Science and Global Warming

[Steerpike]

A few threads on this topic floating around - I thought I'd post something a bit more general.

It has been correctly pointed out that if you want to be able to assess the issue, you need to read the primary scientific literature and not rely solely on reports by the media. Only by looking at the primary journal articles can you see the experimental methods, the results, and then determine whether the author's conclusions are warranted based on what they present in the paper. Having done peer review and read a lot of primary literature, I can tell you that the author's conclusions are not always justified and are not always as clear cut as the authors pretend.

If you survey the scientific literature on global warming, you will see that we do not actually know with certainty the extent of the antropogenic versus natural effect. There is evidence that both are at work, but quantifying the relative contribution of each is difficult. The problem is further complicated by the fact that the system we're looking at operates on geological timescales and the direct evidence we have is extremely limited in terms of time. So we use models, indirect evidence, etc.

It seems to me based on what I've read that it is likely there is an anthropogenic effect at work. My personal view is that it is also likely that natural variation is the primary factor, with anthropogenic forcing a secondary factor.

The issue certainly merits continued research. What I don't like to see is the politicization of it by both sides, because the end result of that has been for both sides to misrepresent the science. The pro-anthropogenic side tries to tell you it has now been proven that mankind is the primary force behind climate change. That is so far from the scientific reality that it is astounding to hear people say it. Conversely, the people who disagree with the politics of the anthropogenic effect will say there is no evidence for it or that the natural forcings have been proven to be the driving factor in climate change. Also false. We simply do not know yet. Maybe we won't for a long time. We don't even know what all the variables in climate change are, most likely.

I met a couple weeks ago with a former UN minister and member of the IPCC. He was a co-recipient of the Nobel Prize when Gore and the IPCC members won. I asked him point blank whether he thought that we could say with certainty that the anthropogenic effect was the primary cause behind climate change (in other words, whether what Al Gore goes around sayin is actually true). He said 'no,' and pointed out that people are stil working on it and the nature of the problem and the data make certainty difficult (if not impossible at this point - that's my own parenthetical). I agree. Then, he went on to say that politically you had to overstate the case in order to get any traction on the issue.

He's probably right on that last point. Nevertheless, I don't like it.

So if anyone tells you it has been proven that human activity is a prime factor in global warming, they aren't being honest with you. They are either misinformed or they are pushing an agenda. The issue is by no means proven with anything approaching scientific certainty.

The same goes for anyone telling you that mankind is not a factor, or that the natural factors are proven to be the main force. As I said above, we don't have certainty on this issue.

So I encourage people to think critically when confronted with claims from either side of the global warming issue, and if you have the opportunity, get some of the primary research journals and go through some articles on climate change. Look at the vast amount of information that is out there in support of both natural and anthropogenic factors. And keep and open mind as the science progresses and new findings come in.

/soapbox

 

[Tech_Esq]

And that, my friend, is really the point of my previous thread. The data set is far too limited to make the claims the pro-anthropogenic crowd is making. There are too many variables to control for all of them. And lastly, you don't know what you don't know. We are finding new (even major things like species) things in the earth every day. It is the height of arrogance for one to say they know why the earth warms or cools beyond the most crude, basic reasons.

Talking in PPM of this or that substance or talking about fractions of a degree in variation of the entire earth's surface over some length of time is just utter ridiculousness. We've only had the ability to make measurements to that degree of accuracy in the relative recent past. We certainly didn't have anything like the kind of global monitoring we have now a hundred or a 150 years ago. Even then, the instruments doing the monitoring we very crude by today's standards.

I understand what you are saying about the politicization of the issue. Clearly, the primary fault of the politicization lies with the side seeking change. And, as with all political issues, when you have a scarcity of resources, you get politics. The pro-anthropogenic group is seeking fundemental change in global human behavior with profound implications in everybody's every day life. In order that a change that large should be allowed, they should have to carry an extremely high burden of proof. As far as I'm concerned, they have not even begun to meet that burden.

About all we have now is "everyone" thinks so, therefore it's true. Of course, everyone, including all the leading scientists, once thought the earth was flat. Once thought the universe revolved around the earth. I could go on, but you get the point.

 

[Chris]

The North Polar Ice Cap is melting. It has been there for millions of years. CO2 is at the highest level in 600,000 years, which is as far as the Antarctic ice core record goes back. The level of CO2 is accelerating as China and India industrialize. There is evidence that the Arctic methane feedback is starting to kick in.

