Global Warming

[publius]

(with apologies to Mel Brooks)

It seems to me that GoRon Johnson is right about 280plus Johnson being right about charby Johnson being right about Hank B Johnson being right!

[HankB]

Art, you're right, we don't really relate to geological time.

But climate change has affected mankind  - LONG before the dawn of industrial civilization.

The Anasazi had quite a little culture going in the Southwest, before prolonged drought put an end to it.

The British Isles no longer have a vineyard industry competitive with France.

Many major cities across North Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia disappeared entirely as the water dried up and the desert encroached - this happened centuries, even millenia, ago.

Viking colonies in Greenland, established during the Medieval Warm Period, thrived for a while, even exporting food (from Greenland!) before the Little Ice Age set in . . . a Little Ice Age that is now thought to have run its course, setting the stage for a natural warming trend.

My point is, there's a LONG history of NATURAL PROCESSES affecting climate in a major way, and completely re-ordering civilization. I just don't buy into mankind being THE major player in what may be today's current "warming."

[publius]

From my perspective the whole scientific argument revolves around different interpretations of data, different understandings of complex systems. The public (and often lay) argument revolves around much deeper issues, issues of industrial growth, perceived attempts to hamstring American industries, distrust of science, politics and so on. Now I don't doubt for a second that some of the scientific argument is influenced by politics and industry, but those accusations go both ways, and it contributes little to argue against global warming solely on the grounds that it is ludditism. Just as it contributes little to argue against that argument on the grounds that anti-global warming scientists work for Shell/BP/Halliburton (and other symbols of corporate 'evil')

Iain Johnson is also right.

[Art Eatman]

I don't see Homo Sap as any sort of "the cause", either.

My view is that while climate-caused changes occurred in the past, people then didn't know what was going on, and couldn't foresee the consequences at all.  We at least have some intimation as to probabilities and possibilities.

We also know there are many technological changes going on regarding energy supplies of all sorts, and changes going on in global macroeconomics.

Seems to me that a person who wants an enjoyable "here and now" as well as a snuggly, comfy old age oughta be for looking at all of the above and doing the prudent mix of planning and then acting on rational decisions.

It's all well and good to form some opinion about major events, but if no actions are taken in response, what's the point?  After all, if we are indeed in a warming period, does the cause really matter to any one individual and his own sense of self-protection?

Art

[richyoung]

CO2 is NOT, repeat, NOT the primary "greenhouse gas" on Earth - WATER VAPOR is!  Almost ALL of it from natural sources.

[roo_ster]

CO2 is NOT, repeat, NOT the primary "greenhouse gas" on Earth - WATER VAPOR is!  Almost ALL of it from natural sources.

True.

But, you can't raise money from easily-excitable & ignorant enviro-fetishists by warning about water vapor.

[Iain]

CO2 is NOT, repeat, NOT the primary "greenhouse gas" on Earth - WATER VAPOR is!  Almost ALL of it from natural sources.

The 'greenhouse effect' is entirely normal. It is beneficial. I expect the easiest counter to your argument is that water vapour, carbon dioxide and other gases provide an effect that has caused climatic conditions on earth to be what they are up until now.

Adding more carbon dioxide to the mix could well affect the whole system. Tinkering around with poorly understood systems, regardless of how minor the tinkering seems to be, can cause catastrophic effects, and I think you know that. Just because it isn't the biggest player in terms of quantity doesn't mean that it won't be the most significant player in terms of effect.

[The Rabbi]

CO2 is NOT, repeat, NOT the primary "greenhouse gas" on Earth - WATER VAPOR is!  Almost ALL of it from natural sources.

The 'greenhouse effect' is entirely normal. It is beneficial. I expect the easiest counter to your argument is that water vapour, carbon dioxide and other gases provide an effect that has caused climatic conditions on earth to be what they are up until now.

Adding more carbon dioxide to the mix could well affect the whole system. Tinkering around with poorly understood systems, regardless of how minor the tinkering seems to be, can cause catastrophic effects, and I think you know that. Just because it isn't the biggest player in terms of quantity doesn't mean that it won't be the most significant player in terms of effect.

Your argument is essentially:
1) Any activity whatsoever by man that might affect the climate is potentially disasterous.

2) We don't know what will affect the climate.

