Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[FoolKiller]

I was just having some fun over the notion of calling a Nobel Prize-winning physicist as just an "Obama science guy"... as if he was some unknown and unqualified hack.

Unlike the president, I do at least like to acknowledge the existence of people I disagree with.

And I only said it that way because his science advisor also had an oddball scheme a month or so back, of pumping even more, but different, pollution into the air. So, yeah I was using a generic term, because I was lumping them all together. It would have been a bit awkward to type out each individual's names, titles, and credentials

EDIT: I should also add that as he is saying this at a conference where policy recommendations will be made that, science aside, he is promoting a path that could lead to property rights violations. No manner of awards or credentials will convince me that is a proper course.

 

[mindwise]

paint roads and roofs white.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but would this really do anything? By this rationale it seems like snowy climates should have a negative carbon footprint during the winter.

The problem of the greenhouse gas is that it keeps heat in right, so if you reduce the amount of heat that gets in, less heat is trapped.
This can be achieved by reflecting sun rays back into space (using while tiles), rather then absorbing sun rays (by dark tiles), since the absorbing material is heated up, and that heat is then trapped by the greenhouse gasses.

I guess this would need massive amounts of white roofs all over the planet, but it is something that everyone could easily contribute to, so in a way it is a practical contribution, but not moe then a contribution.

That said, i'd rather see every house with a black roof, black from solar cells that is, or green with some plants or something, that seems to address more problems.
the two examples i gave won't attribute to less heat 'getting in' the coming decade, where the white roofs might just do that, and white roofs don't address the co2 problem....

 

[Touring Mars]

Impressive that they think they can map such a complex system out to 90 years.

They can't - but it is possible to give a probabilistic analysis on the likelihood of various scenarios. Current models are becoming more and more capable as more actual observations are factored in, and areas of uncertainty are addressed. Since uncertainty will always play a role (even a big role) in any climate prediction models, probabilities are the best we can possibly hope for. Naturally, this means that any action planned or taken to avert a challenging rise in global mean temperature will always have an element of risk. The question is whether the risks posed by doing nothing outweigh the risks posed by proposed intervention schemes (including reducing GHG emissions as 'intervention'). As the study I mentioned in my previous post suggests, the "do nothing" approach pushes us well into dangerous territory in terms of likelihood. Sadly, the "do something" approach isn't a great deal better, but atleast it is likely to mitigate the warming that we are already committed to.

You know something's up when the Russians officially recognise for the first time that anthropogenic global warming is real and poses a significant risk, which they did a few weeks ago...

The scary thing is that a global mean temperature change of just 2 degrees C would be catastrophic.

Oh noes, the "C" word... careful, you might be accused of being an "alarmist" if you say things like that

 

[Omnis]

Oh noes, the "C" word... careful, you might be accused of being an "alarmist" if you say things like that

Ironic how dogmatic the use of that word can be.

 

[Solid Fro]

"If you look at all the buildings and if you make the roofs white and if you make the pavement more of a concrete type of colour rather than a black type of colour and if you do that uniformally, that would be the equivalent of... reducing the carbon emissions due to all the cars in the world by 11 years – just taking them off the road for 11 years," he said.

RACIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIST!!!!!!!!!!!1

[/liberal]

 

[FoolKiller]

The problem of the greenhouse gas is that it keeps heat in right, so if you reduce the amount of heat that gets in, less heat is trapped.
This can be achieved by reflecting sun rays back into space (using while tiles), rather then absorbing sun rays (by dark tiles), since the absorbing material is heated up, and that heat is then trapped by the greenhouse gasses.

I get the concept. I am laughing at the thought that it will work in practice.

Let me use some visual aids here:
This is the county I live in, including the city I live in, Frankfort (also the capital of Kentucky).

The most white or reflective part of that is the city itself. Outside the city the homes are so small that they aren't even visible. I can't pick my house out of that, yet the dark areas are all natural areas of land.