You guys can postulate all you want while we use the earth as a giant lab experiment.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The North Polar Ice Cap is melting. It has been there for millions of years. CO2 is at the highest level in 600,000 years, which is as far as the Antarctic ice core record goes back. The level of CO2 is accelerating as China and India industrialize. There is evidence that the Arctic methane feedback is starting to kick in.

You guys can postulate all you want while we use the earth as a giant lab experiment.

My point exactly, you don't know the first and you can't know the second.

 

[Chris]

My point exactly, you don't know the first and you can't know the second.

I'm afraid that isn't your point.

But keep whistling past the graveyard!

 

[Chris]

WASHINGTON - Before humans began burning fossil fuels, there was an eons-long balance between carbon dioxide emissions and Earth's ability to absorb them, but now the planet can't keep up, scientists said on Sunday.

The finding, reported in the journal Nature Geoscience, relies on ancient Antarctic ice bubbles that contain air samples going back 610,000 years.

Climate scientists for the last 25 years or so have suggested that some kind of natural mechanism regulates our planet's temperature and the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Those sceptical about human influence on global warming point to this as the cause for recent climate change.

This research is likely the first observable evidence for this natural mechanism.

This mechanism, known as "feedback," has been thrown out of whack by a steep rise in carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal and petroleum for the last 200 years or so, said Richard Zeebe, a co-author of the report.

"These feedbacks operate so slowly that they will not help us in terms of climate change ... that we're going to see in the next several hundred years," Zeebe said by telephone from the University of Hawaii. "Right now we have put the system entirely out of equilibrium."

In the ancient past, excess carbon dioxide came mostly from volcanoes, which spewed very little of the chemical compared to what humans activities do now, but it still had to be addressed.

This antique excess carbon dioxide -- a powerful greenhouse gas -- was removed from the atmosphere through the weathering of mountains, which take in the chemical. In the end, it was washed downhill into oceans and buried in deep sea sediments, Zeebe said.

14,000 TIMES FASTER THAN NATURE

Zeebe analysed carbon dioxide that had been captured in Antarctic ice, and by figuring out how much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere at various points in time, he and his co-author determined that it waxed and waned along with the world's temperature.

"When the carbon dioxide was low, the temperature was low, and we had an ice age," he said. And while Earth's temperature fell during ice ages and rose during so-called interglacial periods between them, the planet's mean temperature has been going slowly down for about 600,000 years.

The average change in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 600,000 years has been just 22 parts per million by volume, Zeebe said, which means that 22 molecules of carbon dioxide were added to, or removed from, every million molecules of air.

Since the Industrial Revolution began in the 18th century, ushering in the widespread human use of fossil fuels, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 100 parts per million.

That means human activities are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere about 14,000 times as fast as natural processes do, Zeebe said.

And it appears to be speeding up: the US government reported last week that in 2007 alone, atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 2.4 parts per million.

The Heat Is Online

 

[KMAN]

I was wondering why the ice in my glass of water was melting faster than it did in 1980.... That damn CO2...

It's funny how liberals quickly fall right into the humans are killing the planet, manmade global warming theory but are so quick to dismiss the creationism theory when neither one can be proven beyond a shadow of doubt....LOL

 

[Steerpike]

About all we have now is "everyone" thinks so, therefore it's true. Of course, everyone, including all the leading scientists, once thought the earth was flat. Once thought the universe revolved around the earth. I could go on, but you get the point.

My points work just as well against the people who claim there is no anthropogenic effect, however. The point is, we don't know for sure. We're not likely to anytime soon.

If you want a better example of scientific dogma and politics supported an erroneous position, look into the Clovis-first debate of decades past in anthropology. Careers of dissenting scientists were ruined, and the dogma was held by all the top, most respected scientists. Unfortunately, they turned out to be wrong, but too many careers had been staked on it for them to admit it.

One correlation to global warming is that anyone who looked obejctively at the scientific literature of the time would have known there were problems with the 'certitude' of Clovis-first. Similarly, anyone who objectively views the science, what we know or even CAN know, on global warming, will conclude that we can't know for certain whether and to what extent there is an anthropogenic effect. We're best off preparing for both eventualities.

 

[Steerpike]

I was wondering why the ice in my glass of water was melting faster than it did in 1980.... That damn CO2...

It's funny how liberals quickly fall right into the humans are killing the planet, manmade global warming theory but are so quick to dismiss the creationism theory when neither one can be proven beyond a shadow of doubt....LOL

Creation / intelligent design can't be disproven. My only objection to them is presenting them in science class because they aren't science. They can be well-represented in philosophy classes and the like, but if you are going to introduce theories into science classes they should be subject to scientific method. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to put them there.

