Report has 'smoking gun' on climate

While I think this is an important issue, I think we need more studies to be sure. That's why I'm proposing legislation that would encourage American automobile manufactureres to build the largest SUV ever and give subsidies to polluters.

--what Wingnut Repubs will say.

 

For the sake of discussion:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/4487421.html

Climate scientists feeling the heat
As public debate deals in absolutes, some experts fear predictions 'have created a monster'


By ERIC BERGER
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

Scientists long have issued the warnings: The modern world's appetite for cars, air conditioning and cheap, fossil-fuel energy spews billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unnaturally warming the world.

Yet, it took the dramatic images of a hurricane overtaking New Orleans and searing heat last summer to finally trigger widespread public concern on the issue of global warming.

Climate scientists might be expected to bask in the spotlight after their decades of toil. The general public now cares about greenhouse gases, and with a new Democratic-led Congress, federal action on climate change may be at hand.

Problem is, global warming may not have caused Hurricane Katrina, and last summer's heat waves were equaled and, in many cases, surpassed by heat in the 1930s.

In their efforts to capture the public's attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It's probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.

"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster," says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.

Vranes, who is not considered a global warming skeptic by his peers, came to this conclusion after attending an American Geophysical Union meeting last month. Vranes says he detected "tension" among scientists, notably because projections of the future climate carry uncertainties — a point that hasn't been fully communicated to the public.

The science of climate change often is expressed publicly in unambiguous terms.

For example, last summer, Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, told the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce: "I think we understand the mechanisms of CO2 and climate better than we do of what causes lung cancer. ... In fact, it is fair to say that global warming may be the most carefully and fully studied scientific topic in human history."

Vranes says, "When I hear things like that, I go crazy."

Nearly all climate scientists believe the Earth is warming and that human activity, by increasing the level of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, has contributed significantly to the warming.

But within the broad consensus are myriad questions about the details. How much of the recent warming has been caused by humans? Is the upswing in Atlantic hurricane activity due to global warming or natural variability? Are Antarctica's ice sheets at risk for melting in the near future?

To the public and policymakers, these details matter. It's one thing to worry about summer temperatures becoming a few degrees warmer.

It's quite another if ice melting from Greenland and Antarctica raises the sea level by 3 feet in the next century, enough to cover much of Galveston Island at high tide.


Models aren't infallible
Scientists have substantial evidence to support the view that humans are warming the planet — as carbon dioxide levels rise, glaciers melt and global temperatures rise. Yet, for predicting the future climate, scientists must rely upon sophisticated — but not perfect — computer models.

"The public generally underappreciates that climate models are not meant for reducing our uncertainty about future climate, which they really cannot, but rather they are for increasing our confidence that we understand the climate system in general," says Michael Bauer, a climate modeler at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in New York.

Gerald North, professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, dismisses the notion of widespread tension among climate scientists on the course of the public debate. But he acknowledges that considerable uncertainty exists with key events such as the melting of Antarctica, which contains enough ice to raise sea levels by 200 feet.

"We honestly don't know that much about the big ice sheets," North says. "We don't have great equations that cover glacial movements. But let's say there's just a 10 percent chance of significant melting in the next century. That would be catastrophic, and it's worth protecting ourselves from that risk."

Much of the public debate, however, has dealt in absolutes. The poster for Al Gore's global warming movie, An Inconvenient Truth, depicts a hurricane blowing out of a smokestack. Katrina's devastation is a major theme in the film.

Judith Curry, an atmospheric scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has published several research papers arguing that a link between a warmer climate and hurricane activity exists, but she admits uncertainty remains.

Like North, Curry says she doubts there is undue tension among climate scientists but says Vranes could be sensing a scientific community reaction to some of the more alarmist claims in the public debate.

For years, Curry says, the public debate on climate change has been dominated by skeptics, such as Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and strong advocates such as NASA's James Hansen, who calls global warming a ticking "time bomb" and talks about the potential inundation of all global coastlines within a few centuries.