Now, let's do a contrast. Showing a similar amount of land mass, only all city.

There is a lot of reflectivity already. See, even the roads become sun bleached from black to ash gray in less than a year. The darkest areas on that image are the green spaces.

Now, Secretary Chu made a few assumptions about what effect painting all of our roofs white and making all roads more concrete colored ( )would have, but I am willing to bet that his assumptions were to assume all surfaces he was factoring are non-reflective and will then all become reflective.

And to continue on the effectiveness discussion, I am aware that even reflective surfaces still absorb a large amount of heat, which is why cities tend to form a heat bubble around them despite using shiny mirrored windows and stainless steel and having most of their streets already faded to the light color of concrete.

I guess this would need massive amounts of white roofs all over the planet, but it is something that everyone could easily contribute to, so in a way it is a practical contribution, but not moe then a contribution.

It should also only be voluntary. If he wants to tell people they can save on energy costs by painting their roof white, or putting on reflective materials, then that is fine. But proposing it as a possible policy decision, no.

That said, i'd rather see every house with a black roof, black from solar cells that is, or green with some plants or something, that seems to address more problems.

You mean, like this?

Taiwan's Solar Stadium.

It is also reflective.

and white roofs don't address the co2 problem....

And that is the thing that gets me about this proposal, he knows this is in addition to regulations that are going to already cost people a lot of money, and possibly even hold back developing countries.

Current models are becoming more and more capable as more actual observations are factored in, and areas of uncertainty are addressed.

Every time I hear an updated model the time until disaster gets closer and closer. I give them five years before they start telling me we all died yesterday.

Oh noes, the "C" word... careful, you might be accused of being an "alarmist" if you say things like that

The difference between D-N and certain American politicians is he is addressing the realities of global average temperatures, not visiting Greenland in spring, watching some ice melt, and then announcing to the world that he saw global warming first hand.

 

[Danoff]

They can't - but it is possible to give a probabilistic analysis on the likelihood of various scenarios.

It's irresponsible to apply probabilities to models (and I acknowledge that that's not what I quoted you as saying). You can apply probabilities to parameters within models, but the probability of a model being correct is not something that can be properly quantified - you have no way of measuring or determining that probability because you can't quantify truth. Even assuming that all models are equally likely is irresponsible.

In my experience, the scientists I interact with tend to have a poor understanding of statistics and are quite cavalier with their uncertainties. As someone who's job depends heavily on statistical accuracy, I find it quit irritating how often I have had to explain the fundamentals of statistical analysis to scientists I work with.

You know it's bad when you can assemble dozens of scientific papers each claiming to know a certain parameter to within a certain amount of uncertainty, and find their their estimations are often more than 3 sigma from each other. One of them (more likely all of them) are very, very wrong.

Given that bit of background, it would not surprise me in the slightest to see a scientific paper released attempting to apply a probability to the likelihood that a given model represents truth. But such a thing would, of course, be very poor science.

 

[Touring Mars]

it would not surprise me in the slightest to see a scientific paper released attempting to apply a probability to the likelihood that a given model represents truth. But such a thing would, of course, be very poor science.

As you know, predictive climate modeling cannot, by definition, ascertain the "truth", but only provide likelihoods that a given scenario may transpire. It is not "poor science" to attempt to model future climate or to attempt to predict the likelihood and possible impact of future events such as releasing another half trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over the next 40 years (on top of the half trillion tonnes of CO2 already added by human activity in the past two centuries). You are right to say that various scenarios have different likelihoods of occuring, but to suggest that these things are either ignored or taken as "certainties" by climate scientists is wrong.

In my experience, the scientists I interact with tend to have a poor understanding of statistics and are quite cavalier with their uncertainties. As someone who's job depends heavily on statistical accuracy, I find it quit irritating how often I have had to explain the fundamentals of statistical analysis to scientists I work with.

