Global Warming ended in 1998? Earth is cooling?

[Neoteny]

Alright, I'm not sure that I want to get into the science with you, Harijan, as that's not my focus, and would only botch up any attempt to counter your points. I'll leave that to the climate scientists, though I feel bad that you went through the effort to post all that data. The main gist of my argument is that the consensus is in the favor of anthropogenic global warming as it contributes to climate change. My view of the data doesn't really matter on that point. Now, your list was interesting, but flawed in my opinion. It reminds me a lot of Project Steve, but with slightly less strict entry requirements. At least Project Steve limits the entries to doctoral degrees (PhD, MD, and EdD according to their info page) and jokingly admits that the science is not a democracy.

The first thing I noticed about the site was a link to the Discovery Institute. Bad news. But I'll let it slide.

The petition you linked to included quite a few undergraduate degrees (John Haan from Idaho, anyone), and, while I have nothing against them, they, almost without a doubt, have very little, if any, climate studies experience; this is especially the case of those, even those who got a Ph.D, studying engineering or some other completely unrelated field. Of course, this will not be the case for everyone, but I seriously doubt there are many people outside the field of climate science willing to take a climate science course. That was my first concern. This wouldn't be enough to really win any argument on its own.

However, if the points made in the actual petition (which was not very intimidating, by the way) were as clear as it would seem, then why aren't these individuals making their concerns and studies known? Why is there such a strong consensus in the peer-reviewed circuit (the paper you're citing is almost ten years old, by the way) when there are 19,000+ scientists out there who disagree? The whole thing just seems a bit off to me. I see three answers to the question. One is courtesy of Dekloren, "it's a conspiracy." Not by the government, but by the review process, which seems doubtful to me for reasons I noted previously. The second is bad science, which will have been ousted by people with a lot more experience than me. I've forgotten the third over the past two sentences... but I'll leave this part open in case I remember...

[PLAYER57832]

I'm under the impression that the scientific consensus is that global warming is the cause of anthropogenic climate change.
This is where the global warming/climate change connection breaks down. There is a causal relationship between global warming and climate change, and there is a causal relationship between increased greenhouse gases and global warming.

But the correlation between between global warming and increased greenhouse gases is weak, and the correlation between global warming and climate change is weak (if climate change can even be objectively measured).

quote]

[color=#4000BF][color=#4000BF][color=#4000FF]What most of the discussion here really shows how easy it is to misunderstand complex issues when you don't take the time to FULLY and COMPLETELY look into them instead of just listening to the 1-2 minute news sound bytes.

1. Neither 1998, 2002, nor even 25 years are valid "baselines' for any climate issue. Climate is judged in hundreds of years. Even talking about decades means PHENOMENAL changes.

When you lay the millenium record, a "blib" does show on a worldwide basis. The "blip" is small -- 1/2 to 1 degree at most. BUT that is not an individual record, it is a world wide record. In any given area, you will see much more significant increases AND decreases.

2. NO one can agree on the EXACT impact, but that is like saying I don't know EXACTLY how many blades of grass I will see tommorrow. Does the exact count matter? We don't need to count every blad of grass in our lawns to know if it is thinning or exhibiting bare patches or other "ills". Scientists will argue about how much flooding will occur, how bad storms will become, etc, but most agree that change will occur and, change will cause turmoil and problems for many.

3. Regarding meat. Cattle, goats, etc., in the "ideal" world eat grasses and other items that we humans cannot consume off land that is not suitable for crops, so saying that it takes 10 pounds to make 1 pound of meat on average, while correct, is somewhat misrepresenting the truth (and, by-the way, that is a bit high, it is more liek 4 to 5 pound for 1 pound of beef, per my old ag science text). HOWEVER, it is also correct because in "modern" agriculture, cattle are often fed corn, not grass. Even when they are grazed, it is more often NOT on the just the marginal lands not suitable for crops, but prime land AND/OR land converted from forest. The push, then should not so much be to ELIMINATE meat as a food source (not practical anyway), but to manage how it is grown).

4. Arguing that an idea is bad because you have found someone claiming to be a scientist somewhere disagrees is a start, but is not enough to say you have looked at the issues. It is not enough to just cite your sources, you ALSO have to know from where those sources arise, ESPECIALLY if they are stricly internet sources. You need to do this even in a scientific journal, but at least there, you know that a group of scientists in that particular speciality reviewed the research. On the interenet, I can start a site and claim to have 15 phD's in anything I like. YOu need to look at WHO wrote the information (is it backed up by other scientists .. i.e. a credible source .. or does this person have an agenda .. as in would you trust a tobacco company study on safety of tobacco as well as a study by John's Hopkins???) THEN you have to look at the techniques. The scientist may be credible, honest and smart, but still make a mistake in technique or even data collection. ONLY THEN can you compare studies. [/color][/color][/color]

[Harijan]

The problem with peer review is that it is not intended to prove research wrong, it is only to maintain the quality and integrity of the research. So if there is research showing that global warming is causing a 3 inch per century rise in oceanic levels, the peer review process will only review the application of scientific process based on substantiated and reliable scientific method.

With this being the case there is no reason why one research project can conclude that global warming is causing a 3 inch rise in ocean levels, and pass the peer review process, and another research project proving that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and global air temperatures are not well correlated can also pass peer review.

Scientific consensus is a myth, just ask any scientist. Not all climatologist believe that global warming means environmental disaster (although admittedly many do agree that it is a serious problem).

I would encourage you to read the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf in its entirety. That document does an excellent job of saying what the IPCC knows, what it doesn't know, and what it speculates (read the definition "very likely" which is specific to the report") is true.

The fact of the matter is that global warming will likely bring both benefits and difficulties to organisms around the globe, but we do not know if the difficulties will outweigh the benefits (this cannot even be measured by any self-respecting researcher because it requires enormous amounts of subjectivity). We know what impact greenhouse gases should be having on the environment, but we are not observing the hypothesis results.

I would also encourage you to read the Wikipedia posting for Global Warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#cite_note-1 . This is also pretty well done, and discloses just what the problem is with forecasting the impact of GW.

The last point I will leave with you is to follow the money. I know this is speculative on my part, and bordering on conspiracy theory, but prior to global warming there were not many rich or famous climatologist in the world. Since global warming it has become one of the most popular, and well-funded disciplines among the soft sciences (yep, thats right climatology falls in the same grouping as psychology, sociology, and ecology). There are hundreds, if not, thousands more teaching and research jobs for climatologist today than there were just 10 years ago. Now, if global warming suddenly becomes somewhat less urgent, that translates into many out-of-work professors and evaporation of funding sources.

I am sure there is no organized or even concious effort to maintain and exagerate the significance of global warming, but you can bet your ass that climatologist around the world are very aware of the fact that if global warming cools off as the hot topic in science (pardon the pun), many of the weaker researchers will be the first extinction attributable to global warming.

There is another layer of this that is based in economics, the impact of a whole new industry (carbon trading) that was created with the Kyoto Protocol and is already worth billions and billions of dollars. This new industry is profiting poor countries by encouraging them not to industrialize, not to increase agricultural production, and not to provide power to their populations, because if they do nothing they can sell their carbon credits to industrialized nations (via the international carbon market which is run by Wall Street) for billions of dollars. That money is better than tax dollars or foreign aid,because it goes right into the pocket of whatever group happens to be running the country as a business transaction. No one is tracking that money. You cannot tell me that carbon trading, which is essentially the only international effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions is either working (most countries in the KP have not assigned federal resources to hold carbon producers accountable) and in the instances where the KP is being enforced, poor countries are being paid to do nothing which means further incentive for poor country governments to keep their citizens in a state of poverty, starvation, and exploitation.

Spend the money on problems we understand how to solve.

[Harijan]

What most of the discussion here really shows how easy it is to misunderstand complex issues when you don't take the time to FULLY and COMPLETELY look into them instead of just listening to the 1-2 minute news sound bytes.

I am not sure if this is a thinly veiled dig on me or Neo, but either way my response is the same. Take a look back at what we wrote. We am not basing anything on sound bites or partial data. If I were to just listen to the news then I would have a very different opinion (depending on the news source I listen to).

1. Neither 1998, 2002, nor even 25 years are valid "baselines' for any climate issue. Climate is judged in hundreds of years. Even talking about decades means PHENOMENAL changes.

I agree complete with this statement. It is one of the best supports for my argument. We only have 150 years of spotty global temperature data, and we only have 45 years of satellite temperature data. The longest consistent record we have is ice core data (650,000 years) and ice core data is not specific enough to be comparable to the 45 years of data we have for our current period (ie: Ice core data is measured in 50 year increments, and even 50 year increments is considered an aggressive application of ice core data, whereas we don’t even have 50 years of current data to compare any one ice core data point to.)

2. NO one can agree on the EXACT impact, but that is like saying I don't know EXACTLY how many blades of grass I will see tommorrow. Does the exact count matter? We don't need to count every blad of grass in our lawns to know if it is thinning or exhibiting bare patches or other "ills". Scientists will argue about how much flooding will occur, how bad storms will become, etc, but most agree that change will occur and, change will cause turmoil and problems for many.

To follow your analogy, scientist right now are spending time in the lab, and saying when I go outside I should see lots of brown patches and bare patches, then when they go outside, they are not seeing as many brown and bare patches as they thought they would. This means something else, that the scientists have not considered is impacting the object of their study.

3. Regarding meat. Cattle, goats, etc., in the "ideal" world eat grasses and other items that we humans cannot consume off land that is not suitable for crops, so saying that it takes 10 pounds to make 1 pound of meat on average, while correct, is somewhat misrepresenting the truth (and, by-the way, that is a bit high, it is more liek 4 to 5 pound for 1 pound of beef, per my old ag science text).

I guess this all depends on which one of us most recently took their science course. I learned it to be a 1 to 10 ratio, however, on reflection, it could have been 1 lbs of edible meat for 10 lbs of plant food. That would take into consideration bone mass, skin, blood, organs and all that. Either way the fact still remains that a vegetarian society is more efficient than an omnivorous or carnivorous society.

4. Arguing that an idea is bad because you have found someone claiming to be a scientist somewhere disagrees is a start, but is not enough to say you have looked at the issues. It is not enough to just cite your sources, you ALSO have to know from where those sources arise, ESPECIALLY if they are stricly internet sources. You need to do this even in a scientific journal, but at least there, you know that a group of scientists in that particular speciality reviewed the research. On the interenet, I can start a site and claim to have 15 phD's in anything I like. YOu need to look at WHO wrote the information (is it backed up by other scientists .. i.e. a credible source .. or does this person have an agenda .. as in would you trust a tobacco company study on safety of tobacco as well as a study by John's Hopkins???) THEN you have to look at the techniques. The scientist may be credible, honest and smart, but still make a mistake in technique or even data collection. ONLY THEN can you compare studies.

This is where arguments about global warming always break down for me. The other side says something along the lines of your sources must be flawed (without ever actually proving that they are flawed), and because I didn’t do the research, and don’t have sufficient training or time to prove research is flawed or not flawed, I am forced to walk away. If someone could convince me that global warming is the most urgent, or even one of the most urgent environmental problems facing the world, I would have a different opinion, but no one has presented an argument that I can buy.

The fact of the matter is we simply do not know, there is definitely not scientific consensus, on all aspects of global warming/climate change and there are much more pressing environmental issues that we can fix.

[Neoteny]

I'm going to avoid PLAYER's response for now (too many capitalized words...), and focus instead on a few of your points.

The problem with peer review is that it is not intended to prove research wrong, it is only to maintain the quality and integrity of the research. So if there is research showing that global warming is causing a 3 inch per century rise in oceanic levels, the peer review process will only review the application of scientific process based on substantiated and reliable scientific method.

This is true, but the consensus from the review of papers who have passed peer-review requirements concludes that anthropogenic global warming is an important issue with respect to climate change.

Scientific consensus is a myth, just ask any scientist. Not all climatologist believe that global warming means environmental disaster (although admittedly many do agree that it is a serious problem).

Every scientist I have talked with about it (in several fields) is aware of, or otherwise acknowledges, scientific consensus. Maybe we should switch scientists for a day. This does not necessarily mean that they agree with a particular consensus, but they acknowledge it nonetheless.

This is where arguments about global warming always break down for me. The other side says something along the lines of your sources must be flawed (without ever actually proving that they are flawed), and because I didn’t do the research, and don’t have sufficient training or time to prove research is flawed or not flawed, I am forced to walk away. If someone could convince me that global warming is the most urgent, or even one of the most urgent environmental problems facing the world, I would have a different opinion, but no one has presented an argument that I can buy.

I can't argue with you on the economics or the science, because I feel that I am not qualified or informed enough to do so. And I am perfectly comfortable in saying that. My field is biology, so I will leave it alone. If you feel informed enough to come to your conclusions, good for you. But in my experience, there is a higher number of other people who feel informed about it that think differently than you do than agree with you. I respect the current scientific state of knowledge enough to reinforce that concept. It's good to see dissent; that's how errors are corrected, but to say there isn't a consensus is an untruth.

climatology falls in the same grouping as psychology, sociology, and ecology

I'd disagree with you here too. Ecology can be rather hard, as can some aspects of the other disciplines. I see "soft science" as more a pejorative to use against sociologists than a really accurate description. But I don't think we need to go into the philosophy of science any more than we are...

[Snorri1234]

I guess this all depends on which one of us most recently took their science course. I learned it to be a 1 to 10 ratio, however, on reflection, it could have been 1 lbs of edible meat for 10 lbs of plant food. That would take into consideration bone mass, skin, blood, organs and all that. Either way the fact still remains that a vegetarian society is more efficient than an omnivorous or carnivorous society.

Actually, I remember reading something about an omnivorious diet being better for the advancement for society due to it stimulating the brain or somesuch. At least when we started to eat meat we got better in braincapacity or something.

Whatever, I don't remember much of it anymore, and I'm probably threadjacking for no good purpose.


Okay, just ignore what I said guys.

[Harijan]

I'd disagree with you here too. Ecology can be rather hard, as can some aspects of the other disciplines. I see "soft science" as more a pejorative to use against sociologists than a really accurate description. But I don't think we need to go into the philosophy of science any more than we are...

It has been a particularly good debate, and one I am better for having. I am more convinced now than when I started that global warming is not only a real threat, but more urgent than I believed. However, I still don't think we know enough to start tinkering with the inputs.

My college training was in ecology (although I have not practiced in ecology research since 1999). All "soft sciences" are really just gray areas where we know enough to research, ask questions, and form meaningful experiments, hypotheses and conclusions, but we do not understand enough to break everything down to its most basic objective components like we can in math, chemistry, and physics for example.

I guess a better way to say that ecology, as a discipline, has several "soft" areas. Sociology has more soft areas than ecology, and biology has fewer soft areas than ecology. I was really over-generalizing by calling all of any one discipline "soft". As for climatology, I would put it somewhere between sociology and and ecology on the "Harijan's egotistical scale of science softness".

Snorri - you bring up a good point, I never considered the benefit of each diet, just the inputs. It could well be that people generate more energy or something from an omnivorous diet than a herbivorous or carnivorous diet. I wonder if there is any research on that topic.

[Neoteny]

As for the energy thing, Ecology circa two years ago bears the 1/10 ratio as far as energy going up one food chain level. It was indeed a fun discussion. I particularly enjoyed the interjections...

[PLAYER57832]

1. We actually have much longer than 150 years of climate data. Written records alone go back several millenia .. to the Roman Empire, Ancient China, etc. In addition, we have data from tree rings & other vegetation, corals and other "hard" animal body parts, not to mention soil samples, etc.

2. talking about "scientists" in a group is only slightly more accurate than talking about humanity as a group. Particularly since there is no limit to who can call themself a scientist. This is one reason why it is important to distinguish between credible scientists -- those with a certain amount of education, who have been proven to use real & valid scientific methodology (generally having been published in a peer-reviewed journal). When you talk of that group, there is far less debate. Within that group, the debate is not "if" global warming will occur, but 'how" and what the exact impact will be.


3. Peer review is not just about methodology, but yes, that is a big part. As to why conflict? Because each scientist is like the blind men examining an elephant. One looks at the turn, another the tail a third the body ... it is only by putting them all together that one gets the real truth! That, and jsut like you can grow up in the same family with siblings, essentially have the same guidance and training, and still be very, very different.

4. Don't have the time? Well, that is the biggest problem. It is why we are supposed to have a base line of education, so that all of us at least understand the basics enough to communicate. Unfortunately, as science has become more complex, education has become more and more meager in many cases and, at least in the US, caught up in politics.
BUT a big start is to look first at peer reviewed journals. They are the "gold standard", the best avaiable. Unfortunately, they are not always the easiest to read or understand ....ergo education. The internet is a highly biased source. It is way too easy to make something "look" decent and credible, attach names of supposed PhD's, etc. This happens in print, too, but the time and money involved in falsefying print data is self-limiting. Plus, once in print, it stays in print meaning that someone, somewhere is likely to find the errors and prosecute. The internet costs virtually nothing, and can "disappear" or change as quickly as a flick of a button. What saddens me here is that so very many obviously intelligent, educated individuals have never been taught these basic distinctions. That bodes badly for our future.

