I thought I'd post all the relevant bits of a conversation I had on one of Wired.com's science blogs.
Some of this is just scary.... "Sensei" is me, by the way.
I have skipped (indicated by ...) some parts of the discussion that were not relevant to my conversation. I've also left out my replies to another guy who didn't quite show up prepared.
If you want to read the whole thing, it's here:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/08/the-next-climat.html
Note- Watch the change in the guy I'm arguing with. First he starts off with a nice ad hominem.
"Are you all really that stupid?" Then he proceeds to lay it down thick. I push back, he eventually pulls out the big credentials (maybe that works for scientists, but not for engineers, heheh), and by the end of the discussion he's going "All I'm saying is.. what if I'm right?"
Here goes:
--
"Some two-fifths still believe there is "a lot of disagreement among climate scientists" on the basic question of whether the planet is warming."
Well, at least two-fifths of us have some sense. There is indeed disagreement on this very issue, for various reasons. Yes, it's been extremely hot here this year. But it's been very cold in Germany. Global temperature averaging is still an imprecise science, and what you find depends largely on what you look for.
That being said, I personally do think the planet is getting warmer. So is Mars. I highly doubt man's contribution to Mars' warming is significant, but an observed increase in solar output intensity might just do the trick. Maybe even in both cases.
My worry is not that we will all burn to a crisp or drown within my lifetime, but that the alarmists will keep pushing to stifle all dissent (for our own good, you understand), and usher in an era of scientific dogma just as constricting and stifling as the one that caused Galileo so many problems.
I cannot believe what I have read in the comments section here. Are you all really that stupid? Is that even possible? I can see climate change happening on a month to month basis. You are all idiots, and should keep your comments to yourselves. Thank you for your support.
Parm
Dear god Parm, I really hope you are being sarcastic about the "month to month basis" comment. I can't quite tell.
Brandon Keim,
I suppose that makes you one of the three-fifths, then, eh? ;)
I am not disagreeing with *scientists*. In fact, *scientists*, taken as a whole, disagree on nearly everything, so it is impossible to disagree with all of them on any given point. Given that this is the case, I am extremely skeptical and wary of any claim that attempts to deny that.
(saying that all scientists agree with you as if that is relevant is like saying that all businessmen agree with your global economic model. But the opinion of a hotdog salesmen, businessman though he be, is not pertinent to the discussion of a global economic model. ) In the same way, the opinion of the majority of scientists is totally irrelevant to the question at hand, because it is out of their field.
And, let me point out that there was overwhelming consensus for centuries among scientists that the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, that flies spontaneously generated out of rotten meat, etc.
There is a consensus among scientists about global warming. They ALL know it is happening. A very small percentage of scientists in the field of climatology disagree that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of the planetary warming we have recently been seeing (last 100 years, and instead point to the natural variability theory as a possible cause. The supposed "debate" among scientists has been created by politicians and big-oil businessmen who feel that a debate will further delay action to prevent anthropogenic emissions, and thus will allow them to continue reaping massive profits from a nasty chemical we know as gasoline. There really is no debate. You would be fooling yourself to think so. The only REAL debate, is the disagreement as to the consequences of the warming. There some opinions differ...some believe we are headed for the Apocalypse, others believe the warming will scarcely affect us. One thing is for sure...we will see some very scary weather in the next 20 years or so. As somebody once said.."May you live in interesting times". I think the future will be rather interesting.
Parm
Sensei -- shoulda said *climate* scientists. If all the hot dog salesman in the world tell me to eat beef for a while, I'll do it. And if the businessmen are selling their stocks and saying a depression is coming, I'll listen up :)
Brandon,
Ok, that makes more sense. I am aware that there is a certain number of qualified climate scientists who disagree, however, but who are marginalized because their views are not popular with the current fad.
(and yes, the scientific community most certainly is susceptible to fads. Cooling was "in" in the 70's, and anyone who denied it was marginalized. Now Warming is "in", and the same thing is happening in reverse)
Parm,
If you said that there is a consensus among scientists that climate change is occurring, I would agree with you, and with that assertion. Evidence of that is plentiful, though I would submit that one year of freak weather does not long-term global climate change make.
"There really is no debate. You would be fooling yourself to think so."
Again, the absence of debate is no proof of the veracity of a theory.
And I still maintain that there is one. I have read opinions by scientists who are not influenced or payed by either petro-business or politicians who strongly disagree that we are causing the warming, and who are even upset that attention is being diverted from dealing with the consequences of the climate change by scrambling around pretending that we can stop it by our own actions.
