probably argue that he's "covered" from the hypocrisy angle by paying carbon credits out of his own pocket equivalent to the carbon footprint of the Gulfstream flights. That judgment is left to the obsever, but as I say it's completely unrelated to the science.

Say what you will about carbon credits, but I do find it amusing that some people claim that GW must not be really a problem because proponents aren't "acting" like it's a problem, yet they choose to ignore the rapidly growing trend of people paying carbon credits out of their own pockets, companies spending more to run their businesses in a "green" way, major petroleum companies like BP investing millions in alternative energy research, and so on. None of which would have been dreamed of just 5-10 years ago. Anyone paying the least bit of attention knows both individuals and corporations are spending a massive amount of effort and money to address GW. I would say claims to that those concerned about GW aren't walking the walk are remarkably ignorant or are just empty bumper sticker BS from idealogues.

The fact is the scientific literature is full of overwhelming evidence that the observed warming in the last half century is strongly correlated to the observed increase in CO2, and there is overwhelming evidence that the correlation is not coincedental. No scientist is claming that CO2 is the ONLY forcing involved, but the literature makes it clear as hell that it is the DOMINANT forcing. (By dominant i mean anyone claming all other forcings must be completely eliminated to establish that man has had a major hand in the observed warming is barking up the wrong tree). Likewise, I'm always amused by the ignorant armchair observers who loudly scream "the scientists are wrong because they did not consider __(sunspots/cosmic rays/space aliens/blah blah blah)__" when a simple search through the literature would reveal these things HAVE been addressed, and shown that any contributions from those forcings cannot compare to those calculated from CO2.

Skepticism is fine when it's well-informed. But the demands for "complete proof" of the anthropogenic angle from the deniers are remarkably hypocritical when they readily accept scientific theories of much less maturity.

 

[Mike Smith]

I like David's post a lot. What Al Gore does or does not do speaks absolutely nothing to the science involved.

Agreed. I didn't say it did.

Of course Gore would probably argue that he's "covered" from the hypocrisy angle by paying carbon credits out of his own pocket equivalent to the carbon footprint of the Gulfstream flights.

Gore is an owner in the company he is paying...so he's taking the money from one of his pockets to the other. I'm not impressed considering all of his moralizing on the subject.

The fact is the scientific literature is full of overwhelming evidence that the observed warming in the last half century is strongly correlated to the observed increase in CO2, and there is overwhelming evidence that the correlation is not coincedental.

Since you apparently believe CO2 is the dominant force in climate change, I pose the following questions:

Didn't the climate cool markedly from 1000AD to about 1650 AD? Was this due to CO2 suddenly dissipating from the atmosphere? Peer reviewed paper?

Where is the huge increase in CO2 starting in the 18th Century (give me a peer-reviewed paper) that caused the warming observed until 1940?

I don't want GCM results, I want peer-reviewed studies of the proxy data which proves that changes in CO2 concentrations caused the above major climate changes.

But the demands for "complete proof" of the anthropogenic angle from the deniers are remarkably hypocritical when they readily accept scientific theories of much less maturity.

Let me say it again: Hansen, in 1988, posed the theory of CO2-driven global warming. In the scientific method the burden is on the person who makes the hypothesis to show "it cannot be proven false" (read any reference on the 'scientific method').

The 'consensus' was that the sun revolved around the earth. Ten years ago the medical profession scoffed at the idea that bacteria caused ulcers. The "maturity" of a theory has nothing to do with its validity.

Yes, discussion and trial/error are part of the scientific method. But a scientific fact is not established until the theory "cannot be proven false." AGW proponents have a long way to go.

 

[Kevin Scharfenberg]

Gore is an owner in the company he is paying...so he's taking the money from one of his pockets to the other. I'm not impressed considering all of his moralizing on the subject.

People pay money to their own charities all the time, take Bill Gates for example. Either way, it doesn't address my rebuttal to you about the large amount of time, effort, and money being spent by individuals and corporations concerned about GW. They ARE walking the walk, so they must think there's something serious going on.

Didn't the climate cool markedly from 1000AD to about 1650 AD? Was this due to CO2 suddenly dissipating from the atmosphere? Peer reviewed paper?

Where is the huge increase in CO2 starting in the 18th Century (give me a peer-reviewed paper) that caused the warming observed until 1940?

The questions are utterly irrelevant, because again, no one is stating that CO2 concentration is the ONLY forcing that drives major temperature changes on the climate scale. Because forcing #17 is strong and causing a positive trend in the system in year 1500 doesn't mean it cannot be negligible compared to negative forcing #9 in 1600, and forcing #31 might be the major factor toward another positive trend in 1700, and so on. All the global climate forcings that we know about during the 20th century were negligible compared to the major observed upward trend in CO2.