That logical end of that argument is that we need to sit at home with the heat and AC off eating cold raw food.
I just don't see that as a viable thing in the long term for most people.  It would probably be benign/beneficial in England, where people are used to no heat and dont need AC and have such poor diets that almost anything would be an improvement.  But for everyone else it won't work.

I find it amazing that most people in favor of some kind of restrictions to "combat global warming" will admit that the science is not very good.  But they will add that it is better to be safe than sorry.  And if the measures were cost-less they might be right.  But Kyoto etc calls for major expenditures.  It is not cost-less but will be quite expensive for very dubious benefit.

[HankB]

But, you can't raise money from easily-excitable & ignorant enviro-fetishists by warning about water vapor.

On the lighter side . . . what about warning them about vaporized dihydrogen monoxide?

[Iain]

Your argument is essentially:
1) Any activity whatsoever by man that might affect the climate is potentially disasterous.

2) We don't know what will affect the climate.

That logical end of that argument is that we need to sit at home with the heat and AC off eating cold raw food.
I just don't see that as a viable thing in the long term for most people.  It would probably be benign/beneficial in England, where people are used to no heat and dont need AC and have such poor diets that almost anything would be an improvement.  But for everyone else it won't work.

That's a very long way from being my argument. My argument is simply that statements such as 'water vapour is the biggest greenhouse gas' are simplistic, and deliberately so. The science is far more complicated than many present it as being, I'm only presenting the obvious simple counter based on my scientific education (which is not impressive) not presenting any pro-global warming argument at all.

Simply put, to make simple statements and present them as fact and the end of the matter, as so many try to do, is poor debate. It lacks the rigour that should be applied to an argument that suggests that humanity may be destroying the planet. I'm not suggesting for a second that humanity is destroying the planet, and there is no logical end to anything I am saying - other than the end of thoughtless glib posts by those who already know what they think about the matter and pick and choose the science that gets them there, and especially those who mislead.

Furthermore, some of that post was silly and unnecessary. There's no need to attack those who respect you.

[Vile Nylons]

The first I heard of any of this was during my college days in the late sixties, so it is not something we have come upon in the last few decades. Since it was/is within my field of study and my professional career I have attempted to stay up to speed as the data and information have come my way. Back then it was a theory with little supporting data. Today it is a theory with quite a bit more data but still insufficient for me to draw any credible conclusion. The research that has and is being done is excellent work. Unfortunately funding is much more available for perceived problems than for non. Those problems have created a critical mass sufficient so that they have been broadcast widely and have become accepted as fact. Because that accepted fact has spawned Draconian attempts at policies of remediation, funding has become available to research a second look, the results of which have apparently set the pendulum swinging back towards a more centered view.
 
There can be no debate that man has had an impact upon our environment. But is it profound or even reversible? I do nor believe we have now nor will in the immediate future sufficient information to draw such conclusions.The more we learn from a multitude of sources the more one commonality is becoming obvious though amid all the disparate voices. That is that man's influence is miniscule when compared to the workings of nature. From hurricanes to tsunamis to volcanoes to hiccups on the sun to asteroids, etc. Each can have potentially disasterous outcomes to our environment and to us. More and more this significance is being unearthed. More and more we are discovering that in our history the planet has been savagely dynamic and that our vision of stable normalcy, that is things being as they were 20 years ago is a illusion. We as a civilization seem to be thriving in a nexus of relative calm between profound natural stirrings. But even in this calm there are subtle natural stirrings as sun cycles, high incidence hurricane decades, changes to ocean rythms as El Nino, wind and weather, and even earth's core requiring a readjust of our timepieces and compasses.

We as a species are uncomfortable in not being in control. We struggle valiantly to understand and thus take control. It is the ultimate act of hubris for some to think that they are and that they know. But nature I believe, shows us that it is only a delusion.

[The Rabbi]

Your argument is essentially:
1) Any activity whatsoever by man that might affect the climate is potentially disasterous.

2) We don't know what will affect the climate.

That logical end of that argument is that we need to sit at home with the heat and AC off eating cold raw food.
I just don't see that as a viable thing in the long term for most people.  It would probably be benign/beneficial in England, where people are used to no heat and dont need AC and have such poor diets that almost anything would be an improvement.  But for everyone else it won't work.