Fair enough, but if you are suggesting that the entire climate scientific community has no understanding of statistics, then that is a wildly unfair generalisation, and ever so slightly condescending. Climate scientists necessarily have to take uncertainties into account, and I haven't come across a single piece of peer-reviewed science that doesn't address the uncertainties in large measure. I'd go as far to suggest that you are overstating the significance of uncertainties to the extent that you are basically saying that the entire canon of published science on climate change is valueless. If climate models found in the literature are so poor, then show me the alternative. For me, the biggest assumption of them all is to assume that climate modeling is inherently pointless and therefore we shouldn't even bother trying to do it.

 

[mindwise]

You can make hydrogen out of electricity that comes from wind/water/solar energy. My idea is we should pave entire deserts with solar panels and put one on top of every building.

well, that idea (more or less (but with wind turbines) is already entering more then idea stages with the 'club or rome' (link from geotimes, but extensive pdf's outlining the plan are available)

And back to the 'Paint it white', perhaps mentioned already, but some think iso painting houses white (or in addition to), spanning reflective foil around the deserts is also 'an idea'


ScienceDaily (Dec. 23, 2008)
Fix For Global Warming? Scientists Propose Covering Deserts With Reflective Sheeting
A radical plan to curb global warming and so reverse the climate change caused by our rampant burning of fossil fuels since the industrial revolution would involve covering parts of the world's deserts with reflective sheeting, according to researchers writing in the International Journal of Global Environmental Issues.

It should also only be voluntary. If he wants to tell people they can save on energy costs by painting their roof white, or putting on reflective materials, then that is fine. But proposing it as a possible policy decision, no.

I must re strain my self but ..... nah, just kidding: i agree

but I am willing to bet that his assumptions were to assume all surfaces he was factoring are non-reflective and will then all become reflective.

Ah, good point, i guess with reflective you mean mirror like (specular), whereas white 'unreflected' would mean 'diffuse'. Sure specular would be more efficient, but i'm wondering how much less efficient diffuse would be in this case. (unless you did not mean this at all ofcoz)
Nice stadium btw.

 

[Danoff]

As you know, predictive climate modeling cannot, by definition, ascertain the "truth", but only provide likelihoods that a given scenario may transpire.

This is a very complex topic, and there are multiple ways to interpret this statement. I'll respond by saying that it is improper to assign a probability to a model (which is not necessarily what you advocated).

It is not "poor science" to attempt to model future climate

Obviously.

or to attempt to predict the likelihood and possible impact of future events...

That depends on what is being done. As with the earlier statement, there are multiple ways to interpret this. Scientists should obviously not be attempting to forecast economic shifts or general technological development.

You are right to say that various scenarios have different likelihoods of occuring, but to suggest that these things are either ignored or taken as "certainties" by climate scientists is wrong.

To be specific, one model will be closer to truth than another. The probability of which model will be closer to truth is not quantifiable or measurable. No attempt should be made to assign a probability to a model of truth.

Fair enough, but if you are suggesting that the entire climate scientific community has no understanding of statistics, then that is a wildly unfair generalisation, and ever so slightly condescending.

I'm not suggesting that the entire scientific community has no understanding of statistics. I'm suggesting that a significant (which can mean a lot of things) portion of the scientific community is lacking in its understanding of statistics - and I suggest this to explain why I would not be surprised to discover that a scientific paper released recently might attempt (improperly) to assign a probability to various competing models of truth.

...and yes, it is a bit condescending.

I'd go as far to suggest that you are overstating the significance of uncertainties to the extent that you are basically saying that the entire canon of published science on climate change is valueless.

Not at all. It is certainly not valueless. I think this is an important area for scientific research. But I also think that these papers have a major tendency to overstep (though that is not limited to this field).

For me, the biggest assumption of them all is to assume that climate modeling is inherently pointless and therefore we shouldn't even bother trying to do it.

Good thing nobody here is assuming that.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

What this thread needs is a chuckle....

 

[Danoff]

I don't think I did a particularly good job of explaining what I'm getting at. Allow me to present a scenario.

Let's say that you have a hurricane prediction algorithm. Your hurricane prediction algorithm is pretty simple as it uses a polynomial fit to the available data. You calculate a percentage chance that the hurricane will hit a particular city using this data fit.

That's totally valid.

Let's say you have a 2nd hurricane prediction algorithm. This one is more complex. This one takes into account the temperature of the water the hurricane is on and the temperature that future water will be at the time the hurricane crosses it. It also tracks the fluctuations in temperature and humidity in the atmosphere, along with wind conditions, the curvature of the earth, and the gravitational pull of pluto. You use this algorithm to calculate a different percentage chance that the hurricane will hit a particular city.

You're not sure which model you want to use. You think the first model has about a 5% chance of being right, and the other model a 95% chance of being right. So you take the predictions from each model and blend the statistics using your arbitrarily assigned probabilities of truth for each model.

That's where you've crossed the line.

What I'm saying is that you can't take 10 different models, assign them each a particular uncertainty (including equal uncertainty) and expect to get any information out. What you have is 10 models, one of which may be closest to truth, but all of which might be wrong. You have no way of properly combining the predictions from these models.

 

[FoolKiller]

Two scientists(?) arguing proper science.

And I am enjoying it, so I must be a nerd.

 

[FoolKiller]

I have run across a couple of interesting articles today regarding the support and the science behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.

First, the Wall Street Journal has a piece about how support for the theory, and regulations based on it, is dropping due to the economic situation causing lawmakers to look at the pros and cons of supporting legislation, and if the legislation is necessary.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html#articleTabs=article

The Climate Change Climate Change
The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.

The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.

Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.

This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.

Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.

And today The New York Times is reporting that two EPA staffers had their report, questioning the data the EPA used in their policy proposal, ignored.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/0...fers-question-science-behind-clima-89720.html

Two EPA Staffers Question Science Behind Climate 'Endangerment' Proposal
By ROBIN BRAVENDER of Greenwire
Two U.S. EPA career employees detailed their concerns about the science underpinning the agency's "endangerment" finding in a report released last night by a conservative think tank.

Republican lawmakers have blasted EPA for failing to release the document, accusing the Obama administration of suppressing dissenting views for political purposes. But EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says the agency considered a broad range of opinions and maintained an open and transparent process in developing the proposed finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.

Dissent on the proposal was expressed in a March 16 report (pdf) by Alan Carlin and John Davidson of EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics. They raise questions about data that EPA used to develop the proposed finding. The Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute posted the document on its Web site last night.

"While we hoped that EPA would release the final report, we're tired of waiting for this agency to become transparent, even though its administrator has been talking transparency since she took office," said CEI attorney Sam Kazman. "So we are releasing a draft version of the report ourselves, today."

The report's authors say EPA accepted findings reached by outside groups, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, "without a careful and critical examination of their own conclusions and documentation."

The report says EPA used outdated science to support its finding. The authors cite studies that show -- among other things -- declining global temperatures and a changing scientific consensus on weather patterns. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA before any attempt is made to reach conclusions on the subject," Carlin and Davidson wrote.

Carlin is a senior operations research analyst who has worked in EPA's economics office since 1983. He has a doctorate in economics and a bachelor's degree in physics. He specializes in cost-benefit analysis and the economics of global climate change control, EPA said. The co-author of the report, John Davidson, is an environmental scientist in the economics office who holds a doctorate in physics. Davidson also joined the program in 1983.

A string of e-mails (pdf) surfaced this week showing discussions between Carlin and Al McGartland, the director of the economics office.

In exchanges between March 12 and March 17, Carlin asked McGartland to forward his comments to the office responsible for managing the endangerment finding's development. McGartland declined. "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision," he wrote (E&E Daily, June 25).

Republicans say the e-mails show the Obama administration suppressed EPA staff comments because they contradict the administration's political decision to move forward with the endangerment finding.

"What's happening here is that the EPA is cooking the books," said Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), ranking member of the House Select Committee on Energy and Global Warming. "They have suppressed a study that completely blows apart the scientific underpinnings of the endangerment finding that the EPA administrator made on CO2, and this study has been suppressed because it does not fit the Obama administration's political objectives."

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said EPA's actions raise serious questions about the development of the endangerment proposal, "a finding that relates directly to the rush to vote" today on a sweeping climate and energy bill.

Barton urged EPA yesterday to release the report so undecided members could consider it as they prepare to vote on the legislation.

EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said earlier this week that Carlin is not a scientist and was not part of the working group that dealt with the endangerment issue.

"Nevertheless, several of the opinions and ideas proposed by this individual were submitted to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding," she said. "Additionally, his manager allowed his general views on the subject of climate change to be heard and considered inside and outside the EPA and presented at conferences and at an agency seminar."

Click here (pdf) to read the report.

 

[Touring Mars]

First, the Wall Street Journal has a piece about how support for the theory, and regulations based on it, is dropping due to the economic situation

So, public acceptance of climate science can change depending on how the economy performs? I don't doubt it - but it tells me all I need to know about how objectively those people consider climate science.

And today The New York Times is reporting that two EPA staffers had their report, questioning the data the EPA used in their policy proposal, ignored.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/0...fers-question-science-behind-clima-89720.html

Perhaps it would have helped if they had also cast the same critical eye over some of their own statements and cited fewer dodgy sources... a couple of their references are blog posts for gawd's sake.

 

[FoolKiller]

So, public acceptance of climate science can change depending on how the economy performs? I don't doubt it - but it tells me all I need to know about how objectively those people consider climate science.

Does that also apply to the over 700 scientists mentioned in the article, including Nobel prize winners and 54 physicists that are asking the APS to change their stance on the matter?

For me the fact that some notable scientists are speaking up and referring to climate science as the "new religion" and "the worst scientific scandal in history" is much more important than politicians changing their stance. Of course, when those politicians change their stance because no one will give them a straight answer it makes me wonder what questions aren't being asked by others.

Perhaps it would have helped if they had also cast the same critical eye over some of their own statements and cited fewer dodgy sources... a couple of their references are blog posts for gawd's sake.

But then that should be the reasons he was given, not "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision." Perhaps if the report had been allowed to get past his immediate supervisor (the emails show that when he tried on his own he was reprimanded) then the legitimate issues would have been brought up. As it stands it looks as if he was just silenced.

Whatever the issue is, he felt strongly enough about it to release, what should be, internal documents publicly in a move that risks his job.

 

[Omnis]

I don't think I did a particularly good job of explaining what I'm getting at. Allow me to present a scenario.

Let's say that you have a hurricane prediction algorithm. Your hurricane prediction algorithm is pretty simple as it uses a polynomial fit to the available data. You calculate a percentage chance that the hurricane will hit a particular city using this data fit.

That's totally valid.

Let's say you have a 2nd hurricane prediction algorithm. This one is more complex. This one takes into account the temperature of the water the hurricane is on and the temperature that future water will be at the time the hurricane crosses it. It also tracks the fluctuations in temperature and humidity in the atmosphere, along with wind conditions, the curvature of the earth, and the gravitational pull of pluto. You use this algorithm to calculate a different percentage chance that the hurricane will hit a particular city.

You're not sure which model you want to use. You think the first model has about a 5% chance of being right, and the other model a 95% chance of being right. So you take the predictions from each model and blend the statistics using your arbitrarily assigned probabilities of truth for each model.

That's where you've crossed the line.

What I'm saying is that you can't take 10 different models, assign them each a particular uncertainty (including equal uncertainty) and expect to get any information out. What you have is 10 models, one of which may be closest to truth, but all of which might be wrong. You have no way of properly combining the predictions from these models.

Yeah, the news here does this all the time. Sometimes the hurricane center will show 7 paths from 7 different simulations. But then the weathermen give us a "CONE OF UNCERTAINTY AND DEATH" which is like as wide as the gulf of mexico.

 

[FoolKiller]

But then the weathermen give us a "CONE OF UNCERTAINTY AND DEATH" which is like as wide as the gulf of mexico.

I thought they were wanting to get rid of that because it made people panic.

 

[Touring Mars]

Does that also apply to the over 700 scientists mentioned in the article, including Nobel prize winners and 54 physicists that are asking the APS to change their stance on the matter?

If they change their minds based purely on the scientific evidence, then yes. But that isn't what you were talking about. In any case, the statistic bolded above is a highly controversial one (if not a plainly misleading one). It is a direct reference to Inhofe's infamous "list" of AGW skeptics, comprised of anyone - scientist or otherwise - who agrees with Inhofe, and indeed, quite a few who don't (but who are included anyway). Indeed, even if it were a bona fide list of qualified climate scientists (which it isn't), is 700 alot or not? This survey (published in January, 2009) suggests not. Inhofe and other leading skeptics do not seem to take their opinions on the science of climate change from climate scientists, however, and I wonder why. Indeed, I wonder why anyone would take the word of politicians over climate scientists, especially on climate science!

As for the open letter by Happer to the APS, they are not actually denying that manmade global warming is real, but that they refute the contention that global warming poses any threat to society. Interesting angle, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on the 46,000 members of the APS endorsing that view.

 

[FoolKiller]

Indeed, I wonder why anyone would take the word of politicians over climate scientists, especially on climate science!

I also wonder why politicians would make wide sweeping changes that risk harming an economy when there are any dissenting opinions on the matter. If even one climate scientist disagrees (as your web-based survey results show), should their research not be taken into consideration? Or any time anyone discusses their research should they just be disregarded because the majority disagree?

As for the open letter by Happer to the APS, they are not actually denying that manmade global warming is real, but that they refute the contention that global warming poses any threat to society. Interesting angle, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on the 46,000 members of the APS endorsing that view.

I'll just go ahead and quote the full letter.

Regarding the National Policy Statement on Climate Change of the APS Council: An Open Letter to the Council of the American Physical Society

As physicists who are familiar with the science issues, and as current and past members of the American Physical Society, we the undersigned urge the Council to revise its current statement* on climate change as follows, so as to more accurately represent the current state of the science:

Greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, accompany human industrial and agricultural activity. While substantial concern has been expressed that emissions may cause significant climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an extensive scientific literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals.

Studies of a variety of natural processes, including ocean cycles and solar variability, indicate that they can account for variations in the Earth’s climate on the time scale of decades and centuries. Current climate models appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future climate.

The APS supports an objective scientific effort to understand the effects of all processes – natural and human -- on the Earth’s climate and the biosphere’s response to climate change, and promotes technological options for meeting challenges of future climate changes, regardless of cause.

* The statement of the APS Council, adopted on November 18, 2007 is as follows:

“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.”

I left the signatures off to save space.

 

[Touring Mars]

I also wonder why politicians would make wide sweeping changes that risk harming an economy when there are any dissenting opinions on the matter.

You can ask the opposite too... why would politicians choose not to take action if inaction posed a tremendous risk to the present and future economies of every nation on Earth, especially when the vast majority of climate scientists agree that action is warranted?

If even one climate scientist disagrees (as your web-based survey results show), should their research not be taken into consideration? Or any time anyone discusses their research should they just be disregarded because the majority disagree?

When it comes to making political decisions based on climate science, all the evidence has to be considered, not just the bits that support a particular view. While dissenting voices will always challenge the orthodoxy of the time (bearing in mind that AGW theory was exactly that a few decades ago), it doesn't make much sense to give dissenters any more credence than anyone else, especially if there are ulterior motives behind their dissent. Challenging the science with science is perfectly legitimate - and that is what scientists do day-in, day-out. But challenging the science because you don't like what it says is not legitimate, and neither is cherry-picking the data to support one's case.

When it comes to making value judgments on the science, there is a monumental difference between what can be considered a legitimate scientific controversy (i.e. how the process of evolution works) and a fabricated controversy for a non-scientific reason (i.e. rejecting the science of evolution because it contradicts the Bible). In the case of AGW theory, there is plenty of uncertainty and real controversy in the science alone to make political decisions very difficult, but at the same time, there are also powerful and influential people (albeit few climate scientists) who are determined to muddy the waters, with the sole aim of making effective political decisions practically impossible. My contention is, let the science speak for itself, warts and all, and give our politicians the best possible chance of making the right decisions for all our sakes, rather than taking a course of action that simply maintains the status quo and those who have a vested (financial) interest in it.

 

[FoolKiller]

In the case of AGW theory, there is plenty of uncertainty and real controversy in the science alone to make political decisions very difficult, but at the same time, there are also powerful and influential people (albeit few climate scientists) who are determined to muddy the waters, with the sole aim of making effective political decisions practically impossible. My contention is, let the science speak for itself, warts and all, and give our politicians the best possible chance of making the right decisions for all our sakes, rather than taking a course of action that simply maintains the status quo and those who have a vested (financial) interest in it.

So, if there is still plenty of uncertainty and real controversy wouldn't a politician making a decision now be premature? Shouldn't the suggestion be to allow the science to be worked out in a way that takes into account all the dissenting data and to not yet take a course of action that slows industry, increases poverty (and all that goes with it, like early death rates), holds back developing nations, and benefits those with a vested financial interest in it (Al Gore)?

 

[Touring Mars]

So, if there is still plenty of uncertainty and real controversy wouldn't a politician making a decision now be premature? Shouldn't the suggestion be to allow the science to be worked out in a way that takes into account all the dissenting data and to not yet take a course of action that slows industry, increases poverty (and all that goes with it, like early death rates), holds back developing nations, and benefits those with a vested financial interest in it (Al Gore)?

Not necessarily. A key conclusion (made independently by many climate scientists) is that our actions now (and up to this point) will have consequences far into the future. The time-dependent nature of climate change makes it necessary to atleast consider taking action now - it isn't simply a case of "let's wait and see", but a judgement call along the lines of "how long can we afford to wait and see?". Some courses of action could be considered ill-advised, but total inaction is similarly ill-advised at the same time. There is no dissenting data that shows that a business-as-usual emissions scenario will not produce any effects at all, or no negative impacts. There is plenty of data that supports the view that a business-as-usual emissions scenario is very likely to have very serious consequences within a relatively short time scale (i.e. by the end of the century) and that the sooner action is taken, the better. Not all consequences of a warmer climate are bad, and not all potential consequences are only good or bad. But strangely, political opponents of AGW theory seem quite happy to tell us of all the possible negative impacts of reducing emissions (regardless of the likelihood of any of them actually happening, like increasing poverty for example) while at the same time try to tell us that we cannot possibly predict the negative effects from not reducing emissions!

 

[Omnis]

I want to see this movie.

 

[Danoff]

There is plenty of data that supports the view that a business-as-usual emissions scenario is very likely to have very serious consequences within a relatively short time scale (i.e. by the end of the century)

What do you think the odds are that our GHG emissions will look even remotely like they do now by the year 2100. The supply of fossil fuels is not likely to last us that long.

 

[FoolKiller]

But strangely, political opponents of AGW theory seem quite happy to tell us of all the possible negative impacts of reducing emissions (regardless of the likelihood of any of them actually happening, like increasing poverty for example) while at the same time try to tell us that we cannot possibly predict the negative effects from not reducing emissions!

Because the cost of asking forcing companies to spend extra money to change their processes or switch to new technologies can be easily calculated and predicted to be passed on to consumers. Cost is a fairly easy variable to look at and it is commonly understood that the reason why we do use fossil fuels is because it is cheap. To use the non-cheap sources of fuel would mean that it will cost more. It doesn't require an economist to tell you that when you make a move like that across all industries it will have an effect on the economy.

Are you actually suggesting that cost increases across all industries won't have an impact on the economy, or that a negative impact on an economy does not increase the poverty rate?

 

[Touring Mars]

What do you think the odds are that our GHG emissions will look even remotely like they do now by the year 2100. The supply of fossil fuels is not likely to last us that long.

I don't doubt that - but it is cumulative emissions and atmospheric GHG levels that are more important. Also our influence on the efficiency of carbon sinks is a major consideration too. The fact that we have to switch to a low/non-carbon economy regardless of climate change is a point that seems to escape most of the people who argue that such a move would be disasterous economically.

Are you actually suggesting that cost increases across all industries won't have an impact on the economy, or that a negative impact on an economy does not increase the poverty rate?

No. I'm saying that the negative impacts of moving to a low carbon economy are not the only consideration. Not moving to a low carbon economy could easily have as many negative impacts as those you assume would happen. Also, a low carbon economy could just as easily have long-term positive impacts too. And as I've just said in response to Danoff's post, the fact that it is inevitably going to have to happen anyway is presumably a moot point.

 

[Danoff]

The fact that we have to switch to a low/non-carbon economy regardless of climate change is a point that seems to escape most of the people who argue that such a move would be disasterous economically.

That's funny, I was just thinking that he fact that we have to switch to a low/non-carbon economy regardless of climate change is a point that seems to escape most of the people who argue that we need legislation to force it to take place.

The free market is going to do this quiet efficiently and, in all probability, faster than the government can. There are steps that I think the government can take, but they're mostly deregulatory - such as making it easier to build nuclear plants.

Regardless of whether or not you believe global warming is real and that we're causing it and that we can do something about it and that the right thing to do about it is cap CO2 emissions... we're going to be moving off of fossil fuels at a fairly set pace. To a large extent there is nothing that can be done to speed it up or slow it down. It's resource driven and that economic incentive is a very difficult thing to legislate around.

 

[Touring Mars]

That's funny, I was just thinking that he fact that we have to switch to a low/non-carbon economy regardless of climate change is a point that seems to escape most of the people who argue that we need legislation to force it to take place.

The free market is going to do this quiet efficiently and, in all probability, faster than the government can. There are steps that I think the government can take, but they're mostly deregulatory - such as making it easier to build nuclear plants.

Regardless of whether or not you believe global warming is real and that we're causing it and that we can do something about it and that the right thing to do about it is cap CO2 emissions... we're going to be moving off of fossil fuels at a fairly set pace. To a large extent there is nothing that can be done to speed it up or slow it down. It's resource driven and that economic incentive is a very difficult thing to legislate around.

Indeed. I don't disagree with any of that at all. But I would add to it by saying that free market economics couldn't predict (and can do little about) the physical impact on the global climate of economies which have become dependent upon carbon-based energy sources, nor any specifics about potential problems with our choice of energy source, such as the timescales over which cumulative emissions could present a significant problem. Free market economics can only explain so much. The physical impact of GHG emissions on global climate cannot be assessed solely in terms of free market economics.

 

[Danoff]

Indeed. I don't disagree with any of that at all. But I would add to it by saying that free market economics couldn't predict (and can do little about) the physical impact on the global climate of economies which have become dependent upon carbon-based energy sources, nor any specifics about potential problems with our choice of energy source, such as the timescales over which cumulative emissions could present a significant problem. Free market economics can only explain so much. The physical impact of GHG emissions on global climate cannot be assessed solely in terms of free market economics.

I don't disagree with that one bit.