That may be changing, Curry says. As the public has become more aware of global warming, more scientists have been brought into the debate. These scientists are closer to Hansen's side, she says, but reflect a more moderate view.

"I think the rank-and-file are becoming more outspoken, and you're hearing a broader spectrum of ideas," Curry says.


Young and old tension
Other climate scientists, however, say there may be some tension as described by Vranes. One of them, Jeffrey Shaman, an assistant professor of atmospheric sciences at Oregon State University, says that unease exists primarily between younger researchers and older, more established scientists.

Shaman says some junior scientists may feel uncomfortable when they see older scientists making claims about the future climate, but he's not sure how widespread that sentiment may be. This kind of tension always has existed in academia, he adds, a system in which senior scientists hold some sway over the grants and research interests of graduate students and junior faculty members.

The question, he says, is whether it's any worse in climate science.

And if it is worse? Would junior scientists feel compelled to mute their findings, out of concern for their careers, if the research contradicts the climate change consensus?

"I can understand how a scientist without tenure can feel the community pressures," says environmental scientist Roger Pielke Jr., a colleague of Vranes' at the University of Colorado.

Pielke says he has felt pressure from his peers: A prominent scientist angrily accused him of being a skeptic, and a scientific journal editor asked him to "dampen" the message of a peer-reviewed paper to derail skeptics and business interests.

"The case for action on climate science, both for energy policy and adaptation, is overwhelming," Pielke says. "But if we oversell the science, our credibility is at stake."

 

Good article Max. The problem is the oceans. They are a massive thermal and CO2 sink. So massive that the uncertainty in calculations concerning their impact can easily dwarf all the other parts of a model. This problem is magnified by time - the oceans operate on a huge "delay", i.e., even if CO2 production was totally stopped now, the oceans would still be changing due to the previous pollution for 100s, or even thousands of years.

Thus the sticky problem of global warming policy. The models are, as you quoted, not infallible. And you are talking about benefits they may not be seen for 100s of years. Tough to get people to sign up for it. Personally, I think the market approach is the only way - don't ban or tax things into oblivian, rather provide an "internal" market to guide companies to greener solutions. Coal companies actually want this to be finalized or even hinted at by the Bush administration, so that they can plan accordingly with respect to any new construction.

One of my classes this semester is about environmental public policy - should be very interesting to read more about this from a policy, as opposed to technical, standpoint.

 

Whatever one's opinion on the impact that humans have on global warming, I think we can all agree that at the very least, cutting down carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases is beneficial for us in the long run, if not cutting down on global warming, then at least cutting down on human pollution. There's only positives from this.

 

I pretty much agree with this as long as it doesn't place a great harm on the economy of a nation, ours included.

I believe the Earth is getting warmer and I believe man has some effect on that. I just don't believe the hysteria about global warming and neither do most meteorologists. Most meteorologists (not climatologists, mind you) will tell you a lot of the warming is due to a natural warming cycle of the Earth but I do believe that working toward cleaner emissions is a goal everyone should be working toward.

 

That does not make sense. First, meteorologists are rather poor judges of climate patterns, as that is the job of a climatologist. The weather is not the same as the climate, and the two cannot be directly correlated. Secondly, the Greenhouse Effect is most certainly proven and natural, the question is not "is it happening?", but "what is the amount of influence humanity has had on it?"

The latter is not trivial to answer, but the results of betting wrong could be devestating.

EDIT: Any link to these meteorologists claims?

 

I'm sorry you seem to get offended by my opinion.

Sadly I don't memorize every link I read on the internet. I can tell you don't believe me and that's fine. I've talked with a few meteorologists (mainly here on the UT campus) and they all say the alarmism is out of hand. You'll either have to believe me or not believe me on that but it doesn't matter to me.

I never said the weather is the same as the climate but climatologists have reason to justify global warming (and global cooling for that matter) because without those types of things to talk about they really wouldn't have a job.