 

[Chris]

I was wondering why the ice in my glass of water was melting faster than it did in 1980.... That damn CO2...

It's funny how liberals quickly fall right into the humans are killing the planet, manmade global warming theory but are so quick to dismiss the creationism theory when neither one can be proven beyond a shadow of doubt....LOL

The melting North Pole is not a liberal.

 

[Caligirl]

I was wondering why the ice in my glass of water was melting faster than it did in 1980.... That damn CO2...

It's funny how liberals quickly fall right into the humans are killing the planet, manmade global warming theory but are so quick to dismiss the creationism theory when neither one can be proven beyond a shadow of doubt....LOL

Well, I am not a liberal, actually a smidge right on economic issues and libertarian (mildly) on social issues.

But, the difference here in the two things you say, are evidence. The reason warming has legs is because there is evidence. It may not be an open and shut case, but the evidence can be analyzed and argued about. Warming can also be tested (that's what the models are, predictions that amount to tests of our undertsanding with each year's climate data.)

Creationism has no evidence. It is an account in a book, and can't be tested, as far as I know.

So people who believe in warming, and who don't believe in creationism, are being internally consistent - they believe the way they do on both because of whether or not there is evidence.

You can say that the evidence on warming does not convince you, and that is good and healthy for debate, but you cannot say there is no evidence when there is mountains of it, some on both sides.

If you are aware of evidence for creation I am happy to be corrected. Evidence for creation might be something like no natural records extending back past 6000 years ago (tree ring data goes back 10,000 years), or the genetics of any particular animal showing no relatedness to any other species, or heck a lot of other stuff.

 

[Steerpike]

You can say that the evidence on warming does not convince you, and that is good and healthy for debate, but you cannot say there is no evidence when there is mountains of it, some on both sides.

This is true. And the reason there is evidence on both sides is that it is most likely that both anthropogenic and natural factors are at work. That seems reasonable. What we don't quite know is the relative contribution of each.

 

[Red Dawn]

It has been correctly pointed out that if you want to be able to assess the issue, you need to read the primary scientific literature and not rely solely on reports by the media. Only by looking at the primary journal articles can you see the experimental methods, the results, and then determine whether the author's conclusions are warranted based on what they present in the paper. Having done peer review and read a lot of primary literature, I can tell you that the author's conclusions are not always justified and are not always as clear cut as the authors pretend.

Oh, man...thanks, that was great.

An anonymous message board poster, who isn't a climate scientist and almost certainly doesn't have a PhD in the relevant scientific disciplines, is going to review the worldwide scientific literature for us, and tell us the scientists got it all wrong.

Classic.

Tell me, when you need expert advice on your healthcare, do you listen and trust the opinions of trained and respected Doctors and MD's? Or, do you seek advice on political internet forums?

 

[KMAN]

Well, I am not a liberal, actually a smidge right on economic issues and libertarian (mildly) on social issues.

But, the difference here in the two things you say, are evidence. The reason warming has legs is because there is evidence. It may not be an open and shut case, but the evidence can be analyzed and argued about. Warming can also be tested (that's what the models are, predictions that amount to tests of our undertsanding with each year's climate data.)

Creationism has no evidence. It is an account in a book, and can't be tested, as far as I know.

So people who believe in warming, and who don't believe in creationism, are being internally consistent - they believe the way they do on both because of whether or not there is evidence.

You can say that the evidence on warming does not convince you, and that is good and healthy for debate, but you cannot say there is no evidence when there is mountains of it, some on both sides.

If you are aware of evidence for creation I am happy to be corrected. Evidence for creation might be something like no natural records extending back past 6000 years ago (tree ring data goes back 10,000 years), or the genetics of any particular animal showing no relatedness to any other species, or heck a lot of other stuff.

I am failing to understand the evidence that humans are the reason the planet is warming... Evidentally these scientists can't understand it either...

Scientists abandon global warming 'lie'

If there is evidence/proof, why do so many scientists disagree?

 

[Steerpike]

Oh, man...thanks, that was great.

An anonymous message board poster, who isn't a climate scientist and almost certainly doesn't have a PhD in the relevant scientific disciplines, is going to review the worldwide scientific literature for us, and tell us the scientists got it all wrong.

Classic.

Tell me, when you need expert advice on your healthcare, do you listen and trust the opinions of trained and respected Doctors and MD's? Or, do you seek advice on political internet forums?