In other words, I'll turn the question back to you: We know when they happen volcanic eruptions can have a major cooling impact on the climate. If a major volcanic eruption were to occur today, there would be a significant cooling trend over the next year or two until the particulates settle out of the atmosphere. If there was a major warming trend in some other 2 year period a few decades later wouldn't that therefore mean that there was some sort of anti-volcano eruption that sucked particulates out of the atmosphere? Why not?

I don't want GCM results, I want peer-reviewed studies of the proxy data which proves that changes in CO2 concentrations caused the above major climate changes.

Not only do you reject the well-accepted GCMs out of hand, but you're demanding full proof beyond theory which is extremely rare to attain in ANY science. See my response at the end.

Let me say it again: Hansen, in 1988, posed the theory of CO2-driven global warming. In the scientific method the burden is on the person who makes the hypothesis to show "it cannot be proven false" (read any reference on the 'scientific method').

See my earlier post on the hypocritical demands of absolute proof in this area whilst readily accepting other theories. Hansen's 1988 global temperature projections are certainly looking remarkably accurate nearly 20 years later so he must have been onto something.

The 'consensus' was that the sun revolved around the earth. Ten years ago the medical profession scoffed at the idea that bacteria caused ulcers. The "maturity" of a theory has nothing to do with its validity.

The word maturity is not used in the sense of how long it has been around, but how well it has stood up to scrutiny. CO2 driven GW in the 20th century has stood up remarkably well in the last 20 years to countless well-funded attacks, and still stands today as by far the most plausible explanation offered.

Yes, discussion and trial/error are part of the scientific method. But a scientific fact is not established until the theory "cannot be proven false." AGW proponents have a long way to go.

Yes, if you're waiting for absolute "fact" to be established, you'll continue to wait. Since gravitation and relativity are also only "theories", and not absolutely established facts, you would also never make any progress and be stalled many years behind in the fields of physics and astronomy as well.

 

[Mike Smith]

Kevin,

Generation Investment Management is most certainly not a charity, it is a for-profit business. Go to: www.generationim.com/

Al Gore is an investor and chairman of the Board of this profit-making business: www.generationim.com/about/team.html You might notice there is huge money in this company from many multinational businesses.

When he pays GIM for a "carbon credit" he is taking money from one pocket and putting it into another. When he flies private jets, as he frequently does, he is significantly increasing his 'carbon footprint.' You may not like it, but the above are facts.

With regard to:

The questions are utterly irrelevant, because again, no one is stating that CO2 concentration is the ONLY forcing that drives major temperature changes on the climate scale. Because forcing #17 is strong and causing a positive trend in the system in year 1500 doesn't mean it cannot be negligible compared to negative forcing #9 in 1600, and forcing #31 might be the major factor toward another positive trend in 1700, and so on. All the global climate forcings that we know about during the 20th century were negligible compared to the major observed upward trend in CO2.

A question: How do we know which is which? If the forcing varies from year-to-year, decade to decade, century to century as you contend, how do we know which is the strongest forcing in 1600...1601....1602 or 2004...2005...2006?

You keep contending these and similar questions are 'irrelevant.' I contend they are not only relevant but the answers are crucial if the science is as certain as you contend.

Mike

 

[John Farley]

Simple - when we eliminate all other possible causes and explanations for what is happening. AGW is one of many possible conclusions to explain the things we are seeing.

This is not a reasonable standard, because it implies that human contributions to global warming can only be accepted when all other possible causes of global warming are eliminated. In the world of science, there are many, many phenomena that have multiple causes. Global warming is very likely one of them, i.e. it is very possible - the large majority of scientists believe likely, in fact - that both natural processes such as warming and cooling cycles and human activities are contributing to global warming. Hence, it is not necessary to eliminate natural cycles to make the case for human contributions to global warming. It is entirely possible that human actions are intensifying/accelerating a warming trend that is already there due to natural cycles.

As to rdewey's comment (the only other one responsive to my question), yes, I do think that human actions are a factor contributing to global warming. This is the case for two main reasons. First, as others have pointed out, the recent trends have been entirely consistent with what models and theories have predicted about the relationship between carbon pollution and global warming. Second, the overwhelming majority of those who have spent much of their work lives studying this issue (which I, like most on this list, have not) believe that humans are contributing to global warming. Together, these two realities lead me to strongly believe that human contributions to global warming are real.