That's a very long way from being my argument. My argument is simply that statements such as 'water vapour is the biggest greenhouse gas' are simplistic, and deliberately so. The science is far more complicated than many present it as being, I'm only presenting the obvious simple counter based on my scientific education (which is not impressive) not presenting any pro-global warming argument at all.

Simply put, to make simple statements and present them as fact and the end of the matter, as so many try to do, is poor debate. It lacks the rigour that should be applied to an argument that suggests that humanity may be destroying the planet. I'm not suggesting for a second that humanity is destroying the planet, and there is no logical end to anything I am saying - other than the end of thoughtless glib posts by those who already know what they think about the matter and pick and choose the science that gets them there, and especially those who mislead.

Furthermore, some of that post was silly and unnecessary. There's no need to attack those who respect you.

Then I don't know what your argument is.  If there is one at all.
From the second post it seems that you are complaining about posts that posit a simple fact.  I dont know whether what RichYoung posts is true or not.  It sounds reasonable to me.  I don't know whether it is significant or not.
But merely posting a short insight or information seems perfectly valid to me.  Even if it is misleading, someone will point that out.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Simply put, to make simple statements and present them as fact and the end of the matter, as so many try to do, is poor debate. It lacks the rigour that should be applied to an argument that suggests that humanity may be destroying the planet. I'm not suggesting for a second that humanity is destroying the planet, and there is no logical end to anything I am saying - other than the end of thoughtless glib posts by those who already know what they think about the matter and pick and choose the science that gets them there, and especially those who mislead.

This is an excellent point, one to which I agree wholeheartedly.

My big objection to global warming is that 9 times out of 10, its proponents are doing exactly what you describe.  They are making simplistic statements, largely unsupported by data, concerning highly complex systems that are poorly understood.  From these statements (which are at best unproven, and in many cases proven false) they claim as scientific fact the notion that global warming is going to destroy the world and therefore we need to radically handicap our society and civilization.

The western world is making serious decisions, with substantial negative consequences to people in the west as well as those in the Third World, based on the premise that global warming is truth.  People living in undeveloped countries in particular are condemnded to live forever in squalor, for fear that their developing industry would destroy the world.

The reality is that global warming is far from proven truth.  We are, essentially, shooting ourselves in the foot because of a scary myth.*

I review the research whenever I am able.  No, I'm not a scientist specializing in climate or geology or meteorology.  But I am a technical individual with a grounding in the sciences, an engineer by trade, and I work with data and its analysis every day.  I may not understand the research in all of its subtelties or as throroughly as the experts understand it, but I am largely able to make sense of it.  

I have found, over and over again, that the data concerning global climate change is at best conflicting.  At worst, the data indicates global warming to be false.  It is difficult to prove the theory false, however, because the theory seems to change and morph into something slightly differeent whenever conflicting data becomes to irrefutable to ignore.  

It is utterly irrational to make the sacrifices the global warmists would have us make, given the lack solid reason to do so.  The public needs to understand this, and soon, before we do any more harm to our standards of living.  That's why I mentioned the facts (as best I understand them) concerning global warming.  That's why I quote other peoples' analysis of the facts, when they do a better job explaining the situation than I can.  You say that this is simplistic, or foolish, or whatever.  Well, so be it.  

Short of copying and pasting articles from the scholarly journals, what else can I say?  The scholarly research is out there, go read it if you like.  I have.  On balance, the factual research supports my assertions and those of the people I have quoted.  (To be precise, this is backwards;  my assertions are supported by the research, not vice versa.)  

But most people don't want to be confused by the facts, and in this case there is ample opportunity to become confused.  Was I wrong to simplify and summarize things a bit?



*  I mean this statement literaly:  global warming is indeed a "myth".  The Random House Dictionary defines myth as "5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution."  That definition is one of the most succinct analyses of global warming that I've ever come across.

[wingnutx]

The world is always going to be either warming or cooling. Warming enough to kill us off in 50 years, not so much.

With any luck this will kill off the pandas, though. I hate those things.

[The Rabbi]

This is an excellent point, one to which I agree wholeheartedly.

My big objection to global warming is that 9 times out of 10, its proponents are doing exactly what you describe.  They are making simplistic statements, largely unsupported by data, concerning highly complex systems that are poorly understood.

Nine times out of 10, every argument or discussion either begins or ends with such statements.  Bush lied, people died.  Remember 9/11.  From my cold dead hands.  Etc etc.  Occasionally people will delve into what makes up those slogans (which is what they are).  This is when it gets interesting.  But usually the slogans are merely shorthand for more complex arguments.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

This is an excellent point, one to which I agree wholeheartedly.