And no one has explained how the Mars effect is not related. If we are causing global warming, why is Mars heating up too?
Much of the perceived warming is artificial. NASA's dataset had an error in it. The error related only to U.S. temperature record, but it is still significant. NASA GISS corrected its temp record and now the current decade is cooler than the 1990s and the 1990s are cooler than the 1930s. This is a big story but has not been picked up by the media yet. Read this http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Sensei:
Mars may be heating up, but this does not have any correlation to our situation here on Earth, as solar output has been on a down-trend for several years (check out the NASA website for more info on this - They just released a study performed by their recently launched solar probe). The scientists who are denying we are causing Global Warming are saying this out of fear...and nothing else. Some people have a difficult time accepting that we have devastated our beautiful planet, have left a legacy of destruction for our children, and perhaps without intention - have caused our own long-term extinction. These are challenging concepts to grasp for those who are trying not to see what is happening.
Ron:
The current decade is the warmest on record....BY FAR. The 1990's were just slightly cooler than this decade. Believe it or not...there have been 554 ALL TIME heat records broken in North America over the past 3 years. 2005 and 2006 were the absolute hottest years since record keeping began. There is no denying this...it is a FACT..which is a word alot of people cannot grasp. For those of you that cannot understand this word...it means that your opinion is irrelevant, and the data stands. 2007 is shaping up to be ONCE AGAIN...hotter still than 2006 or 2005. Get out your sunblock and air-conditioners...you will need them.
Parm
Parm,
"The scientists who are denying we are causing Global Warming are saying this out of fear...and nothing else."
As a wise man once said, "I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said."
Please tell me that you have not drunk the koolaid so deeply that you do not think there is any possible basis in scientific fact for questioning a theory. There is some irony in that, however. Could this be the advent of radical scientific extremism?
"Some people have a difficult time accepting that we have devastated our beautiful planet, have left a legacy of destruction for our children, and perhaps without intention - have caused our own long-term extinction."
Now that makes me worry about your objectivity a bit. I hear they have a great deal in tin foil down at Sam's Club. Feel free to panic as you like, but in a few decades when everyone is ranting about the next ice age, I will be just as skeptical as I am now.
This whole panicked tirade sounds like an insult to critical thinking skills to me.
Sensei,
You have to understand this from my perspective. I am head of Research and Development for a climatic based environmental company. I have been studying climate for almost 10 years now. I have read virtually every article written in the english language where climate change or global warming is concerned. So when I make a statement...it is not based on the type of research that most net-junkies would consider valid. I have been studying climate change for most of my adult life. It is almost a CERTAINTY that I know more about this than you do. When you have the level of education and experience I do....come back and speak to me...until you have done your homework...you don't really have an opinion on this topic. No offense intended. I simply know more about it than most people. It is my job, and my passion Sensei, not just a little hobby, or a cheap form of entertainment. When I read an article about climate change/global warming from somebody who obviously knows more than I do...I LISTEN.
Parm,
Your passion, clearly.
While I hope my previous post was not taken as personally insulting, when I read phrases like the one I mentioned:
"Some people have a difficult time accepting that we have devastated our beautiful planet, have left a legacy of destruction for our children, and perhaps without intention - have caused our own long-term extinction."
I have to question your objectivity, because it's such an emotionally charged statement. (I, for one, certainly have difficulty accepting that it is a foregone conclusion that we have caused our own long-term extinction) I don't question whether or not you are well-informed on your subject, but so were many people who assured us that a global freeze was coming in the 70's. In fact, though I don't have the data to make the comparison, it is safe to conclude that at least a few of the people saying that then were more qualified than you are now. And they were totally wrong. So we have precedent for believing that even those as well qualified as you apparently are can be totally (and honestly) mistaken.
There were proposals then of spreading soot on glaciers to melt them, because of fears that too much water would be frozen up there, causing global shortages. What kind of mess would we be in now if they had done that? It would have at least exacerbated the melting that is now occurring. My argument is that taking extreme measures now would be similarly foolish.
The Vikings settled in Greenland when it had extensive forests. (one reason they named it "greenland") We have yet to even get back to the levels of those days, when the climate cycles could not have been significantly been affected by humans.
I'm honestly open to hearing people explain to me why it is that historical temperature phases do not apply in this situation, but my impression, perhaps not as well informed as yours, but perhaps not totally invalid either, is that this is something that has always been happening.