5. Follow the money -- I fully agree. If you REALLY follow the money, look not to the supposed millions being made by climatotogists (if you think scientists are really raking in the bucks ... well I have a nice bridge to sell you, too). The REAL buck are in the hands of the corporations who would have to significantly change their tactics and policies if Global warming were taken seriously. That said, there are also a number of corporations who see enough truth in the data to take steps already to mitigage the damage they will incure, even without any governmental support. That alone speaks volumes!

6. If you really look at who is supporting and who is not supporting the ideas of global warming -- going back 30, 40 years, you find true scientists, educators on one side and those making money on the other. ARe there a few entrepreneurs who now see opportunity to make money on global warming? Of course. But there are far more who stand to lose ... and they are fighting pretty hard to pass on their version of the "truth. Further, many of those who disagree are relying not on education, but a lack of education to support their ideas.

[Neoteny]

Ah, he's on my side, but more to the extreme. Good times.

[PLAYER57832]

nice debate, anyway.

[Harijan]

If you are going to bring entrepreneurs and business into the equation (in which case we are getting farther and farther from anything even remotely measurable). Then there is a book called "The Green Revolution" that is a quick and very good read.

What big and little businesses alike are starting to realize is that there is a TON of money in global warming. The market potential of global warming is estimated to one day rival that of oil. This is a very complicated and delicate argument, but the over-simplified conclusion is that since stopping anthropormoric global warming means reducing fossil fuel consumption to almost nothing, then the only way to maintain the rate of global economic production is to subsitute fossil fuel consumption with other sources of energy.

The biggest business boom in the world right now is alternative energy. There are literally billions and billions of dollars chasing every viable alternative energy scheme that has been thought of. And the higher fossil fuel prices go, the more money is chasing these ideas.

This is another reason why every environmentalist should be against the aspects of the Kyoto Protocol that deal with, and all other carbon trading schemes. Regulating carbon production world-wide is an impossible task, and creating limits for countries only encourages those countries to continue using fossil fuels. The billions of dollars that are going into carbon trading markets should be spent on not only research and development of alternative energy, but also on bringing these new technologies to market.

For example, if Arizona were to dedicate 100 square miles of Mohave Desert to solar energy production, the United States national daytime demand for power would be met for the next 50 years. That is using today's mass produced solar technology. What is the cost of such a project? depending on how you do it, the cost would range from 50-100 billion dollars. Annual daytime energy spending, much much more than that. The business would pay for itself in just a few years, but no one is pursuing the idea. The entire project could even be done with minimal environmental impact on the Mohave (think the reverse of island ecosystems, Island power plants spaced intermittently throughout the ecosystem without actually breaking up the ecosystem).

There are excellent alternatives in development for every aspect of energy consumption except transportation. In the next 10-15 years we will be using more solar, wind, and tidal/hydro power than fossil fuels, and the higher gas prices go the faster we move towards alternative energy. So next time you have to pay $3.00 for a gas, just remember that every penny of increase in gas prices means millions of more dollars are invested in alternative energy. Bring on $5.00/gallon!!

Transportation is the huge problem. Virtually every form of transportation is completely dependent on fossil fuel, and the alternatives suck:
Corn and grain Ethanol is a boondogle - there is still a net energy loss in even the best ethanol production processes. So right now making ethanol consumes more fossil fuel than it the ethanol produced, and if the producers switch to an all ethanol powered production process, then they will have no product to sell at the end of the day.

Electric cars are not as energy efficient as gas cars, but they do allow for other sources of energy besides fossil fuels. This is the most promising technology for personal transportation, but long distance travel and freight transport cannot be efficiently done with electricity.

Hybrid cars are essentially a very expensive band-aid. They work well now, but we are just postponing the same problems

Hydrogen powered technology is not ready for application to the transportation industry, and probably won't be for years decades or more.

Transportation fossil fuel substitutes are the really the last puzzle to solve. Right now we just need to rush toward a global energy shift instead of the leisurely stroll we are now taking to explore dead-ends like carbon credits.