My big objection to global warming is that 9 times out of 10, its proponents are doing exactly what you describe.  They are making simplistic statements, largely unsupported by data, concerning highly complex systems that are poorly understood.

Nine times out of 10, every argument or discussion either begins or ends with such statements.  Bush lied, people died.  Remember 9/11.  From my cold dead hands.  Etc etc.  Occasionally people will delve into what makes up those slogans (which is what they are).  This is when it gets interesting.  But usually the slogans are merely shorthand for more complex arguments.

True indeed.  But Iain chastised me for quoting some sources of analysis that explain some of the reasoning for the "slogan" I adhere to.

One of the biggest reasons I enjoy APS is because our discussions rarely last long at the slogan level before they delve deeper.  And this is indeed when it gets interesting.

[Perd Hapley]

With any luck this will kill off the pandas, though. I hate those things.

Yeah, they sure are creepy.  ?

[The Rabbi]

With any luck this will kill off the pandas, though. I hate those things.

Yeah, they sure are creepy.  ?

I'd be careful there, Roundeye.

[wingnutx]

Anything that won't even breed without being coerced needs to be extinct.

Red pandas, otoh, are pretty neat.

[Iain]

There wasn't any real chastisement intended. The original post asked if global warming had moved on from being a liberal talking point, I get the feeling that if I hadn't posted our friend could well have read the responses and walked away quite happy that global warming isn't anything to even think about. The responses would have been assertion, some science (like HTG's) and some theories coupled with one line posts about water vapour. Anyone who is inclined to be sceptical about global warming, but not inclined to investigate, would have received their reinforcement without there being any challenge.

If you ever sat and watched British news with me you'd probably leave with a much different impression of my views on global warming than I'm giving here. I tend to shout at the television everytime some talking head says something like 'And finally Brian, what has the effect of global warming been on the situation in Afghanistan?' It is presented as fact, and I'm no fan of that either.

But most people don't want to be confused by the facts, and in this case there is ample opportunity to become confused.  Was I wrong to simplify and summarize things a bit?

You are and you aren't. Yeah people throw stuff out there and it gets challenged and the debate moves on, but as I say, if I had posted something like 'Global warming is an invention of Al Gore's to justify his ever expanding Prius budget' it probably wouldn't have been challenged. If I hadn't posted I doubt that anyone would have pointed out the population expansions since 1850 and how that might possibly have been the reason why CO2 levels are a (possibly) a problem now more than they were then. Or questioned the water vapour issue.

Even if we do simplify and summarise we should state clearly and openly that these are simplifications and summaries, and that no-one really has the answer.

The quote for the day from Google is from Voltaire: "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." Not a quote I would apply to all aspects of life, but where global warming is concerned it pretty much captures my mood.

Rabbi - I'm not complaining about posts that posit simple facts. I'm complaining about posts that posit selective facts. Or are just outright assertions without support.

[richyoung]

CO2 is NOT, repeat, NOT the primary "greenhouse gas" on Earth - WATER VAPOR is!  Almost ALL of it from natural sources.

The 'greenhouse effect' is entirely normal. It is beneficial. I expect the easiest counter to your argument is that water vapour, carbon dioxide and other gases provide an effect that has caused climatic conditions on earth to be what they are up until now.

Adding more carbon dioxide to the mix could well affect the whole system. Tinkering around with poorly understood systems, regardless of how minor the tinkering seems to be, can cause catastrophic effects, and I think you know that. Just because it isn't the biggest player in terms of quantity doesn't mean that it won't be the most significant player in terms of effect.

Its not just the BIGGEST  - it DOMINATES.  Wator vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect.  All the "doomsday" Global Warming charts and graphs EXCLUDE the effect of water vapor!  Why do that - UNLESS you deliberately want to OVEREMPHASIZE the anthropogenic component of it?  Does that sound like "impartial science" to you?  Even the green house gases that mankind contributes to are dominated by natural sources.  man's activiteis account for a whopping 0.28% of all global warming.  Not twenty eight percent, but twenty eight HUNDRETHS of a percent.  Its simply not signifigant.

Or to put conversly - the burden of proof is on those who ASSERT extrordinary claims.  If you want me to give up my standard of living because the "sky is falling", you darn well better have MUCH more convincing proof than the global warming propagandists have come up with to date.

[Iain]

Rich,

What is your source for the 95% figure? And the 0.28% figure?

Very quickly - I'm not a scientist, but you might argue that the reason that water vapour's role is not often considered is because it is not pertinent to the argument. Even if water vapour contributes a large part of the effect (an utterly necessary for life effect btw) that still doesn't mean that adding a few extra % here and there to the effect is going to make no difference. So if the effect is caused by water vapour and natural levels of CO2 and other gases, and that gives us a base of what is 'normal', then additional greenhouse gases are a potential source of trouble.

Ah, I've found it. - http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html - that's where those figures came from.

Let us just say that there are a lot of different figures out there, I'm seeing 60 to 70% cited a number of times.

[Brad Johnson]

FYI for everyone...

Major greenhouse gasses based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics.

Water vapor
95.0%

Carbon Dioxide
3.618%

Methane
0.360%

Nitrous oxide
0.950%

CFC's and other misc gasses
0.072%


99.999 % of water vapor comes from natural sources.

Approximately 99.88 % of carbon dioxide comes from natural sources.

Approximately 99.96 % of methane comes from natural sources.

Approximately 99.95 % of nitrous oxide comes from natural sources.

Approximately 99.95 % of CFCs and other miscellaneous gases come from natural sources.



In total, non-natural (i.e. "man made") greenhouse gasses account for a measly 0.5 % of the total greenhouse gas emissions. Pull out water vapor and man accounts for 0.499% of emissions. That's less than half a percent of the measly FIVE percent of the non-water-vapor emissions. For the mathematically challenged that means that man-made greenhouse products account for two and a half one-hundreths of one percent (0.02495 %) of the total greenhouse gas effects.

For an analogy, two and a half one hundreths of one percent of $1,000.00 equals a whopping ... (deep breath) ... twenty five cents.


partial list of references:

1) Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (updated October, 2000)

-Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
(the primary global-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy)
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

-Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change (data now available only to "members")
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Program
Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 7RZ, United Kingdom.

2) Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potentials (updated April, 2002)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

3) Warming Potentials of Halocarbons and Greenhouses Gases
Chemical formulae and global warming potentials from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 119 and 121. Production and sales of CFC's and other chemicals from International Trade Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals: United States Production and Sales, 1994 (Washington, DC, 1995). TRI emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release, EPA-745-R-94-001 (Washington, DC, June 1996), p. 73. Estimated 1994 U.S. emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-1994, EPA-230-R-96-006 (Washington, DC, November 1995), pp. 37-40.

4) a. Global Warming Information Page
by Norman J. Macdonald, M.S. and Joseph p. Sobel, Ph.D.
b.Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat  
by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, June 1998
Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their Significance
Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government
d. Personal Communication-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Slone Professor of Meteorology, MIT
e. The Geologic Record and Climate Change
by Dr. Tim Patterson, January 2005
Professor of Geology-- Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada

5) Global Climate Change Student Guide
Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences
Manchester Metropolitan University
United Kingdom

6) Global Budgets for Atmospheric Nitrous Oxide - Anthropogenic Contributions
William C. Trogler, Eric Bruner, Glenn Westwood, Barbara Sawrey, and Patrick Neill
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California

7) Methane record and budget
Robert Grumbine


Brad

[Iain]

So you reckon you've just posted something that would make global warming scientists gulp their herbal teas and go running for the nearest bunker?

Brad there will be a mass of scientific literature that discusses the relevance of those figures and their role. I seriously doubt that global warming advocates are unaware of them, and that they have not been taken into consideration or even 'explained away'.

I'm still a little surprised that anyone thinks that they can undermine this whole debate with one post. If they can - why is this debate still be played out at the highest levels?

[Brad Johnson]

I seriously doubt that global warming advocates are unaware of them

They are aware of them, but the real facts just don't jive with the hand-wringers' philosophy, nor do the real facts create the mass hysteria that gives these bozos their coveted feeling of empowerment. Thus, the facts are conveniently ignored.

I'm still a little surprised that anyone thinks that they can undermine this whole debate with one post. If they can - why is this debate still be played out at the highest levels?

Why? Simple. People are gullible, stupid, ignorant sheep too lazy to do a little fact-checking for themselves.

Brad