I agree with you on the "what effect are we having on it" question so I'm not sure if you understood that aspect of my argument. I don't think we're the main cause. I agree betting wrong can be devastating but you have to realize that it can be negative if you bet wrong either way.

It's obvious how it's devastating if we are the main culprit but if we aren't and we take drastic measures that reduce the quality of life I would see that as a big negative, as well.

I just believe that those preaching that global warming is devastating are causing more problems than solutions. They're turning off the general public to the general message that we should clean up the Earth because a lot of people don't believe their extreme predictions. Many of them also remember the "global cooling" scare and wonder what the difference is. Back then, melting the polar icecaps was a good thing. Now it's not.

The staunch global warming alarmists hold just as much weight in my mind as the extremely fundamental evangelicals because it's like a religion. Much like buying an Apple.

 

yap i don't care about whats left of the environment for future generations.. what's important is my finances right now..

 

Not offended by any stretch, and not disbelieving necessarily either. Just curious. However, I would point out that you seem somewhat hypocritical in your position that global warming alarmists are akin to relgious zealots, seeing as you are definitely rigid in your own view with respect to the debate, and shrug off alternative predictions with "I just don't believe..."

And that's not to be an ass, rather to try and point out that although I admit that I am very much a believer in the global warming problem, I have managed to temper myself regarding the responses and policies that are being proposed to address it. Alarmism to the tune of "the end of the world is nigh!" are silly, but to ignore the implications of potential climate collapse, and resist solutions due to short-term economic objectives is equally daft.

 

I see what you're saying. I might come off as closed to the idea but I'm open minded about it. It just seems that any time something happens it becomes evidence of global warming. It's also weird that we can't talk about anything positive that may come from global warming because the minute you bring it up you're labeled a right wing nutjob.

 

On this issue, I define right wing nutjobs as people who steadfastly refuse to even consider that human activity could be having an effect. It doesn't matter what you say to them, they've already closed their mind on the issue because they believe it's a conspiracy by left wingers to control people. It's almost like: "Don't talk to me because nothing you say can possibly change my mind". THESE people are potentially the most dangerous.

What are the benefits of global warming you speak of? Do they begin to approach the downsides?

 

Understood. For me, the scientific/technical side of it is undeniable. The trick is in the policy meant to address it.

Positives from global warming have been postulated, albeit mainly by right wing nutjobs.

^
that was only half a joke

EDIT: You were not serious about "positives" from global warming, right?

 

Are you kidding!

Don't you remember the summer everyone from Houston surfed to Dallas!

 

I thought there was. I was tired of hearing about the "Next Ice Age". I didn't know how bad this was going to be.

 

Exactly, there are no easy answers here. The benefits of solutions have to be weighed against their impact on society - and yes, vlaurel, that means the economy in part. Junior High responses to serious issues don't help much.

Wasn't there a paper published recently that posited that a cycle of increased solar activity was a - if not *the* - major cause of increased temps?

It's going to take awhile, but eventually technology - in personal transportation, power generation & distribution, & a host of other fields - is the only hope to solve this. For now about all we can do is make the best of a very troublesome situation: market incentives for emission reduction, cleaner power (coal & nuclear), increased fuel economy standards, etc...and personal lifestyle changes, which unfortunately most are unwilling to attempt.

How big is your carbon footprint?

 

I disagree. Technology is only part of the answer. Technology, for all it's potential benefits, also is what caused the problem. Be careful what you wish for...

As an aside, Jared Diamond wrote about this very well in his book on collapsing societies - I highly recommend it. There's some interviews/essays out on the internet where he talks directly about this perception and why it is dangerously optimistic from a historical perspective.

I liked the rest of your post though - nicely cynical.

Ah - here is good link to Diamond's thoughts.

 

Yeah, it was a good book. Too bad his whole hypothesis on Easter Island has been quite possibly debunked. Not sure if he's responed to these claims, though.

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/53200?fulltext=true

 

Interesting. I had not read that.

 

By the way, An Inconvenient Truth was nominated for an Oscar.