At very least, as a scientist, you should be encouraging creative and critical thinking, not proposing that people are ignorant for not accepting everything they hear reported (truthfully or not) as a consensus.
Sensei,
You seem to be well informed when it comes to climate change, and have a firm grasp of the concepts surrounding the issues. I am quite passionate, and do tend to run off at the mouth on this topic inparticular. The reason I make what would appear to be unreasonable claims about planetary warming, is that I believe we (humans) have made a rather large mistake. This may or may not be true...only time will tell. However I believe that there is an absolutely critial gas balance that has existed for eons. This balance has always been maintained throughout history. There have been times in the past in which the CO2 levels were beyond 450ppm, and as low as 250ppm. The Nitrogen, Oxygen, and residual gasses (argon, Nitrous Oxide, Sulfur Dioxide, etc), were also kept in check by the natural processes that were also in balance. It is my opinion that we have underestimated the importance of this gas balance, which is now askew. Lets hypothesize for a minute, and say that the earth is far more sensitive to gas ratios that we may believe. Let us also say that the earth maintains corrective measures for restoring these critical gas ratios. COULD IT BE....that we are beginning to see the earth's self correcting mechanisms take hold? This does not have to be an apocalyptic situation...just simple physics. When we exceed the level of greenhouse gasses the earth can sequester..a buildup of these gasses starts taking place in the atmosphere...and the temperature starts to rise. The rise in temperature starts to melt the poles (among the other effects - drought, wind-storms, flooding, etc), the poles dump the fresh water into the ocean in the Northern Hemisphere. The fresh water starts to interfere with the Global Thermohaline Conveyor, which brings warm water up from the Southern Hemisphere...which cools in the North and sinks...completing the cycle. The buildup of fresh water prevents the cool- heavily saline water from sinking...which starts to stall the conveyor. When there is enough fresh water lost from the poles...the engine can stall. If the engine stalls...the Northern Hemisphere becomes very cold (younger dryas). These cold temperatures cause a mini ice-age..which prompts the return of snow and ice to the poles...which creates a temperature differential between the Northern and Southern Hemisphere...which starts the Global Conveyor again...which starts to heat up the Northern Hemisphere again...creating the warming and cooling trends we can see over the past 600,000 years or so. These effects can be sped up or slowed by volcanic activity, mass methane emissions from the oceans..and several other factors. I think my point is...is that we have simply underestimated the importance of this gas balance...and in MY opinion...will find out very quickly that it was a mistake. I could be wrong...but everything I have studied has shown me that not only could this be true...but it seems to be happening. Now my opinion is not the end all be all of science..But it does lend to an interesting debate does it not? The interesting thing about the recent warming trend in the past decade or so...is how much faster it is happening than scientists predicted (melting glaciers and ocean surface temperatures have increased up to 10 times as quickly as the IPCC predicted). Rather interesting. All I'm saying is...what if I'm right????
Parm
Thank you for that explanation. If I am correct, that is basically the premise that the film "The Day after Tomorrow" was following. (though they greatly sped it up for the purposes of the plot, I assume)
My response would be twofold.
1) What was it that caused CO2 levels to rise so dramatically in the past? Could some of those factors be at work today as well?
2) "COULD IT BE....that we are beginning to see the earth's self correcting mechanisms take hold? This does not have to be an apocalyptic situation...just simple physics."
That's exactly what I'm saying. This is a natural cycle that the Earth has apparently gone through many times, when human CO2 contributions were minimal. (agriculture probably had some small effect, one way or another)
So is the warming that much of the world is experiencing just a natural corrective cycle? If so, then we are panicking over something that 1) is not our fault, and 2) we can't stop, and would be foolish to try, since it's a natural corrective process?
The question, as I understand it, would be whether our contributions are sufficient to cause a more severe and abnormal climate self-correction that would be more catastrophic than a normal correction.
The problem with asking that question is that we don't really know what a normal self-correction (the kind that has occurred without any anthropogenic CO2) looks like as it's playing out in realtime, at least in terms of modern times. ("modern" meaning since we've had the ability to so carefully measure and monitor global metrics as they change)
--Updates may be forthcoming...
Posts
Sensei,
The stat pointed to two-fifths of the public believing that scientists disagree about global warming -- i.e., two-fifths believed not in a climate fact, but in a policy fact. And it's just not true. It's fine if you disagree with scientists that the planet is warming, but it's important to understand that you are *disagreeing with scientists*. The scientific consensus in favor of global warming is overwhelming. To believe there's "a lot of disagreement" is like believing that up is down.