You should go back and try to read with comprehension, if you are able.

The comment I made was clearly directed to scientific literature generally, and you can ask anyone who does scientific research and writes or reviews articles that the conclusions an author draws based on the methods and results are not always sound, even though the methods and results are typically fairly good.

That's simply a reality of research publications and the nature of science.

If you don't like that conclusion, feel free to continue to misread my post if it makes you feel better about your own misconceptions.

 

[KMAN]

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda

 

[Steerpike]

If there is evidence/proof, why do so many scientists disagree?

There is evidence, there isn't 'proof.' Proof would be conclusive evidence. There is evidence both in favor of the anthropogenic theory and in favor of the natural theory.

 

[Chris]

These right wingnuts won't be convinced until the polar ice cap completely melts.

Which shouldn't be too long now.

 

[Old Rocks]

There is adaquete evidence for solar warming being a factor in the first half of the twentieth century. There is little evidence that the solar irradiance was a factor in the latter half of the twentieth century, and for the first eight years of the twenty first century. The accelerating increase in GHGs in the atmosphere seems to be the primary driver in the warming from the middle of the twentieth century untill present. However, the increase in CO2 is having more than just warming effects. We are starting to see some areas of the ocean acidic enough to interfer with the single celled organisms that are the bottom of the food chain. And there is the point that we are experiancing the effects of the GHGs of 50 years ago at present. So what is in the atmosphere at present will not have full effects untill 2058.

There are many unknowns at present. Like how is it that we are having a very cold winter in continental North America, thus far, yet the Arctic is having a very warm winter compared to normal? Antarctic sea ice is increasing, even as there are increasing amounts of ice lost on the continent of Antarctica. Not only that, the present models say that continental Antarctica should be gaining ice. The speed of the North Polar Cap melt has caught everyone by surprise. It simply was not supposed to happen this fast. And the present methane outgassing in the Arctic Ocean is also something that was supposed to be in the future.

In order for the planet to warm, it either has to recieve more energy, that would be from the sun, or retain more of what it recieves. For the last 50 years, it has not recieved more. However, in that time, the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere has increased significantly. The role of GHGs in the atmoshere is physics. While not simple, it is reasonably well understood at present. By measurement of the isotopes of carbon, we know that the present increase in CO2 has come from a source that has not been above ground for a long time. And there has been no significant increase in volcanic activity in the last century. In fact, compared to the nineteenth century, the 20th century, and beginning of the 21st century has had minor volcanic activity. The only known source for the present increase in GHGs is mankinds use of fossil fuels.

So, do we have any previous examples of what happens when GHGs are rapidly added to the atmosphere? Yes, we do. Several examples. The major one is the P-T Extinction.

When Carbon Caused Extinction :: Astrobiology Magazine - earth science - evolution distribution Origin of life universe - life beyond :: Astrobiology is study of earth science evolution distribution Origin of life in universe terrestrial

But there are other lesser similiar events such as the PETM. The most important point here is that we have no idea where the point is that the feedbacks become dominant. We may have already passed that point, it may more than double the amount of GHGs presently in the atmosphere. We do know, from past geological periods, that there is such a point. So, how much of your childrens future are you willing to risk to continue as we are at present?

It is often stated that the cost of switching to alternatives will be far too high. Yet, how much is the cost to our children of the mercury and lead that the present coal plants put into the atmosphere? What is the cost of the increasing prevelance of asthma among all levels of the populaton? How about the cost of environmental degradation? Now factor in that we do not know where the tipping point is at, only that there is one. Is the cost too high?

 

[Old Rocks]

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch



The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.

The OISM is located on a farm about 7 miles from the town of Cave Junction, Oregon (population 1,126). Located slightly east of Siskiyou National Forest, Cave Junction is one of several small towns nestled in the Illinois Valley, whose total population is 15,000. Best known as a gateway to the Oregon Caves National Monument, it is described by its chamber of commerce as "the commercial, service, and cultural center for a rural community of small farms, woodlots, crafts people, and families just living apart from the crowds. ... It's a place where going into the market can take time because people talk in the aisles and at the checkstands. Life is slower, so you have to be patient. You'll be part of that slowness because it is enjoyable to be neighborly." The main visitors are tourists who come to hike, backpack and fish in the area's many rivers and streams. Cave Junction is the sort of out-of-the-way location you might seek out if you were hoping to survive a nuclear war, but it is not known as a center for scientific and medical research. The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences.