New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | March 24, 2006

Ron Bailey considers the case of NASA scientist James Hansen, who says the White House would rather he kept quiet about global warming.

Comments

|3.24.06 @ 10:24AM|#

But along with the climate data, Hansen offered his views on the proper way to address man-made global warming.

When scientists first figured out that thalidomide caused birth defects when taken by pregnant women, should they have been prevented from offering their views on how to address the problem, like "Don't take thalidomide if you're pregnant?"

|3.24.06 @ 10:28AM|#

I find nothing to argue with in the last paragraph.

|3.24.06 @ 10:38AM|#

"When scientists first figured out that thalidomide caused birth defects when taken by pregnant women, should they have been prevented from offering their views on how to address the problem, like "Don't take thalidomide if you're pregnant?"
No...that would be stepping over the line. I guess they are supposed to wait for hacks like George C. Deutsch, to suggest the way forward and provide the filter that Bailey is talking about.
It's all good and well to cite Spencer as someone who might serve to counterbalance Goddard's views, but it is in fact morons like Deutsch and other unqualified hacks that are lording it over the scientists at NASA right now.
And as for the comparison to what went on under Clinton, not very convincing. It is a matter of degree with the current administration. It is actually a central tenet of Bush administration policy to try to stamp out enlightenment-style scientific inquiry and not just a residue of special interest appeasement.

|3.24.06 @ 10:42AM|#

I'm sure someone will post the standard comment "we don't know if global warming really is caused by the stuff we've been dumping into the atmosphere" (perhaps it'll even be a cross-post while I'm typing this), but those arguments remind me of something one of my college professors said: There is absolutely no conclusive proof that smoking cigarettes leads to lung cancer. There's certainly a strong correlation, yes, but nobody can conclusively prove it's the smoke--maybe it's the angle at which smokers bend their elbows while they're smoking. Maybe it's the exposure to open flames used to light the cigarettes.

The "global warming might not be manmade" arguments remind me of that. We've increased the levels of greenhouse gases that retain heat on the earth, and the temperature goes up at the same time--but there's no conclusive proof that the greenhouse gases are to blame.

For that matter, if my boyfriend dumped twenty-five extra blankets on top of me while I slept last night, and then I started sweating profusely, you can't say for certain that the blankets are what made me start sweating. Maybe I came down with a fever. Maybe I'm going through super-early menopause. Only someone with a politically driven anti-wool agenda would reach the automatic conclusion that the extra blankets are to blame for my increased body heat.

|3.24.06 @ 10:49AM|#

I am very pro-free market and I know from my limited reading on the subject that Earth's climate has always been fluctuating and that the evidence for global warming is not conclusive. However, I also tend to be apprehensive about tipping point problems, i.e., by the time it could be verifiably shown that human activities were contributing to the problem it may be too late to do anything other than cover the planet in mylar sheeting.

|3.24.06 @ 10:55AM|#

I also tend to be apprehensive about tipping point problems, i.e., by the time it could be verifiably shown that human activities were contributing to the problem it may be too late to do anything other than cover the planet in mylar sheeting.

It's already too late to do anything but let it happen and adapt to the changes.

|3.24.06 @ 10:56AM|#

It's already too late to do anything but let it happen and adapt to the changes.

That doesn't mean we should continue adding to the problem. If for some reason I can't get those twenty-five blankets off of my bed, that doesn't mean I should dump more blankets onto the pile.

|3.24.06 @ 11:03AM|#

"And I can assure you that Clinton-era flacks at the EPA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the FDA, and the Department of Energy limited my access to experts at those agencies."

Names, dates, and quotes would be extremely helpful. I'd like to see something that resembles the retarded "teach both sides of the controversy" statement by Bush, Deutsch's yammering about the big bang, and the current morning after pill and papilloma vaccine holdups at the FDA.

|3.24.06 @ 11:05AM|#

But, Jennifer dearest, we actually don't know if (and when to what degree) global warming really is caused by the stuff we've been dumping into the atmosphere. Fact is, it was a lot warmer 2300 years ago, when the Romans were around, wearing togas and all that, than it is now, and those pesky Romans and ancient Greeks and Phoenicians didn't dump a lot of stuff into the atmosphere. Neither did people around in the 15th Century "slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions via concerted improvements in energy efficiency and advanced energy technologies"; nonetheless they experienced something called "a little ice-age", lasting well into the 19th Century.

So perhaps there remain a few things to be known until we can establish that there is a strong correlation, like those between smoking and lung cancer.

|3.24.06 @ 11:10AM|#

we actually don't know if (and when to what degree) global warming really is caused by the stuff we've been dumping into the atmosphere. Fact is, it was a lot warmer 2300 years ago, when the Romans were around, wearing togas and all that, than it is now, and those pesky Romans and ancient Greeks and Phoenicians didn't dump a lot of stuff into the atmosphere

Yes, and I don't know exactly how much blame the blankets deserve for my sweating--there have been times I've been uncomfortably hot without excessive bedclothes. Everybody's body heat fluctuates from time to time, even when they're not feverish or overdressed. But I am suspicious of those who would go out of their way to blame any possible excuse except the blankets.

|3.24.06 @ 11:14AM|#

For that matter, if my boyfriend dumped twenty-five extra blankets on top of me while I slept last night, and then I started sweating profusely, you can't say for certain that the blankets are what made me start sweating. Maybe I came down with a fever. Maybe I'm going through super-early menopause. Only someone with a politically driven anti-wool agenda would reach the automatic conclusion that the extra blankets are to blame for my increased body heat.

That's hot.

|3.24.06 @ 11:14AM|#

Jennifer: Regarding thalidomide, of course doctors should say don't take it if you're pregnant. But the analogy fails because cutting CO2 immediately is not the ONLY way to address the problem of future global warming.

Unlike your thalidomide example, there are still valid scientific controversies over just how much warming is likely to occur (all of the temperature records at this point are at the low end of the model projections). Also how do we determine what levels of greenhouse gases are "dangerous"? BTW, climate models are also economic, demographic, and technological models (after all how do you predict how much greenhouse gases will be emitted in the future) and let's face it, modellers are terrible with all those kinds of predictions.

Clearly Hansen can have opinion about how all those things may affect future climate, and his may be better informed than most, but there is still lots of reasons to argue that he's wrong when he prescribes immediate efforts to cut CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

As for "tipping points" I get uncomfortable when people cite them because they are often basically saying that past evidence and trends cannot be used to argue against them. This is not to say that there no "tipping points" but you are very unlikely to see them except in hindsight.

In any case, what I was trying to do with the column (which may sound wishy washy) was NOT to argue about climate change, but to figure out how to stop politicians from interfering with scientists telling us what their data say.

Timothy|3.24.06 @ 11:15AM|#

I kind of see it this way:

Is the earth getting demonstrably warmer, on average? Yes. Has it been doing so for the last couple of centuries? Yes. Does man-made pollution probably have something to do with it? Yes. Can we do much about it, due to the life of the carbon cycle? Maybe. What's the best policy solution, and should we be all that concerned? I dunno. Will a warmer climate, on average, be a disaster or yet another blip on the eons long radar of climatology? Who knows? Not me.

|3.24.06 @ 11:19AM|#

"I find nothing to argue with in the last paragraph."

I largely agree with that. The biggest problem is the difference in tone from the article BAiley links to about a DOE sceientist in the Clinton administration and this one. With Clinton the tone is of alarm. With Bush it is of "this is bad, but...". At least that is my reading of it.

Additionally, I will never understand why it matters in any way if catastrophic global warming has human causes or natural ones, apart from the question of what we can do to stop it.

Forgive a little hyperbole here. If a Texas-sized meteor was racing towards our planet, would we care that it was because it collided with a deep space probe so many years ago, or whether it was on its natural course? I can only imagine we would care much more about whether or not we could get something else to collide with it to changes its path.

|3.24.06 @ 11:20AM|#

"Regarding thalidomide, of course doctors should say don't take it if you're pregnant. But the analogy fails because cutting CO2 immediately is not the ONLY way to address the problem of future global warming."

Not true Ron. There are thalidomide makers who might suffer if choose that policy path. Let's hold out for the development of a thalidomide extracting machine. I know that our cornfed American scientists will come up with something.

|3.24.06 @ 11:25AM|#

Ron, I'm not too fond of ad hominem attacks for scientific matters ("How can I believe you when you've gone on a cruise with Abramoff, you jackass?") but at the same time, I can't help but be suspicious of the fact that, just as the majority of scientists who said tobacco is harmless were funded by the tobacco lobby, the majority of scientists who say global warming might have absolutely nothing to do with our behavior the last 150 years are funded by people with an interest in maintaining the status quo. This alone proves nothing, of course, but I do think it provides a legitimate lens through which to view their statements.

The problem in a way is that the whole global-warming controversy is a huge high-stakes gamble. As has been pointed out, by the time we reach a point where things got so bad that even the superpartisans of the world admitted we were responsible for this mess, it would be too late to do anything about it. It strikes me as this: if the naysayers are right, we run the risk of hurting the economy for nothing. If the naysayers are wrong, we run the risk of environmental damage that will trash the economy AND result in all sorts of other problems ranging from flooding to climate change that makes some places that currently host large populations uninhabitable, and these in turn will lead to political, social and military problems far worse than a mere reduction in GNP.

|3.24.06 @ 11:26AM|#

budgie: For papilloma vaccine and morning after pill see my article on "Safety, Efficacy and Morality" and as for the Big Bang, I believe you might be interested in my article, "Unintelligent Design."

|3.24.06 @ 11:29AM|#

In any case, what I was trying to do with the column (which may sound wishy washy) was NOT to argue about climate change, but to figure out how to stop politicians from interfering with scientists telling us what their data say.

Sadly, this will never happen as long as it's 'government-funded' research.

R C Dean|3.24.06 @ 11:29AM|#

There are so many problems with the man-made global warming hypothesis it is hard to summarize them all.

There are the problems raised by historical variations in climate. It has been warmer in the past, without the man-made activity that we have seen recently. The current warming trends also do not seem to correlate in any way with the degree of man-made CO2 deposition - the warming began before we did much, and hasn't accelerated as we have done more. The fabled "hockey stick" graph, after all, is the product of a model that produces hockey sticks when you feed it random data.

There is the plethora of alternative explanations for whatever warming we are experiencing. Solar activity, anyone?

There is the utter lack of knowledge about the other "greenhouse" variables - particulates, water vapor, natural sources of CO2 - not to mention feedback loops that may ameliorate (or exacerbate) warming/cooling trends.

What is striking, though, is how conveniently the anthropogenic CO2 hypothesis supports a set policy prescriptions that predate and indeed exist independently of this hypothesis. Its almost as if a politically active group of people with an agenda have seized on the hypothesis to advance the agenda. While that does not refute the hypothesis, but it does indicate a certain skepticism is in order.

That said, of course, less man-made CO2 emission is better than more, all things being equal. However, all things are not equal - cutting CO2 has a cost, and at this point it is impossible to estimate what, if any, benefits accrue from incurring that cost.

|3.24.06 @ 11:30AM|#

Ron, I'm not sure which side has the burden of proof on this one. I have catastrophic medical insurance not because I think I'm going to come down with cancer, or get in a car wreck; I don't. I have it on the off chance that I might come down with cancer.

There are plenty of well-described possibilities for positive feedback in global warming, most notably the problem of decreased albedo from melting polar ice. Which has already begun in the arctic ocean, and appears to have begun in greenland and antarctica as well.

If you are in a hole, stop digging. Or stop piling blankets on the bed if you are already feeling a bit warm...

|3.24.06 @ 11:33AM|#

There are the problems raised by historical variations in climate. It has been warmer in the past, without the man-made activity that we have seen recently.

But to get further mileage out of my blanket analogy--even if I do have a fever and would have a higher temperature anyway, adding blankets to the bed will only exacerbate my problem. And even if we'd be going through a natural warming period now anyway, adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere only makes matters worse.

Shannon Love|3.24.06 @ 11:35AM|#

We certainly do not want scientific information to pass through a political filter.

We certainly don't. However, if the political filtering begins with the scientists themselves we have an even bigger problem. The explicit internal politicization of many of our supposedly apolitical institutions like the judiciary, academia, public science and the media is a huge problem. Its hypocritical to denounce the counter reaction by elected officials to such betrayals of public office as "politicization"

Hansen is no political babe in the woods. He has admitted to voicing the most extreme and unlikely scenarios for global warming as means of attracting public attention to the issue. In other words, acting like someone in political marketing not science.

He first got slapped down by the first Bush administration for making hysterical predictions (which he now no longer supports) about global warming in late 1980's when he was Al Gore's star witness before congress. He received a $250,000 grant from the Heinz Foundation in 1997 and advised the Kerry Campaign in 2004.

Henson knows how to play the political game. The only question is whether he does so from a sincere belief in the science (which has changed over time) or he is he using his social role as a scientist to advance a broader political agenda?

Perhaps, ironically, Henson now seems to believe that the most likely warming scenario is only around 3/4C over the next 50 years which would get him qualified as a global warming denier by most.

|3.24.06 @ 11:35AM|#

To take Jennifer's silly metaphor a step further: Perhaps you should move to a colder bed.

|3.24.06 @ 11:37AM|#

To take Jennifer's silly metaphor a step further: Perhaps you should move to a colder bed.

To fit my analogy, this means that the solution to global warming is for us all to emigrate to Mars.

|3.24.06 @ 11:37AM|#

Thanks for the references. My beef is with today's article. The Cathy Young routine doesn't seem to work in the NASA case. If one can even identify two sides--let's call them the global warming deniers and the true believers--it is a real stretch to argue that both sides are behaving equally badly.
The true believers are in the business of analysing strong correlations and doing more science to test them, while the deniers are lying about qualifications, getting out the black magic markers to redact reports, and going on cruises with Abramoff.

|3.24.06 @ 11:38AM|#

Jennifer: Did Jack Abramoff lobby for the oil industry too? :-) BTW, I hope you will notice in my reporting on climatology I do not generally cite scientists who receive substantial payments from the fossil fuel interests. On the other hand, why shouldn't some suspicious minds raise questions about Hansen for accepting $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation which is run by the woman married to the man who ran as a Democrat for President that he endorsed? Answer, Hansen's not saying what he's saying because someone paid him to say it. I also believe that the scientists I cite who have a different view of what the temperature trends tell us about future global warming are also not saying what they are saying because someone is paying them to say it. I may be wrong, but I have known and dealt with many of these scientists for the past two decades.

In any case, you write, "It strikes me as this: if the naysayers are right, we run the risk of hurting the economy for nothing. If the naysayers are wrong, we run the risk of environmental damage that will trash the economy AND result in all sorts of other problems ranging from flooding to climate change that makes some places that currently host large populations uninhabitable, and these in turn will lead to political, social and military problems far worse than a mere reduction in GNP."

That is precisely where the controversy is. How likely are the "bads" you list are to occur. Or to use theCoach's analogy, how much should we spend to avoid a speeding meteor depends on how likely we are to be hit by one.

Gimme Back My Dog|3.24.06 @ 11:48AM|#

a mere reduction in GNP.

keep in mind that life expectancies are highly correlated with per capita GNP. Anything that reduces GNP costs lives. More lives than will be lost in global warming caused natural disasters? No idea. But let's not trivialize the effect of reducing GNP.

|3.24.06 @ 11:49AM|#

How likely are the "bads" you list are to occur.[?]

Why list only "bads"? I think a few-degree increase in global temperature would be mostly beneficial, a la the "Medieval Warm Period."

|3.24.06 @ 11:49AM|#

How likely are the "bads" you list are to occur

Far more likely than they were to occur the last time the earth warmed while humans lived on it.

One of the vile ironies of global warming is that, if we're right about global warming being caused by industrial atmospheric pollution, the ones who caused the most pollution will be the ones least affected by it.

Back when the ice age ended there were no political boundaries and humans were nomadic anyway--if where you are now can no longer sustain life, all you have to do is start walking until you find a place that does. But nowadays you can't do that, because there's likely to be an international boundary between where you are now and where you need to go to survive.

If Florida floods out--well, our country is rich enough to handle that problem. If we had to we could afford to build a seawall around the whole peninsula, or at least figure out a way to mitigate the suffering of Floridians who have to move elsewhere in the US. But what happens to places like Pacific island nations? What happens to those mountain peoples whose water supply comes from glaciers that might disappear in another couple of decades? Where are a few zillion underwater Bangladeshis going to go? And who, if anybody, will be held responsible for the damages such people have suffered?

To clarify: I think it highly, highly unlikely that global warming will make it downright impossible for humans to survive on this planet. I even agree that a few places in the world will actually benefit from these climate changes. But a hell of a lot of people are living in places that are only going to get worse, and I think the main problems will be the political problems caused by entire populations turning into refugees, or suffering in other ways.

|3.24.06 @ 11:50AM|#

There is an 800 lb elephant in the living room that gets ignored.

Even the countries who signed up to Kyoto may not reduce their CO2 emissions as much as they anticipated. Furthermore, the countries that are going to have the largest increase in CO2 emissions (China and India) are exempted from Kyoto.

So even if reducing CO2 would fix the problem there is no indication that it is feasible to reduce CO2 emissions enough to make any difference.

|3.24.06 @ 11:57AM|#

In my experience as a scientist, I have found that scientists are not nearly as political or subject to groupthink as some would like us to believe. Indeed, the leaders of a field tend to be the ones who are most skeptical of new results, and demand the most rigor. A result that fits the conventional wisdom but uses sloppy methods is likely to be dismissed as useless. A well-executed study that challenges accepted results is likely to get a lot of attention. Cheerleaders are relatively rare.

Anybody who actually works in scientific research knows that in order for us to get a strong groupthink vibe going we'd have to lose our know-it-all tendencies and general arrogance.

|3.24.06 @ 11:58AM|#

keep in mind that life expectancies are highly correlated with per capita GNP. Anything that reduces GNP costs lives

If America's per capita GNP dropped to the level of Canada's, how many years do you think would be shaved off the average American lifespan?

|3.24.06 @ 12:07PM|#

Just an FYI, Jennifer, we are currently in an Ice Age. Any time there is permanent ice at the poles (i.e. "ice sheets" in glaciological terms), we are in one.

Funny, I remember how "top" scientists in the 70's were warning us about the coming "ice age", along with a global "population explosion" that was going to result in millions of deaths. Somehow, we avoided all that. The truth is there is money to be made in fear mongering, and if you have ever seen "The Day After Tomorrow", at least one really terrible film. "The Swarm" was totally real, though.

|3.24.06 @ 12:12PM|#

I remember how "top" scientists in the 70's were warning us about the coming "ice age",

|3.24.06 @ 12:13PM|#

budgie: As for the black magic markers I suspect you are referencing the infamous Cooney incident in which the head of the White House's Council for Environmental Quality "edited" a report on climate change from NOAA? Prior to coming to the CEQ Cooney was a lawyer/lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute. He now works for ExxonMobile.

I am NOT defending Cooney, but I do want to point out that that report was "edited" by Rick Piltz before it was sent to the White House. Who is Rick Piltz? A distinguished climate scientist perhaps?

Here's his bio:
Rick Piltz is Senior Associate in the U.S. Climate Change Science Program Office in Washington, D.C. For the past nine years, he has edited the program's annual report, Our Changing Planet. From 1991-1994, he was senior professional staff on the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, where he organized hearings on climate change science and policy. He has been involved with environmental research, education, and policy for twenty-five years, including work with NGOs and state government in Texas. He taught American
Politics at the University of Texas after doing graduate work in political science at the University of Michigan.

Piltz, a Democratic House staffer, left the House committee when the Republicans took over in 1994 and landed in a Clinton Administration job at NOAA dealing with climate. Piltz' bio mentions that he worked with NGOS. Indeed he did. In 1989, before becoming a Democratic staffer, Plitz worked with Chris Flavin of the environmentalist advocacy group on a book Sustainable Energy.

Where is he now? At the advocacy group, ClimateScienceWatch.

Mind you that when the New York Times reported the story of Cooney's edits, the reporter made sure that you knew of Cooney's connections to fossil fuel industry, but somehow failed to mention Piltz's ties to the Democratic Party and environmentalist groups. The Times merely described Piltz as a "senior associate in the office that coordinates government climate research." True, but insufficient don't you think?

So one political hack was editing the work of another political hack. Welcome to DC.

|3.24.06 @ 12:14PM|#

Whoops. HTML problems. Only that first quote should have been italicized.

|3.24.06 @ 12:25PM|#

Oops! Previous comment should have read:
Plitz worked with Chris Flavin of the environmentalist advocacy group the Worldwatch Institute.

Captain Holly|3.24.06 @ 12:32PM|#

What is striking, though, is how conveniently the anthropogenic CO2 hypothesis supports a set policy prescriptions that predate and indeed exist independently of this hypothesis. Its almost as if a politically active group of people with an agenda have seized on the hypothesis to advance the agenda. While that does not refute the hypothesis, but it does indicate a certain skepticism is in order.

I was going to say that, but you already did, and much better than I could have.

Global Warming is the lastest crise du jour used to terrify the masses into supporting policies that are intended more to stick it to wealthy capitalist America than protect Mother Gaia.

dhex|3.24.06 @ 12:34PM|#

"It wasn't top scientists; it was layman's magazines looking for sensational stories. "

i think that's an important point to make (repeatedly).

Gimme Back My Dog|3.24.06 @ 12:35PM|#

If America's per capita GNP dropped to the level of Canada's, how many years do you think would be shaved off the average American lifespan?

Cute. I assume this was meant as a joke and you really understand how correlation works.

|3.24.06 @ 12:37PM|#

Global Warming is the lastest crise du jour used to terrify the masses into supporting policies that are intended more to stick it to wealthy capitalist America than protect Mother Gaia.

The fact that global-warming critics often have a knee-jerk readiness to make accusations of an anti-capitalist plot is another thing that makes me suspect their motives. It's like those people who, when the AIDS crisis first unfolded, insisted that people promoting safe-sex education were really motivated by a plan to encourage promiscuity.

|3.24.06 @ 12:42PM|#

Mr. Bailey, I assume you are stating that Piltz helped edit the report, before it got to Cooney. Are you seriously going to treat those "edits" equally, as though they cancel each other out? Because Piltz has Democratic ties, his edits are as equally bad as Cooney's? Because Piltz works for environmental advocacy groups, his edits are just as bad as Cooney's? That seems highly unreasonable to me?

|3.24.06 @ 12:43PM|#

I assume this was meant as a joke and you really understand how correlation works.

No, it's a sincere question. A lot of people who bring up the "save the economy at all costs" act on the assumption that America has only two choices--keep our economy as it is now, or adopt global-warming policies and reduce our GNP to that of someplace like Burkina Faso. I'm saying there's most likely a middle ground. If CO2 reduction plans result in, say, a five percent increase in the cost of living for industrialized nations, how much will that reduce our lifespan?

Or more to the point: just how much of an increase or decrease in GNP is needed before you see a change in lifespans? Increasing Burkina Faso's per capita GNP by a penny a year won't make a difference; increasing it by several thousand dollars probably would. So how much of a decrease could we afford before we got into trouble?

|3.24.06 @ 12:46PM|#

Mashmore: Actually Piltz's bio says "he has edited the program's annual report, Our Changing Planet" not that he "helped" edit it. But never mind.

I'm curious, why do you think that Piltz' edits were more disinterested than Cooney's? And in any case, don't you think that the New York Times should have told its readers about Piltz' background?

uncle sam|3.24.06 @ 12:48PM|#

Our understanding of any linkage between human activities and climate trends is miniscule and theoretical. Improvements in computer modeling have mollified the predictions for warming.

We can correllate bewteen more blankets and body warming quite easily. Take a room full of people resting and cover them with blankets and monitor their body surface temperatures. Change the number of blankets, room temperatures, etc. We can establish in a relatively short time any correllation.

With climate change, such experimentation is impossible. Climate observation is one shot, we can't "go back" and change select variables and see what difference they make.

The most significant "global warming" gas is not CO2, which is a fairly distant third. Some past records seem to show that climate warming actually precedes CO2 rise. So how can we tell?
What if some other anthropogenic factor is actually the significant contributor?

|3.24.06 @ 12:56PM|#

Jennifer and everybody else: I may be misunderstanding, but I get a sense that a lot of posters here somehow think that there is not going to be a lot of future economic growth and technological advances. Economic growth is not static--in fact the Employment Poicy Foundation projects that US GDP in 2077 will grow in real terms twelve-fold by 2077 to about $130 trillion. That buys a lot of climate protection. BTW, World Bank makes similar projections for the rest of the world too.

As for tech advances, it seems reasonable that nanotech will enable the creation of powerful new non-emitting energy technologies well before the middle of this century.

uncle sam|3.24.06 @ 1:04PM|#

As for tech advances, it seems reasonable that nanotech will enable the creation of powerful new non-emitting energy technologies well before the middle of this century.

Which is why doing anything that constrains technological advancement (such as the Kyoto treaty) may, in the long term, prove to be worse than forging ahead

|3.24.06 @ 1:05PM|#

Mr. Bailey:

Don't your expectations regarding continued growth and cleaner technologies cut against concerns over the economic impact of environmental measures? Don't they suggest that such measures, though possibly unnecessary, are nonetheless, if you will, affordable safeguards?

|3.24.06 @ 1:05PM|#

I get a sense that a lot of posters here somehow think that there is not going to be a lot of future economic growth and technological advances. Economic growth is not static. . . . [future growth will] buy a lot of climate protection.

I'm not claiming that economic growth will falter, but it is foolish to operate under the assumption "we can do pretty much whatever we want now, because by the time the bills come due we're almost guaranteed to be rich enough to pay them."

Plus there's the issue I menioned earlier on this thread--most of the people who will be most harmed by climate change are the ones who least benefited by the economic factors that led to it. If, for instance, our behavior means that Bangladesh has to spend a fortune to keep their country viable, who should be stuck with the bill?

|3.24.06 @ 1:07PM|#

I wrote, �helped� only to acknowledge that Piltz is certainly not the only editor of the yearly report. Further, it is likely a safe assumption that Hansen did not take issue with Piltz�s edits. Or, the edits did little to change the substantive information in the report. Presumably, if Piltz edits changed Hansen� thesis, as did Cooney�s, he would have objected in a similar fashion. In addition, at the very least, Piltz has a relative background to perform such edits, while Cooney�s background is much less relative. In fact, it is quite clear from Cooney�s background and the nature of his edits what his purpose was in editing the report. It is much less clear regarding Piltz. I believe Piltz�s involvement in no way merits a suggestion that Cooney�s is somehow balance out, as you seemed to suggest.

Regarding the Times article, I have not read it. I only partially watched the 60 Minutes story while cooking dinner. I had trouble watching because Cooney�s actions were making me sick to my stomach, and I was really looking forward to dinner. Should they have included Piltz�s background? Maybe, probably, but I think it is far, far, FAR, less important than Cooney�s.

|3.24.06 @ 1:10PM|#

There's also the old saying about an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure. Maybe there was no need for me to undergo the misery of giving up smoking, because by the time I developed lung cancer there would be a cheap and easy cure for it, anyway. But I wonder which would have been the wisest bet: undergo short-term nic-fit misery although a future lung cancer cure might mean that my sacrifice was made in vain? Or keep smoking, and then discover that I'm screwed once it's too late to do anything about it?

But the problem with this analogy is that the only one harmed by my smoking was me. With climate change, it's more like I'm the one enjoying the benefits of smoking, and some kid on the opposite side of the world is the one who suffers from it.

|3.24.06 @ 1:11PM|#

Jennifer: But the people who will most harmed by steep increases in energy prices NOW are real poor people who are now alive, not their future richer kids. What about them?

Mr. Ridgely: We have to finance the future techs out of current GDP--cutting that GDP now could delay their development and thus harm the environment more in the long run. In any case, I am more worried about the impacts of energy policy on the world's poor now and in the future.

|3.24.06 @ 1:13PM|#

In any case, what I was trying to do with the column (which may sound wishy washy) was NOT to argue about climate change, but to figure out how to stop politicians from interfering with scientists telling us what their data say.

But as you say in the article: "Quite obviously, this attempt to squelch Hansen backfired spectacularly."
Politicians aren't very good at much of anything - why should they be good at squelching? (Actually, it sounded more like a publicity stunt rather than actual repression).

"Worst" case screnario: Ice caps completely melt, and the sea level rises by about 80m. It'll happen eventually (maybe not all 80m), so, when is a good time, sooner or later?
The land area lost to rising seas will be somewhat compensated by land area gained from the missing ice caps and glaciers. Think Condos in Antartica.

Where are a few zillion underwater Bangladeshis going to go?

They'll immigrate to the coastal wetlands of what is now the Mojave desert.

Disclaimer: I live within walking distance of a glacier. It's cool.

|3.24.06 @ 1:14PM|#

Jennifer: What a lot of people are worried about is that trying to mitigate global warming now is a pound of cure for an ounce of prevention.

|3.24.06 @ 1:18PM|#

Is there anything we can do in the meantime, while waiting for the genie to pop out of the bottle with the magic non-polluting energy source?

I, like Jennifer, follow the 'don't shit where you eat' principal. I can't make any sense of the scientific information on global warming. (Well, I can make one confident statement: any report concluding with "it's the end of the world" is paid for by something like the Sierra Club and any report saying "don't worry, be happy," was bankrolled by the hydrocarbon industry.) I do, however, think that the only moral and rational thing to do is to avoid making things worse -- and that includes ruining the economies of the industrial world -- until we have better information. So, again, what do we do in the meantime?

|3.24.06 @ 1:20PM|#

As for tech advances, it seems reasonable that nanotech will enable the creation of powerful new non-emitting energy technologies well before the middle of this century.

OK, I have to vent a pet peeve here: Yeah, a lot of nanotech stuff is cool. Yeah, some of it will have applications in energy and fuel.

But there's also a lot of hype there. Nanotech will almost certainly not work out like the sci-fi predictions. It will be simultaneously more awesome and yet more mundane. That's the way so many advances are.

Also, coolness doesn't automatically translate into cost effective, clean, and useful. So I HATE when people wave their hands and say that nanotech will fix everything in a few decades because it's all just so vast and awesome and cool and certain to yield a cornucopia. HATES IT! WE HATES IT!

For the record, I'm a co-author on a more-or-less nano paper where we developed a cool technique for making photonic devices. And I'm sitting on an idea for awesome nanopatterning while I work out the details of what sorts of compounds we'd use. Nano will enable us to do many things better, and also do some new stuff, but it won't just transform the future into one big sci-fi movie.

That's all.

|3.24.06 @ 1:21PM|#

We have to finance the future techs out of current GDP--cutting that GDP now could delay their development and thus harm the environment more in the long run. In any case, I am more worried about the impacts of energy policy on the world's poor now and in the future.

I agree about impact on the poor. And I understand, of course, that a dollar of GDP spent here cannot be spent there. Still, if we are talking about only marginally reducing the rate of growth of GDP as opposed to actually shrinking GDP, and if there is any validity whatever to the notion of an imminent tipping point, then it would seem the rational course would be to forestall that point now and accept a slighly slower march to that richer, higher tech future. Obviously, the devil is in the details here; but the notion that in some 50 years we will be much richer and have much cleaner technology suggests that our concern should then be focused on ensuring that nothing catastrophic happens in the mean time.

|3.24.06 @ 1:25PM|#

The people making breathless predictions of economic doom befalling us from limits on greenhouse gas emissions should go back to the debates about banning leaded gasoline, and the Clearn Air Act.

Capitalist industry is remarkably innovative, and continually disproves those who claim emissions regulations will choke the economy. Given a reasonable phase-in period, innovation in this area will no more kill our economy than those earlier sets of regulation. Once industry realizes they have to act on a deadline, industry will produce the C02 equivalent of the catylitic converter.

Shannon Love|3.24.06 @ 1:26PM|#

thoreau,

Anybody who actually works in scientific research knows that in order for us to get a strong groupthink vibe going we'd have to lose our know-it-all tendencies and general arrogance.

And yet it happens. Remember the Energy Crisis? Nuclear Winter? DDT? How about low-fat diets protecting against heart disease and cancer?

These issues rapidly stop being about facts and become social signifiers, a means of identifying one's inclusion in a particular group. Honest, intelligent people with good hearts believe in global warming while dishonest, stupid, greedy people do not. Scientist are no more immune to this than anyone else, History is replete with examples where scientist lent support to politically significant ideas that were proved wrong in the long run.

|3.24.06 @ 1:31PM|#

Pain inevitably skews towards the poor. If there is a serious economic cost to reducing greenhouse emissions, the poor will suffer the most. Yet in the same vein, if there will be serious pain resulting from global warming, that too will disproportionately effect the poor.

Given this, I don't see how raising the issue of the skewed impact on the poor strengthens the hand of the "do nothing" crowd.

|3.24.06 @ 1:33PM|#

It's already too late to do anything but let it happen and adapt to the changes.

I'm warming up to experimenting with making my own biodiesel. ...as a hobby. ...and while I don't have a lot of land to grow something I'm kinda fascinated by the algae proposition. Bioreactors are getting cheaper all the time (they already exist for breeding algae for fish farms, etc.), and there are companies that will sell you lipid rich varieties.

I understand federal taxation on alcohol production, which makes making your own gasoline substitute so prohibitively expensive, is squashing innovation that way. ...that's comin' from the same silliness of the drug war, by the way, treating people who are making their own fuel as if they were Appalachian bootleggers.

...and I don't know what it's like where you live, but here in the western part of LA, sometimes it seems like you can't spit without hittin' a hybrid.

|3.24.06 @ 1:33PM|#

Nuclear Winter?

When did we have a nuclear war proving that the nuclear winter theory was bogus?

|3.24.06 @ 1:35PM|#

joe: Because we don't actually know that man-made global warming will be as bad as some models project, but we do know for a fact that higher energy prices will hurt the 2 billion people who have never turned on a light bulb.

|3.24.06 @ 1:36PM|#

These issues rapidly stop being about facts and become social signifiers, a means of identifying one's inclusion in a particular group. Honest, intelligent people with good hearts believe in global warming while dishonest, stupid, greedy people do not.

Likewise, honest lovers of freedom know that global warming is bullshit, while tree-hugging capitalist-hating hippies claim global warming is a problem.

|3.24.06 @ 1:38PM|#

"There is absolutely no conclusive proof that smoking cigarettes leads to lung cancer. There's certainly a strong correlation, yes, but nobody can conclusively prove it's the smoke--maybe it's the angle at which smokers bend their elbows while they're smoking. Maybe it's the exposure to open flames used to light the cigarettes."

Since not everyone who smokes gets cancer, then there must be another mechanism affecting cancer rates. According to a CDC webpage posted a few months ago on HnR about 10% of smokers go on to get lung cancer, which is a large enough precentage increase to dissuade most people from smoking.

Likewise since the models developed and refined for the past 20 years cannot accurately predict temperture changes, there must be another factor involved with or instead of greenhouse gasses. Unlike the smoking example, we can go back after the fact and say "25% of civilizations studied brough global warnming to their planets with these industrial behaviors."

Where's the Encyclopedia Galatica when you need it?

|3.24.06 @ 1:46PM|#

Remember the Energy Crisis? Nuclear Winter? DDT? How about low-fat diets protecting against heart disease and cancer?

I think you need to distinguish between what we think about research in our own fields and what we accept from people in other fields. If a lot of vocal people from a field that I'm not an expert in tell me something, I'm inclined to accept it as likely. But if data comes out refuting them, and I hear about it, I'll probably sway pretty quickly (e.g. the latest studies on low-fat diets). I never really shaped my world view based on it.

Another example: The nano hype that I ranted about. Yeah, most scientists think it's cool. Many scientists enjoy working on it. We all know that good stuff will come out of it. However, most scientists actually haven't committed themselves to the notion that the future will be like a sci-fi novel, where those nano devices can do just about anything imaginable. The crazy hype mostly comes from a handful of researchers and a bunch of people who aren't researchers. The rest of us just say "Yeah, it's cool, we're gonna learn a lot, we're gonna make some useful stuff, but we aren't convinced that it will all turn the world upside down."

Don't confuse a few vocal researchers, and their associated cheerleaders, with the opinions of your average researcher. Your average researcher probably drinks a lot less Kool-Aid than the most vocal people that you hear from. Your average researcher sees possibilities that need to be carefully examined, quantified, tested, and re-tested, while the vocal cheerleaders see AMAZING STUFF THAT WILL TOTALLY CHANGE EVERYTHING!

Most researchers drink Diet Coke, not Kool Aid. We like the mild stuff that will stimulate and refresh you, not the sugary stuff that's concealing a poison.

|3.24.06 @ 1:50PM|#

"but we do know for a fact that higher energy prices will hurt the 2 billion people who have never turned on a light bulb."
Mr. Bailey,
If other articles on Reason are to be believed, what the worlds poor really suffer from is poor governance. Corruption and/or inneficiency, not the price of energy. The inability of such poor nations to adapt will only be accentuated by rapid climate change. My only sympathy goes to the few decent (but probably expendable) islander nations who will join the Legacy of Atlantis�.

|3.24.06 @ 2:04PM|#

"but we do know for a fact that higher energy prices will hurt the 2 billion people who have never turned on a light bulb."

We don't know "for a fact" that curbing greenhouse emissions will raise energy prices. We don't know "for a fact" that economic development in currently-poor countries will be as energy-intensive as the American industrial revolution was 150-100 years ago. There actually are conservation practices and technologies, you know.

Why are you pretending that the highly-controversial question of whether dealing with the problem will be costly is a settled issue, but pretending that the broad consensus of climate scientists about the harm to come from global warming is merely a "hypothesis?"

uncle sam|3.24.06 @ 2:08PM|#

If you really want to improve human efficiency and reduce emissions, then we need to dramatically reduce the size and scope of government. We actually spend about two days of a work week to pay for government spending. I'm sure we could find many other examples of CO2 emissions that are due to the cost of government.

|3.24.06 @ 2:08PM|#

Maybe someone can clear this up for me.

I'm going to generalize: many of the posters here have adhered to the economic damage argument and--by extension--offered up a do-nothing approach to global warming. No one is going to change their minds.

Fair enough. What I see the do-nothing crowd neglect repeatedly are the positive gains in economic sectors that will certainly fill this vaccuum created by dying industries. Won't these gains at least cancel out the short-term losses? Why is this rarely--if ever--mentioned?
And why is it assumed that, as many have pointed out, that this is a plot against capitalism? Is there not the potential for capitalists to get extremely rich off solar, biomass, hydrogen, nanotech, or whatever group of investors and prodecers moves in to develop and expand production?

People really need to drop the whole treehugger, anti-capitalist routine. It makes reasonoids look really outdated and tedious. I don't expect it to happen anytime soon, but one can wish.

|3.24.06 @ 2:10PM|#

We don't know "for a fact" that curbing greenhouse emissions will raise energy prices. We don't know "for a fact" that economic development in currently-poor countries will be as energy-intensive as the American industrial revolution was 150-100 years ago. There actually are conservation practices and technologies, you know.

Clearly, the lack of knowledge regarding global warming issues encompasses more than just a lack of knowledge about data collection, geophysics and weather. ...There seems to be quite a bit people don't know about energy production and economic development, among other things, too.

|3.24.06 @ 2:11PM|#

Why are you pretending that the highly-controversial question of whether dealing with the problem will be costly is a settled issue, but pretending that the broad consensus of climate scientists about the harm to come from global warming is merely a "hypothesis?"

That's a damned good point--it does seem here as though the more vigorously people insist that global-warming problems are debatable, the more certain they are that dealing with said problems will be catastrophic.

Shannon Love|3.24.06 @ 2:11PM|#

thoreau,

Don't confuse a few vocal researchers, and their associated cheerleaders, with the opinions of your average researcher.

Unfortunately, it is the vocal minority that influence the political process. The breakdown occurs in the translation between the real science, which is always incomplete and often ambiguous for a long time and the public's politically significant perception of the rigor of that science.

There was a study done a few years back where they went around and asked researchers about the idea that trace amounts of industrial chemicals in our day-to-day environment caused significant amounts of cancer. The overwhelming majority did not believe it a significant problem. However, a small and highly vocal minority did. Guess which view gets the most media attention? Guess which view most voters hold? The study found that most researches in the area didn't want to get involved in the public debate so they left it vocal minority.

If I may extend your example of nanotechnology, we are often ask to make real-world decisions based on what is essentially a sci-fi fanboy view of the actual science. The most dramatic view receives the most attention and that is what we base policy on.

In the case of global warming, most climatological models show that the most likely warming is less than 1.5C over the next century. That qualifies as mostly ignorable or even net beneficial warming. Yet, we are asked to make policy based on a "Day After Tomorrow" -esq "save who you can" hysterical model. Why?

Ordinary researchers in many fields may know the truth but if they don't speak up what good is it?

|3.24.06 @ 2:18PM|#

In the case of global warming, most climatological models show that the most likely warming is less than 1.5C over the next century. That qualifies as mostly ignorable or even net beneficial warming.

What are you talking about? That doesn't mean that the world will be just like it is now only 1.5 degrees higher; an average increase of 1.5 Celsius is enough to cause all sorts of problems.

It's like people who say "if sea level rises six inches, that's no big deal." Well--it doesn't sound like a big deal until you realize that a six-inch rise doesn't mean you'll simply lose six inches off of your beachfront property; it means all the coastal areas that are six inches or less above sea level (like the city where I lived as a teenager, built on reclaimed swampland) will be flooded out.

|3.24.06 @ 2:23PM|#

Excuse me but, did Shannon Love just refer to climate scientists who accept that global warming is real and important as a "vocal minority" within the field of climatology?

Because that's just not true.

|3.24.06 @ 2:28PM|#

Shannon-

You won't catch me leaping to the defense of the most vocal doomsayers. However, in your first post you seemed to imply that the scientific research community as a whole has a systematic problem, and when I defended us from charges of groupthink you provided examples of alleged groupthink in the scientific community. In your latest post you seem to back down from that, and rightly so, by pointing out the skepticism among scientists concerning harms from trace amounts of chemicals.

So, I think we agree that the scientific community isn't as infected by groupthink as some others have alleged, on this forum and in other places.

As to the problem of the most vocal and politically influential scientists pushing bad policy: Hey, the same could be said of any other profession, demographic, or interest group. When's the last time an organization of "[Insert group here] For Moderate, Modest, and Reasoned Policy" made any headway on any issue? It's always the squeaky wheels that make the rest of us look bad.

I don't have any easy answers, but there you go. We aren't nearly as infected by groupthink as the ones who get political attention might lead you to believe. Really, all this nerd wants is to protect the good name of other science nerds. We aren't as extreme as our most vocal spokesmen, and we don't have a hive mentality. That's all.

|3.24.06 @ 2:31PM|#

Why are you pretending that the highly-controversial question of whether dealing with the problem will be costly is a settled issue, but pretending that the broad consensus of climate scientists about the harm to come from global warming is merely a "hypothesis?"

Maybe he has adopted the Precautionary Principle. If costs of doing business goes up, the damage to stock portfolios can be irreversible.

|3.24.06 @ 2:33PM|#

"People really need to drop the whole treehugger, anti-capitalist routine."

Amusingly,
www.treehugger.com has reviews and discussion of many more or less green products and services for the like minded capitalist consumer to consider. Yay Freemarkets!

Since I am link whoring, I'll just mention www.terrapass.com ...again. Basically, tell them what kind of car you have, give them some money (based on the car, and how much you drive) , they send you a bumper sticker, and they buy up Carbon Credits (or otherwise help abate Co2).

|3.24.06 @ 2:44PM|#

joe and Ken: Y'all really believe that carbon markets and carbon taxes will not increase the price of fossil fuels? Amazing.

If lowering carbon emissions were not "costly" we wouldn't be arguing about it--people would just on with it. Unless of course, you believe that old economist joke about there not being a $5 bill on the sidewalk because someone would already have picked it up.

In any case, on the Piltz front, I JUST GOT my weekly Integrity in Science Watch press release from the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Here's how they describe Piltz:

Climate Scientists Disclose Struggle to Relay Information on Global Warming

CBS News last Sunday reported two top scientists' experiences with the Bush administration's ongoing politicization of climate change. Embattled NASA scientist James Hansen on Sixty Minutes told of his struggle to speak out about the issues surrounding global warming, "In my more than three decades in the government I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public," he said. Rick Piltz, a recently resigned scientist for the federal Climate Change Science Program says his annual reports on climate issues were heavily edited by Phil Cooney, the chief-of-staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality and a former oil industry lobbyist. A line that said Earth is undergoing rapid change became "may be undergoing change" and a reference to energy production contributing to warming "was crossed out," Piltz said. Piltz recently founded Climate Science Watch, an advocacy project focused on "holding public officials accountable for the ways they use climate science data in policymaking."

A recently resigned scientist?!

|3.24.06 @ 2:47PM|#

Jennifer - what problems, exactly?

I'm not a global warming denier...I just think the science is so sketchy that we really can't say anything about it with any certainty. I think joe will probably argue with me on this, but I don't care. Jennifer also keeps saying the we've definitely made any natural global warming worse by our influence. Again, I don't see any real proof of this.

I just think there are many more issues that we can actually do something about that also have more clearly defined scientific backing than global warming.

But that's just me.

|3.24.06 @ 2:48PM|#

Y'all really believe that carbon markets and carbon taxes will not increase the price of fossil fuels? Amazing.

I thought the real debate was whether or not an increased cost of fossil fuels will automatically lead to economic armageddon?

|3.24.06 @ 2:52PM|#

You know, even if you aren't sold on global warming, there are two other good arguments for reducing the use of fossil fuels:

1) Burning fossil fuels also produces other waste products that have known adverse effects.

2) Fossil fuels are the primary export of Saudi Arabia and (I think) Iran and Russia. (I'm not 100% positive that fossil fuels are the #1 exports of those countries, but I know that they rank high on the list, especially if you include natural gas.)

|3.24.06 @ 2:53PM|#

Jennifer also keeps saying the we've definitely made any natural global warming worse by our influence. Again, I don't see any real proof of this.

I've already admitted that there is no absolute proof that increased levels of heat-retaining greenhouse gases are responsible for increased temperatures, just as there is no absolute proof that extra blankets on my bed are responsible for my feeling uncomfortably warm, and no absolute proof that cigarette smoke is why so many smokers are more likely than non-smokers to get lung cancer.

Jennifer - what problems, exactly?

I've also mentioned those already--there are a lot of people living in places that will suffer damage from climate change. And, ironically, most of those people are the ones who did NOT get many benefits from the industrialization that caused such problems.

|3.24.06 @ 2:55PM|#

You gotta love those tree-hugging capitalists. Unfortunately, Budgie, they are definately in the minority of the environmental movement. If you don't see the communal instincts of your everyday greenie then you aren't looking.

|3.24.06 @ 2:57PM|#

thoreau - I entirely agree. But I'm of the opinion that we should just nuke the entire middle east if they can't settle down (semi-tongue-in-cheek).

I just think it will be quicker to ween ourselves off fossil fuels if we keep up our technological advancement. (Caveats to how subsidies are keeping alt fuels down, etc, etc, etc.)

|3.24.06 @ 2:58PM|#

"Y'all really believe that carbon markets and carbon taxes will not increase the price of fossil fuels? Amazing."

In this vein, a TerraPass sticker for my '04 MINI Cooper S currently costs $50...this covers a years worth of it's Co2 emmissions (15,000 milers per year). In Europe, where the Carbon trading market is more mature, it would likely have cost around ten times that amount. Maybe $500 a year. Or about an additional $2 per day...as opposed to 20� a day. It still would (barely) cost more to take the bus...just in fuel considerations.

|3.24.06 @ 3:00PM|#

"joe and Ken: Y'all really believe that carbon markets and carbon taxes will not increase the price of fossil fuels?"

The question wasn't about fossil fuels, but about energy, and whether efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will slow economic growth. Put down the goalposts, and move away slowly.

"If lowering carbon emissions were not "costly" we wouldn't be arguing about it--people would just on with it." Yes, like the ease with which leaded gasoline was banned. Oh, wait, that's right, the hydrocarbon companies that sold them managed to stifle research and control the PR and political process for fifty years with claims, now fully disproven, that the problem wasn't real, and that the cost of solving it would be prohibitive.

But I will give you this, Mr. Bailey - people without scientific backgrounds who pose as scientists when arguing controversial positions about scientific issues with public policy implications should be ashamed of themselves. I'm sure we can both agree on that.

|3.24.06 @ 3:01PM|#

If you don't see the communal instincts of your everyday greenie then you aren't looking.

Even assuming impure motives on the part of all global-warming believers, does this mean that what they say is untrue?

When AIDS first hit the public consciousness, I remember that a lot of the people saying things like "You can't catch AIDS through casual contact" were, in fact, promoters of a certain gay-rights agenda. So were they incorrect in saying you can't catch AIDS from a handshake?

|3.24.06 @ 3:08PM|#

"they are definately in the minority of the environmental movement."

Yes I agree, but I'm guessing you meant to write "majority," in which case I would disagree. Does expressing the desire to forestall environmental catastrophes automatically make someone a treehugging environmentalist? Is that how the battle lines have to be drawn? Sounds pretty retarded to me.

"If you don't see the communal instincts of your everyday greenie then you aren't looking."

???

Communal instincts? Yeah, I guess the global climate is sort of a commons, which I guess would call for communal instincts/action/cooperation etc. What's your point? Do you have one?

|3.24.06 @ 3:13PM|#

Jennifer, they are wrong about the devestation that will occur with a few degrees increase in temperature. And they are wrong to target my energy usage, which is my freedom. I reject any "cure" that gives controllers like Joe more power.

|3.24.06 @ 3:14PM|#

Communal instincts? Yeah, I guess the global climate is sort of a commons, which I guess would call for communal instincts/action/cooperation etc. What's your point? Do you have one?<<br />
I think the point is that we can't trust people who believe in global warming because they all wnt to destroy capitalism and make everybody poor.

By the way, I read a study which said that kids in stable two-parent familes are less likely to live in poverty than kids raised by single mothers. But a lot of the people who say this are conservative Christians pushing a "family-values", anti-gay-rights agenda I find abhorrent. So does this mean I should assume they are lying, and the children of single moms are NOT more likely to be poor?

|3.24.06 @ 3:15PM|#

"global climate" is sort of a commons
change that to "biosphere," apologies for the poor phrasing

|3.24.06 @ 3:15PM|#

If lowering carbon emissions were not "costly" we wouldn't be arguing about it--people would just on with it.

Aren't people just getting on with it when they buy a hybrid now? Sure, there are government incentives and mandates that brought that situation about--and I'm against those. ...that isn't the point. The point is that, at least here in Southern California, consumers are paying a premium to drive a hybrid.

As the quantity of fossil fuels diminish even as demand for energy increases in Southeast Asia and elsewhere, I expect real prices for fuel to increase, and I expect diesel (have you seen VW's new line of TDIs?) to become an increasingly attractive alternative. ...and biodiesel and alcohol production to become increasingly competitive.

I suspect there are many among us, some even in this thread, who don't understand why CO2 from biodiesel, etc. isn't bad like burning fossil fuels. ...I suspect some of them think that if we didn't have fossil fuels to burn and we wanted to stop making CO2 emissions any worse, we'd be reduced to using batteries or we'd have to go back to horse and buggies or something. ...and that's just not the case.

Someone will have to build the production infrastructure for biofuels, and I want that to be entrepreneurs. ...distribution infrastructure is already in place. I wouldn't expect entrepreneurs to do that until it's profitable--but I suspect the day that becomes profitable isn't too far around the corner.

|3.24.06 @ 3:16PM|#

Jennifer, they are wrong about the devestation that will occur with a few degrees increase in temperature.

How can you say this with such certainty?

And they are wrong to target my energy usage, which is my freedom. I reject any "cure" that gives controllers like Joe more power.

Ah, yes, now I see. If a problem can't be solved by rugged unregulated free-market individualism, then it should not be solved.

|3.24.06 @ 3:17PM|#

Budgie, my point is that to deny greens are reds is pure lunacy.

|3.24.06 @ 3:23PM|#

"So one political hack was editing the work of another political hack. Welcome to DC."


Perhaps instead of "retired scientist" they could have wrote "retired political scientist who did work for many years in a federal government science program working on science, but whom also has ties to the democratic party."


Not the best reporting, yes, but substantive, no. There is still nothing about that story to reasonably suggest that Piltz's involvement balances out Conney's, which you clearly suggested. There is no evidence that he edited the report to change the science. I find it unreasonable to first not include the information in the article, but also to write it off as one hack against another.

|3.24.06 @ 3:24PM|#

"And they are wrong to target my energy usage, which is my freedom. I reject any "cure" that gives controllers like Joe more power."

Thanks for the honesty.

Meanwhile back on the planet earth, where some six billion people live, many under sea level, in the 21st fucking century, downwind of your...oh forget it.

Let's just all pretend we're all Davy Crockett and stuff.

Shannon Love|3.24.06 @ 3:24PM|#

thoreau,

If you want to make the assertion that science as a profession is less prone to groupthink than any other field of endeavor I would agree with you. The relative resistance of science to political, social and cultural forces is what makes it so valuable in the first place.

However, resistance does not mean immunity.

I think there are two types of failures: (1) Groupthink in which most of the members of a field latch onto a flawed concept. Scientific racism, the Energy Crises and low-fat diets would fall into this category. (2) Vocal minority in which a small number of scientist become the face of the issue to the general public. Nuclear winter and pesticide hysteria would fall into this category.

Type 1 failures occur when a concept becomes a group signifier. Scientist feel social pressure to support an idea beyond what the actual data supports. Type 2 failures result from a desire to advance a pre-exsisting political agenda.

My point is that group failures within science do occur and we have to keep that in mind when trying to formulate policy. I don't know if I would qualify it as a "systematic" problem or not. I would say that the more politically contentious an idea is the more problems we have getting a good answer.

|3.24.06 @ 3:27PM|#

And they are wrong to target my energy usage, which is my freedom. I reject any "cure" that gives controllers like Joe more power.

Serious question: if global warming and its problems are proven beyond doubt and the only way to solve the problem is through regulation and restricted energy use, would you still prefer to keep making matters worse rather than adopt a cure you don't like?

|3.24.06 @ 3:28PM|#

I wouldn't expect entrepreneurs to do that until it's profitable--but I suspect the day that becomes profitable isn't too far around the corner.

I might have added that that day will come all the sooner if consumers, the same ones that are paying a premium to drive hybrids now, are aware of the upside of biofuels. ...There was a learning curve for those hybrid customers too--consumers need to understand what they're paying for before they buy.

|3.24.06 @ 3:29PM|#

"Budgie, my point is that to deny greens are reds is pure lunacy."

Greens are not necessarily Red. Some are pink though. Many are recovering Reds...all that ecological damage from the Soviet Era� was just not worth it. Green and Gold look good together IMO. Green and Red are tacky color combo.

|3.24.06 @ 3:31PM|#

My point is that group failures within science do occur and we have to keep that in mind when trying to formulate policy.

This is true, but why are you adopting the default setting that glbal warming absolutely must be another example of a group failure?

And although it is off-topic, I am curious as to why you keep using "nuclear winter" as an example of a group failure. Since we haven't had a wide-scale nuclear war, how can you say for sure what would or would not happen to the climate afterwards?

|3.24.06 @ 3:33PM|#

"Budgie, my point is that to deny greens are reds is pure lunacy."

That wasn't so hard.
All greens are reds.
But not all reds are green.
Are all blues reds too?
So many colors in the homo rainbow.

|3.24.06 @ 3:37PM|#

Down in New Orleans they have already succumbed to GWs devastation. Many now realize that it is better to live above sea level away from the coast. The government's solution to NO's fishbowl problem didn't work out too well.

|3.24.06 @ 3:45PM|#

Down in New Orleans they have already succumbed to GWs devastation. Many now realize that it is better to live above sea level away from the coast. The government's solution to NO's fishbowl problem didn't work out too well.

So your point is that, since living below sea level is a bad idea, so is reducing greenhouse gases?

|3.24.06 @ 3:55PM|#

Type 1 failures occur when a concept becomes a group signifier. Scientist feel social pressure to support an idea beyond what the actual data supports.

Yes, such things can happen. However, we must also distinguish between different groups of scientists. If an astrophysicist accepts a false consensus on, say, diets, he's not much different from any other educated person who accepts that fad. He's not really part of the expert consensus that is at the core of the support for the false idea. OTOH, a researcher in the field of nutritional science who ought to know better but accepts it anyway, is indeed part of the problem.

There's also a difference between a widespread and honest misinterpretation of data, because the whole community is overlooking a subtle point, and wishful thinking that gets amplified by groupthink.

Prior to the 1980's, the consensus seemed to be that you couldn't get superconductivity above 40 K. The data available at the time all seemed to point in that direction, and efforts to go above it had all failed. Was this consensus a harmful instance of groupthink, or simply the most reasonable interpretation of the best data available at the time? Given how quickly people turned around when high Tc was discovered in the cuprates, I'd say it was a reasonable mistake, not groupthink. Once they met the burden of proof their result was accepted rather than resisted.

And I'd say the distinction is an important one, since persuading people that a scientific idea is in fact groupthink would be one way to discredit an idea without really refuting the idea. If the groupthink allegation is to be made, it must be made in a careful manner that acknowledges the difference between groupthink and reasonable conclusions.

Cathy Young|3.24.06 @ 4:06PM|#

Today, scientists want us to believe the climate is warming, quickly, due to human influence. They claim the consensus is overwhelming, and as close to unanimous in the peer-reviewed journals as you can get on this stuff.

Meanwhile, in the 1970s, some sci-fi writers and a few scientists theorized that the climate was cooling (mostly naturally), more slowly than the above: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Thus, in conclusion, those two episodes are the same, and global warming is obviously a crock. Tune in next week where some problems with some secondhand smoke studies prove that all science which purports to show smoking links to cancer is equivalent to the stuff the tobacco companies paid for the past few decades.

|3.24.06 @ 4:07PM|#

joe: Just what are those other non-carbon emitting cheaper energy sources that we refusing to use for some reason? Sigh.

Of course, energy prices may well go down if my hopes (sorry thoreau) for nanotech breakthroughs occur, but even tech optimists like me think it will take a decade or two for that to occur.

|3.24.06 @ 4:14PM|#

Ron-

I'm not anti-nano, I guess I just get frustrated with nano hype. There's good science there, and real possibilities for engineering. I just don't like it when people assume that nano will change everything.

Which nanotech ideas do you think are most likely to yield clean energy? I'm intrigued by some of the ideas for layered solar cells (I guess that very thin films can count as nano, especially if they're quantum wells), or solar cells that incorporate the high efficiency achievable in quantum dots. The high surface area that nanoparticles make available for catalysis could certainly be useful in any sort of chemical process used to produce biofuels, or burn fuels (bio or otherwise) more cleanly. However, these technologies all involve nano as just one component, working in concert with more traditional technologies.

Sorry, I just get touchy over nano-hype.

|3.24.06 @ 4:17PM|#

Seems like the burden is on the nations or people who will suffer from three foot higher seas to force the causal nations to do something about it.

Since government is all about force, why would the US government force it's citizens to do something just for the benefit of another nation?

Seems like the scientists in the Maldives better get cracking on low cost and efficient artificial carbon sinks! Or else atom bombs.

|3.24.06 @ 4:28PM|#

A few thoughts from a scientist (geologist to be specific)

Research scientists make their money from grants from all sorts of organizations from every extreme of the political and sociological spectrum. The phrase "If two scientists agree, you don't need one of them" applies here. A free exchange of ideas is needed to keep us in check and to promote creativity, but keep in mind that theories are not fact.

During the past 4.5 billion years the earth has undergone radical temperature variations and those variations have occurred 'yesterday', when a geologic timeframe compared to our lifespan.

The earth's atmosphere is composed of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.03% CO2, and lesser percentages of dozens of other gasses that occur in concentrations less 0.03%. It has been this concetration for millions of years. It does not seem reasonable to me that a few thousandss of a percent increase in CO2 concetration could explain slight global temerature variations when we know that much larger global temperature variations have occurred naturally under constant CO2 levels. It makes for interesting debate and gives policy makers a sense of importance (and employs a significant number of my bretheren), but the logic is fatally flawed.

There are numerous more plausible expanations for the current rise in global temperature other than increased CO2 emissions. These temperature changes are not even statistically significant when compared to known global temperature changes.

KISS=Keep It Simple, Stupid

uncle sam|3.24.06 @ 4:37PM|#

I have a graphic showing climate change over the millenia at: http://www.kogagrove.org/sams/agw/agwframes.html

We are currently on the cool side of the mean.

|3.24.06 @ 4:41PM|#

The earth's atmosphere is composed of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.03% CO2, and lesser percentages of dozens of other gasses that occur in concentrations less 0.03%. . . .It does not seem reasonable to me that a few thousandss of a percent increase in CO2 concetration could explain slight global temerature variations

If you're talking about what simply "seems reasonable", it seems just as reasonable to me that if greenhouse gases make such a tiny percentage of the atmosphere but are still sufficient to keep the planet warmer than it would otherwise be (given our distance from the sun), then in that case you wouldn't need a particularly large increase to make a noticeable difference in temperature.

|3.24.06 @ 4:44PM|#

"it seems just as reasonable to me that if greenhouse gases make such a tiny percentage of the atmosphere but are still sufficient to keep the planet warmer than it would otherwise be (given our distance from the sun), then in that case you wouldn't need a particularly large increase to make a noticeable difference in temperature."

Your assumption is that CO2 is the gas that keeps us warmer than we would otherwise be.

|3.24.06 @ 4:45PM|#

Your assumption is that CO2 is the gas that keeps us warmer than we would otherwise be.

I am also assuming that wearing clothes keeps me warmer than I would otherwise be. Maybe they're not necessary--maybe I'd be warm enough without them, especially in August--but they do have a tendency to retain heat, as does atmospheric CO2.

uncle sam|3.24.06 @ 4:46PM|#

The most significant greenhouse gas is water vapor.
In the invisible form, water vapor traps heat in the atmosphere, when condensed into clouds, water vapor reflects energy away. It wasn't until recently that they have attempted to incorporate clouds into climate models. That should be fun.

|3.24.06 @ 4:47PM|#

It took me months to get the visions of Jennifer in the shower out of my head. Now, she puts the picture of her under the covers into my brain.

Jen, you are such a tease! And it is frustrating having to worship you from afar.

|3.24.06 @ 4:49PM|#

it is frustrating having to worship you from afar.

You could have come to our New York gathering, you know.

|3.24.06 @ 4:50PM|#

Jennifer, one clue that tells me the alarmists have an agenda is the fact that they never, ever mention potential benefits from a warmer planet. While I'll admit that warming can damage coastal areas with higher sea levels and more severe storms, the doomsayers can't find it in themselves to mention things like increased biodiversity, longer growing seasons, or even less people freezing to death.

|3.24.06 @ 4:51PM|#

In the spirit of keeping it simple, I've got a couple of questions.

My understanding is that the difference between the temperatures of the earth and the moon is in large part attributable to the presence of CO2 and other "lesser percentage" greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. If we double the percentages of those gases, and I have only a rudimentary understanding of the Keeling Curve, is there any reason, other than the fact that greenhouse gases make up a relatively small proportion of the earth's atmosphere, that we shouldn't expect a rise in average temperatures?

I've already heard plenty about why we should expect an increase in temperatures.

uncle sam|3.24.06 @ 4:51PM|#

and water vapor is not typically listed as an atmospheric gas, probably due to its variability.

|3.24.06 @ 4:54PM|#

But the idea that putting covers on a bed or clothes on a body will increase the temperture inside is not an assumption, it's been proven for all of us clothes wearers from a lifetime of experience.

CO2 in the atmosphere increasing temperature? That IS an assumption/theory. A very good one, but not one people have personal empirical experience with.

|3.24.06 @ 4:54PM|#

I don't think anyone's arguing that temperatures haven't changed, over time. ...but is there, somewhere, a model showing that, other things being equal, increasing the amount of greenhouse gases doesn't result in an increase in temperature?

|3.24.06 @ 4:59PM|#

While I'll admit that warming can damage coastal areas with higher sea levels and more severe storms, the doomsayers can't find it in themselves to mention things like increased biodiversity, longer growing seasons, or even less people freezing to death.

How will warmer temperatures lead to "increased biodiversity"? What, new species are going to arise from this? If anything, cold-weather animals and plants are being crowded out.

And "less people freezing to death"? What? New England is warmer than it used to be, but not so warm that there aren't plenty of days and nights cold enough to freeze to death. If global warming increases to the point that places where people can currently freeze to death become too warm for that, then we are in much bigger trouble than anybody thought.

uncle sam|3.24.06 @ 5:02PM|#

increasing the amount of greenhouse gases doesn't result in an increase in temperature?

You must be specific. There several greenhouse gases. The one all the contention is over is CO2.

One thing I've noticed in the AGWC debate is the tendency of many to resort to ad hominem to discredit the other side rather than directly addressing the science. This tendency is particularly blatent among the proponents of AGWC.

|3.24.06 @ 5:04PM|#

Yeah, the tundra is as biodiverse as the equator, right.

uncle sam|3.24.06 @ 5:04PM|#

While I'll admit that warming can damage coastal areas with higher sea levels and more severe storms

There has been no evidence presented that global warming causes more severe weather.

|3.24.06 @ 5:06PM|#

I guess global warnming would be good for people who own land in Alaska, Northern Canada and Siberia, but not so good for people who own land in equatorial areas or along the coasts.

Biodeversity? New species will evolve to occupy empty niches, but nor as quickly as others die when their habitats are changed or shrunk.

|3.24.06 @ 5:08PM|#

You must be specific.

I was responding to Kevin S.'s comment at 04:28 PM and expounding on my own at 04:51 PM. Does that help?

|3.24.06 @ 5:08PM|#

Yeah, the tundra is as biodiverse as the equator, right.

Having equatorial animals move to the tundra is not "increased biodiversity." By the way, James, where exactly in the world do you expect global warming to make it impossible to freeze to death?

|3.24.06 @ 5:11PM|#

I think Jennifer makes a good point in regard to Kevin S.'s statement on atmospheric composition. I don't have the data at hand for the absorption cross section of CO2 molecules, but CO2 absorbs more efficiently than other gases. In Jennifer's blanket analogy, CO2 would be like that aluminum foil stuff that disaster relief people sometimes give out, or that some marathon runners wear when they're done. A thin layer of an efficient material can be just as useful as a thick blanket, depending on the materials in question.

I don't have the numbers at hand, but you can't just dismiss the relevance of CO2 by pointing out that it's only present in low concentrations. I've done enough work on light transport to know that the absorption and scattering efficiencies matter just as much as the concentrations.

|3.24.06 @ 5:12PM|#

There has been no evidence presented that global warming causes more severe weather.

I believe there is evidence that increased ocean surface temperatures increase the intensity of hurricanes.

|3.24.06 @ 5:14PM|#

I'll really get worried when we figure out how to turn heat into the energy that it is. How cold will we let it get before we turn off our tvs?

|3.24.06 @ 5:15PM|#

The ultimate driving force for all weather on earth is solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere and the oceans. If you increase the amount of energy absorbed, it is plausible to hypothesize that there will be more energy in wind. Of course, rigorous support for that argument would require one to consider feedback mechanisms. Still, it's not just some crazy notion pulled out of somebody's ass. It's a hypothesis grounded in basic physics.

|3.24.06 @ 5:21PM|#

Jennifer, since your solution may cause heating fuels to be less affordable, global warming may actually result in more people freezing to death. But isn't that what the population control nuts (fellow GW conspirers) want anyway?

|3.24.06 @ 5:28PM|#

Leftists in countries that can afford it are attempting to limit the development of poorer countries to assuage guilt. Worse than anything, it's unproven guilt. Worrying about CO2 emissions seems like worrying about sending or leaving garbage in space: are humans so arrogant to think that they can affect Nature with mere emissions? Dear Galt, look at the effort over a thousand years it took to develop agriculture, and people think that we can affect Nature by accident on such a significant scale?

The thoughts are bogus and the science dubious. Let the Jennifers and joes of the world wail and gnash their teeth, the rest of wish they would shut up and let us live our lives without constantly having unearned guilt thrown on us.

|3.24.06 @ 5:30PM|#

*of us wish

|3.24.06 @ 5:30PM|#

The thoughts are bogus and the science dubious.

I wish you saying so was good enough--really I do.

|3.24.06 @ 5:36PM|#

OK, in the last several dozen million years the average global temperature of the earth has varied by a few tens of degrees (an educated estimate) and global CO2 has remained constant except for the past 100-150 year. We see a few degrees of temperaure change and your calling that a correlation???? Not to mention graphs of CO2 vs. temperature show poor correlation. Sounds like a belief system, not science.

uncle sam|3.24.06 @ 5:36PM|#

I believe there is evidence that increased ocean surface temperatures increase the intensity of hurricanes.
It was a false correlation, a metter of looking at short term trends vs long term.
It has been asserted that we are having more hurricanes dues to GW, but we have been coming out of a period of fewer than normal hurricanes.

|3.24.06 @ 5:43PM|#

I see three interesting points in this debate--two scientific and one philosophical.

Point One: Are average temperatures warming?

Point Two: Are increases in greenhouse gases to blame?

Point Three: If greenhouse gases are to blame, what should be done about it?

Regarding the philosophical point, Point Three, this seems an Adam Smith, if an ash from your neighbor's chimney falls on your shirt, while you're in your yard, who should have to pay for the cleaning bill?, kind of legitimate, libertarian, function of government, open ended question. ...and it's not entirely clear to me that there's a libertarian answer.

|3.24.06 @ 5:45PM|#

"joe: Just what are those other non-carbon emitting cheaper energy sources that we refusing to use for some reason? Sigh."

Wow, the Reason Science Correspondant is asking me - little old me! - to inform him about alternative sources of energy, both in the present and future?

Sigh all you want, I'm giggling like a schoolgirl at the props from such a distinguished source of scientific information!

Seriously, though, a well-regarded scientific expert like yourself, and one who writes so convincingly about the wonders to come from the bounty of our private sector R&D labs, should realize that predicting the shape of technology to come is a fools errand.

And, once again, I'll note that the question treats energy usage as a constant and assumes away conservation and efficiency improvements.

uncle sam|3.24.06 @ 5:48PM|#

IAE, it is not lokely that observed climate trends will cause as many or as severe problems as governments that have had the power to enforce Kyoto, et al.

uncle sam|3.24.06 @ 5:51PM|#

likely

|3.24.06 @ 5:53PM|#

"There has been no evidence presented that global warming causes more severe weather."

Funny you should mention that. There was an article in the New Republic last week, in which a number of NOAA climate scientists who have concluded that hurricaine severity is increasing because of global warming were silenced by the political appointees in the administration, while those scientists who concluded the opposite were found all over the print and broadcast media in the weeks after Katrina, proclaiming loudly that there was abosolutely no evidence to support a connection. You should check it out, but you'll have to read a copy at the library, as TNR only allows subscribers to read the 'net version.

Just to bring the thread back full circle.

|3.24.06 @ 5:58PM|#

Jennifer, since your solution may cause heating fuels to be less affordable, global warming may actually result in more people freezing to death. But isn't that what the population control nuts (fellow GW conspirers) want anyway?

Ah, yes--now we return to the time-honored technique of attacking motivations. Is being a population-control nut who wants people to die better or worse than being a tree-hugging hippie who wants to destroy capitalism?

|3.24.06 @ 6:00PM|#

OK, in the last several dozen million years the average global temperature of the earth has varied by a few tens of degrees (an educated estimate) and global CO2 has remained constant except for the past 100-150 year. We see a few degrees of temperaure change and your calling that a correlation???? Not to mention graphs of CO2 vs. temperature show poor correlation. Sounds like a belief system, not science.

I don't know if this is aimed at me, my comment was more of a question, but let's assume it was.

...I'll take it, then, there is no model showing that, other things being equal, increasing the amount of greenhouse gases doesn't eventually result in an increase in temperature. ...in which case, you don't know that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere won't result in temperature increases, because that would be a belief system and not science.

|3.24.06 @ 6:11PM|#

I've got nothing against hippies, for the record.

|3.24.06 @ 6:13PM|#

The tree huggers that I'm worried about have much bigger aspirations than my hippie buddies.

|3.24.06 @ 6:31PM|#

Once industry realizes they have to act on a deadline, industry will produce the C02 equivalent of the catylitic converter.

You have to be locked in a bureaucratic echo chamber to believe this shit.

How many FCC deadlines did we have for HDTV. And that's stuff people actually WANT!

The real problem is that Jen sounds like a real tin-foil hatter because on one hand she claims that peak oil is a crisis which is forcing our hand to stop using fossil fuels, and on the other she's saying nothing is forcing our hand and we have to be coerced by government to stop using fossil fuels. Which is it??

|3.24.06 @ 6:41PM|#

It was a false correlation, a metter of looking at short term trends vs long term.
It has been asserted that we are having more hurricanes dues to GW, but we have been coming out of a period of fewer than normal hurricanes.

Oh yeah, almost forgot...

My comment was in regards to intensity, not frequency. ...not that I'd say that there's no evidence to suggest that there wouldn't be more hurricanes if global warming is, in fact, a problem.

|3.24.06 @ 7:09PM|#

Speaking as someone who gets to shout, "¡Olé!" every hurricane season as storms go past Tampa, I can say with some authority that for YEARS, meterologists have been predicting that the low storm cycle would end and we'd return to the high storm cycle. Whether the general warming trend has any effect on hurricanes is an open question, but it isn't science to say that more hurricanes = man-made global warming.

This debate over global warming has always fascinated me. It's clearly political (even among the science community--the Lomborg vs Scientific American fight didn't make SA look very rational, whichever side you're on), yet there's also reason to be concerned. First of all, we are in a warming trend. What does that mean? If it isn't primarily due to our handiwork, then what are the implications? Are things going to continue at the same rate? Clearly, these questions need answers.

On the flip side, the possibility certainly exists that some or even much of the warming can be tracked back to man-made causes. I'm rather skeptical that we're causing that much of the warming, but it's possible that even a small contribution by us could screw things up. Who knows? There's certainly reason to be extra cautious--after all, we haven't terraformed Mars just yet--but caution and unwarranted panic are two different things. I'm a technology optimist and think we'll solve much of the problem through energy and materials breakthroughs, but it would be nice for this issue to lose some of its political tenor so that we can deal with anything that needs dealing with. In any case, Kyoto and some of the other proposals don't seem warranted. We're just working too much in the dark to know which direction to jump; particularly if jumping means definite economic consequences (as opposed to hypothetical economic consequences).

|3.24.06 @ 7:32PM|#

My comments are not aimed at anybody. I'm just trying to apply a touch of analytical thought to the theory that greenhouse gasses are the cause of global warming. The past 150 years represent about 0.000033% of the existence of the earth. We have temperatures that, in the latest .02% (100 million years) of that 4.5 billion, have varied probably several tens of degrees and we feel the need to be worried over a couple of degrees of variation (keep in mind that the last 150 years temperature data are pretty questionable, except for maybe the most recent 20 or 30). Even in the last 30 or 40 we've seen the global temperature go up and down and we've seen CO2 go up and down. The theory could be convincing if there was uniformity to temperatures rise and CO2 rise, or even if there was some delayed effect. But no, the only thing we have are a few graphs that show a correlation...but then again a few kids are allergic to peanut butter so we need to regulate/ban it in public schools.

Let's see if I can illustrate this.

(Approx) Temperature variation over the most recent 0.02% of the earth's history

------------------------------

(Supposed?)Temperature variation over the past 150 years

--

Greenhouse gasses (which, BTW, is only 1% of the atmoshere)=

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CO2 as a percentage of total greenhouse gases=
---

A 33% increase in CO2 =
---- (which we are not seeing)...if I could make 1/10th of a dash to add to the first 3 I would, and be more accurate.


Call it the aluminum foil of the earth or whatever you want, but still, the theory seems unreasonable and more likely politically motivated.

I can't believe that on a libertarian website we are even having this discussion. We're discussing the obsurdity in anti-smoking ordinances, obesity data and other attempts to expand government, and some of you are buying this 'greenhouse gases cause global warming' shit...based on the data you are being fed.....unbelievable!! Let's all write our Congresspeople and Senators and let them add a little more control in our lives or maybe a tax too. My motorcycle gets 50-60 mpg, I'll pay what ever F---in' CO2 tax you want.

In the next 10-100 million years:
Will the temperature change + or - 15 degrees from what we have today? Absolutely! BFD

Will people on the eastern and Gulf coasts get hit by a hurricane? Absolutely! In their lifetime? Maybe. Next year? probably not. It is, however, an absolute certainty that the entire coast will see mulitple hurricanes. So What?

Will Manhattan be covered in 100 feet of water (or connected to Long Island and the Continent)in the future? absolutely. in our lifetime? not likely....and then the Cajun's can say "those dumb-ass New Yorker's built a city that is obviously going to be inundated, aye'eeeee" (BTW, when New Orleans was settled it was at or very near sea level).

If you can't concieve numbers in the billions and billionths of percents, please do not respond to this post.

|3.24.06 @ 7:51PM|#

The real problem is that Jen sounds like a real tin-foil hatter because on one hand she claims that peak oil is a crisis which is forcing our hand to stop using fossil fuels, and on the other she's saying nothing is forcing our hand and we have to be coerced by government to stop using fossil fuels. Which is it??

No, it's "Jen believes that Peak Oil will make fossil fuels very expensive, thus causing economic problems for a society based on cheap fossil fuels." If you can find where I posted anything along the lines of "all oil will vanish" I would be very interested to read it.

|3.24.06 @ 8:01PM|#

Sure, Hansen has every right to spew whatever he wants as a "concerned and informed citizen", but does anyone want to bet that he was at the conference where this bru-ha-ha got started on the government's dime?

Hansen is alarmist and prone to delving far beyond his realm of expertise. If he wants to do this on his own time, that is fine. But he should be a bit more careful about doing so on OUR time, where he should stick to facts, not opinion.

uncle sam|3.24.06 @ 8:59PM|#

There was an article in the New Republic last week, in which a number of NOAA climate scientists who have concluded that hurricaine severity is increasing because of global warming

I actually read that in the newspapers, but what's lacking is PROOF that their assertions are any more than assertions.
The severity of storms is likely due more to temperature and pressure differentials than to an increase in average temperature.
IAE, the data from the past regarding hurricanes is very limited as it wasn't until the last century that we had any idea of how many and what size hurricane actually occurred.

|3.24.06 @ 9:11PM|#

All storms result from differentials in pressure and temperature. These deviations from uniform, equilibrium behavior are driven by energy. Energy in the atmosphere is obtained from the sun via absorption of light.

It is very plausible to hypothesize that increasing the concentration of substances that strongly absorb solar radiation will lead to stronger storms. Is it right? I dunno. But it's a reasonable enough hypothesis that you can't just easily dismiss it out of hand.

FWIW, I maintain some healthy skepticism about global warming forecasts. However, most of the skepticism that I encounter on this forum is of a rather unhealthy kind. Not all skepticism is created equal. Or, if you prefer, all skepticism is equal, but some skeptics are more equal than others. :)

uncle sam|3.24.06 @ 11:49PM|#

It is very plausible to hypothesize that increasing the concentration of substances that strongly absorb solar radiation will lead to stronger storms. Is it right? I dunno. But it's a reasonable enough hypothesis that you can't just easily dismiss it out of hand.

Depends, temperature increases have been observed in the upper atmosphere in Siberia. If cold air does most of the actual warming, then we would expect a decrease in temp differentials.

|3.25.06 @ 12:16AM|#

OK, that's a good point. I guess I can see how warming of the upper atmosphere could reduce differentials.

|3.25.06 @ 7:07AM|#

Godwin! Godwin!

Otto|3.25.06 @ 7:59AM|#

Nein!!! NEIN!! It is ECOLOGICAL GAZOLINE, donnerwetter. And you sucked in the Grammys.

|3.25.06 @ 8:37AM|#

"One could speculate that increased energy output from the sun might be the cause, and in fact, that is apparently actually happening."

The sun is warmer than it was, but after all is said and done, that warming has added only about 30% of the forcing that anthropogenic Co2 has...or so they say.

Climatologists claim to take into account the sun and it's variablities, the changing angle of the Earth, the changing orbit of the earth, and many other factors. Mars isn't very relevant.

|3.25.06 @ 8:38AM|#

the above post, second paragraph was in reference to the Earth, not Mars.

|3.25.06 @ 10:42AM|#

"It is very plausible to hypothesize that increasing the concentration of substances that strongly absorb solar radiation will lead to stronger storms. Is it right? I dunno. But it's a reasonable enough hypothesis that you can't just easily dismiss it out of hand."

Ummm....the sun is not the closest source of heat to our atmosphere.

"Climatologists claim to take into account the sun and it's variablities, the changing angle of the Earth, the changing orbit of the earth..."

Yea, but do they monitor the changes in temperature of the earth's crust and the estimate the effects of both conductive and convective heating from the molten core of the earth?

Could it be more plausible that the molten rock 5-25 miles beneath the surface is a significant contributor to atmospheric heating through conductive processes? Think of the earth's crust as an egg shell and the white of the egg as the molten middle. That molten middle circulates and causes all sorts of ugliness like earthquakes and volcanoes. Why not crustal and oceanic heating...or polar ice cap melting?

|3.25.06 @ 12:01PM|#

Kevin-

Certainly there is plenty of heat coming from the earth's interior. But latitude happens to be strongly correlated with temperature, and I'm going to make a wild guess here and speculate that it has something to do with sunlight.

It's not totally crazy to think that maybe, just maybe, the absorption of solar radiation in the atmosphere has a significant effect on weather.

|3.25.06 @ 12:14PM|#

Certainly there is plenty of heat coming from the earth's interior. But latitude happens to be strongly correlated with temperature, and I'm going to make a wild guess here and speculate that it has something to do with sunlight.

I've lived in New England long enough to notice that winters tend to be considerably colder than summers. Is this because we get less solar radiation between the months of October and March, or because the earth's crust thickens enough to cut off our supply of geothermal heat?

|3.25.06 @ 12:23PM|#

"Could it be more plausible that the molten rock 5-25 miles beneath the surface is a significant contributor to atmospheric heating through conductive processes? "

I somehow doubt that the interior heat of the Earth has anything whatsoever to do with the warming on Mars, vice-versa...but I've been wrong before.

|3.25.06 @ 12:25PM|#

I also just remembered that the earth is not a perfect sphere--it flattens slightly at the poles and bulges at the equator. If geothermal heat were more important than sunlight so far as temperature were concerned, shouldn't the poles be warmer than the equatorial regions?

|3.25.06 @ 1:18PM|#

It's not totally crazy to think that maybe, just maybe, the absorption of solar radiation in the atmosphere has a significant effect on weather.

Suggesting a direct relationship between warmer ocean surface temperatures and the intensity of hurricanes isn't completely insane either.

uncle sam|3.25.06 @ 1:25PM|#

There is no doubt that solar radiation is the main engine of climate. What we don't have complete knowledge of is what ALL of the factors are and how they interact, etc. Do solar storms affect the jet streams? No doubt. But how?
What about the oceans? Big factors there.
There is much to learn before we can make effective choices.
Panic/hysteria must be resisted as they are the favored tools of manipulation.

uncle sam|3.25.06 @ 1:39PM|#

That's what doomsaying is all about, manipulation of people.

|3.25.06 @ 1:45PM|#

" What we don't have complete knowledge of is what ALL of the factors are and how they interact, etc." We in the Co2 producing peanut gallery don't to know need 'ALL' the factors; just enough to make a reasonable decision.

Some were wondering aloud about why Co2 doesn't appear to be a primary driver in past warming events ...and thus shouldn't be regarded as a problem now because -obviously- human Co2 can't be the drive now because it wasn't in the past.

This really simply problem is explained here:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/co2-rise-is-natural.html

basically, Co2 wasn't a primary driver in climate change in the past, and was just an result of such warmings (outgassing allowed by the warming)...

BUT!

Once present, that ancient Co2 did warm things up further...real slowly.

AND!

Given enough sudden rise of Co2 (hint hint), the gas could act as a primary driver for climate change. Solar and/or orbital variations usually held this distinction. Followed by volcanos or sudden methane-hydrate releases.

Thomas Paine's Goiter|3.25.06 @ 2:07PM|#

What are you talking about? That doesn't mean that the world will be just like it is now only 1.5 degrees higher; an average increase of 1.5 Celsius is enough to cause all sorts of problems.

Uh, Jen - how much has the average global temperature changed in the last century? The last two? The last three?

uncle sam|3.25.06 @ 2:09PM|#

the gas could act as a primary driver for climate change

We can come up with all kinds of things that "could" happen. That's not a satisfactory basis for expanding the power of government to regulate, tax, prohibit, and control.
What is needed are some verifiable "likelys" or better.

|3.25.06 @ 2:14PM|#

So, what if somebody suggested that maybe, just maybe, there was a problem with the Reason server? Would everybody deny it, for fear that acknowledgement of the problem might prompt somebody to call for federal regulations? Or would people admit that there might be a problem with the Reason server and call for a market solution?

Here's my market solution: Now that Mona has reinstated her subscription, Reason should invest the money in an upgrade. We're long past the point of "Peak Processor."

|3.25.06 @ 2:21PM|#

Uncle,
by saying "We in the Co2 producing peanut gallery don't to know need 'ALL' the factors; just enough to make a //reasonable decision//."

I did not mean "expanding the power of government to regulate, tax, prohibit, and control." for clearly that would not be a Reasonable Descision�, especially given this blogs libertarian audience. Ending subsidies of ...well...most everything subsidized; and helping end corruption and dictatorships would go a long way to help. Peak Oil/NG/Coal and Free Markets would take care of the rest.

FWIW, I have heard climatologists saying recently that their certainty of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is at the "More Likely Than Not" level. ...and that was last year. This year sounds even more certain.

|3.25.06 @ 2:24PM|#

uncle,
part two,
by saying "could" I mean that while there certainly are other prime causes for climate change. It is in the realm of possibility that Anthropogenic Co2 'could' be one of those...and should be taken seriously by we the Peanut Gallery.

uncle sam|3.25.06 @ 2:28PM|#

Ending subsidies of ...well...most everything subsidized; and helping end corruption and dictatorships would go a long way to help.

I've been in favor of all that almost since the time of the "next ice age" fear mongering.

Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is at the "More Likely Than Not" level.

Is that all or nothing? Do they acknowledge any natural climate change? If so, what proportionality are they willing to grant?
Which climatologists? All climatologists?
How about climatologists who are retired (and thus relatively immune to political pressures)?

|3.25.06 @ 2:45PM|#

no,
yes,
Can't find the graph right now, but IIRC one admitted factor was the warmer sun allegedly only accounts for %30 of the warmer conditions we now experience.

Dunno, a healthy number given all the international research centers backing the notion of AGCC.
Dunno...but at least ten 'appear' to be in the pocket of Exxon www.exxonsecrets.org (FlashPlayer heavy)
Dunno, but retired climatologists might not have access to the current informaitons.

Thomas Paine's Goiter|3.25.06 @ 2:49PM|#

I find it funny that scientists still can't model climate to any degree of certainty and yet there is this much teeth gnashing going on over climate models.

|3.25.06 @ 2:57PM|#

I did not mean "expanding the power of government to regulate, tax, prohibit, and control." for clearly that would not be a Reasonable Descision, especially given this blogs libertarian audience. Ending subsidies of ...well...most everything subsidized; and helping end corruption and dictatorships would go a long way to help. Peak Oil/NG/Coal and Free Markets would take care of the rest.

Regardless of whether global warming is a real concern, someday, the constrained supply of fossil fuels will drive prices to the point where otherwise uncompetitive options become competitive. I don't think any libertarian should have a problem with that.

I can remember back in grade school, during the Carter Administration, people talking about what we now call biofuels, but back then it was pretty much pie in the sky excuses to give Ag conglomerates and certain farmers more government subsidies.

...politicians since have tried to justify these pork programs with promises about future technologies that would make us no longer dependent on foreign oil, technologies that would make biofuels competitive with fossil fuels. ...I suspect almost every libertarian has a big problem with that.

Part of what I was trying to express above is that the promised technologies required to do this may already be here. Maybe it's because of all the aforementioned pork barrel, government bullshit, but it seems very hard, for whatever reason, to talk to my fellow libertarians about these technologies. ...I suspect that my fellow, well reasoned libertarian friends (not on this site specifically) think I'm advocating some kind of government program just by mentioning biofuels. ...but I'm not.

It can be really hard to slice through peoples preconceptions.

uncle sam|3.25.06 @ 3:10PM|#

By building highways, government has encouraged shift from mass transit (trains mostly) to individual transit. Government intervention into the economy promotes inefficiencies as subisdies displace the market drive for efficiency.
I said it earlier, people drive at least two days in a workweek to pay for government. That's a lot of emission.

|3.25.06 @ 4:26PM|#

Thoreau,
I'm not saying that solar radiation is not a significant factor in determining climate. Hell, I'm not even saying that man-induced increases in atmospheric CO2 don't affect climate. I'm just saying there are several other more reasonable possibilities and pointing out that:

1)the current increases in CO2 are really small in comparison to the total concentration of all greenhouse gases.

2)the current climate change is insignificant to climate changes that the earth has undergone without the benefit of man-induced CO2 increases.

3) why is the correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature so poor and not spatially uniform if CO2 is the magic greenhouse gas

Are you telling me that if the earth were a cold solid ball that our climate would be unaffected?

|3.26.06 @ 12:57AM|#

Kahn,
I beleive you are confused about details. Climatology is not a systems level discipline. That would be Meteorology, which studies system level weather. Climatology studies mean average patterns. So this would be like studying trends in airplane designs, rather than trying to fully understand just one design. Another analogy is predicting wave height at a beach at one sitting versus predicting tide levels months from now.

In short:
"The Weather does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme." -Mark Twain

|3.26.06 @ 1:17AM|#

Climatology is not a systems level discipline. That would be Meteorology, which studies system level weather.

Okay, then, it's Meteorology. In any case the debate here is about where global temperatures are going in the long run. Which is very much a systems level discipline.

Sorry for the really long posts, but this problem just isn't simple. It does not reduce to The Blanket Theory.

|3.26.06 @ 4:33AM|#

actually the Blanket analogy is pretty good. What ther opponents are doing...to follow the analogy, is arguing that the threading, color, zise, and other 'details' couldn't possibly allow for the extra blankets to be the cause of the extra warmth. They are bitching over details and not seeing the big picture. To follow the airplane analogy, while we are arguing that the plane is in danger of falling down, you guys are arguing that the plane is too damn complex for any one person to understand, much less make a descision as to whether it is falling out of the sky.

Why is it in danger of falling? Dude, there are &*(#$! Snakes on the *&(!&^#! Plane! (never mind the details) [/rimshot]

|3.26.06 @ 6:19AM|#

dude,

actually the Blanket analogy is pretty good.

Only in your imagination, which is apparently vivid. What do you have to drink in order to see snakes like that?

These people are creating models and trying to predict what happens to global temperatures 50 and 100 years from now, and yet they can't predict the weather next week.

Now, I'll grant that predicting weather next week is akin to predicting free stream turbulence at a specific instant in time. The instantaneous fluctuations are more or less random and you can't predict them.

But these people have never demonstrated the ability to predict anything. They can't predict weather next week. They can't predict the general trend for upcoming season, or year, or etc.... They've never predicted anything which they can prove is not part of a normal, natural, cyclic global trend. A trend which may have frequencies on the order of 2500 years, more or less.

When you start talking about 2500 year cycles, all that system level stuff starts jumping up and biting you in right in the ass. NOBODY can say with scientific certainty that they understand global temperature trends on these time scales. The only thing you find in the literature is speculation.

Speculation is a snake.

These people have no track record to bank on (the aerospace industry does). But you're seeing snakes and Jennifer is going to suffocate tommorrow them with her blanket, and it's all a good analogy?

By what standard? Not a scientific standard. "The End is Near!" is not science.

My point with all the system level talk wasn't to say that it can't be understood. My point was that it's a whole helluva lot harder to understand than most people realize, including many doomsayer scientists whose assertions I've read.

|3.26.06 @ 6:26AM|#

to follow on with my Tides analogy...

The tides are basically governed by the realtionship of the earth and the moon. The details, peak or trough at any given local at any given time, vary based on different currents, temperatures, depths, mass-cons, etc. All very predictable.

All the Co2 we are adding would be as if another moon was parked in Earth orbit. And the Climate Change Deniers� are acting (in this analogy) as if that new moon couldn't possibly alter the pattern of tides. "it's never happened before...", "...but it's such a small effect", "...I can't imagin it...", "...I can't see this alleged moon, so it must not be real..." (in this case it could be overcast or the moon is not in view), "...surely the alteration of the tides can be explained by these other podunk effects...",etc. Very frustrating.

|3.26.06 @ 6:37AM|#

"But these people have never demonstrated the ability to predict anything."

so very very wrong. One does not use Meteorology to predict the climate, and one does not use Climatology to predict next thursday's weather report.

Co2 IS a greenhouse gas. Over a hundred years ago it was basically predicted: if man adds enough of this stuff quickly enough, then it will warm up the climate. Sure enough we did, and so the climate is now warmer. Every year since 1917 (a cold year) has been warmer since 1917, every year since 1956 (another cold year) has been warmer than 1956, and so on. Yes there are other factors involved, but all of significant factors have been accounted for. Only the imbalance of anthropogenic Co2 can account for todays warmer-than-would-otherwise-be-expected climate.

|3.26.06 @ 6:39AM|#

p.s.
...and the snake thing has to do with Samuel L. Jackson's upcoming summer movie "Snakes on a Plane". and yeah it doesn't really matter how the plane was engineered, the plane works; its up to us to not fly it into the ground.

|3.26.06 @ 8:03AM|#

before anyone answers with the usual 'Correlation does not equal Causation' canard. Take the usual device of correlating the increase of ice cream sales and rapes during the summer months. Without laboratory studies which show that there is some chemical in ice cream which results in an increase of rapes when summer and other effects are excluded, then it is quite reasonable to say that that the correlation of rape and icecream is unreasonable. But given that study it would be reasonable to accept it as at least a factor, and at most a strong cause.

If there had never been studies on the greenhouse properties of Co2, then it would be reasonable to accept the notion of Antrhopogenic Climate Change as merely baseless correlation.

The original work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

So the next question is, "How do we know the Co2 in the Air is ours, afterall the volcanos blah blah blah?" Isotopes, human made Co2 is different from natural Co2; and there is a clear growth of Anthropogenic Co2.

"But natural forces should eat all that up, right?" so far the rest of the climate system has adapted and about half of the Co2 we have produced has been eaten up. It's the other half which is gonna warm things up.

"So what do we do about it?" Get everyone to be Libertarian, encourage energy and wealth efficiency, prep for Peak Oil/NatGas/Coal. Don't go Commie/EnviroNazi. No real need to go Amish, but it doesn't seem to hurt anyone either.

|3.26.06 @ 9:26AM|#

Kevin-

The CO2 distribution in the atmosphere may very well be homogeneous (or nearly so), but I supsect that the effect of increased CO2 will be most dramatic in regions where water melts and then freezes and then melts again during the year. Or in areas with a lot of water to evaporate. In which case you'd expect a very inhomogeneous effect from increased atmospheric CO2.


Kahn-

First, thanks for backing me up on the nano stuff. It's cool stuff, there's a lot to learn and a lot of commercial benefit to gain, but it won't turn the entire world upside down and send us into The Singularity or whatever. We can't just wave our hands and say "Oh, nano will cure all disease, and nano will bring about totally clean energy, and nano will make every conceivable substance cheap and abundant, and nano will get rid of spam on the internet, and nano will make Saturday Night Live funny again."

Second, regarding climate: If the goal of global warming studies was to predict the daily weather in every region of the globe then I would agree that your airplane analogy is valid. However, the goal is to simply predict a handful of quantities, averaged over time: Average temperatures, marginal changes in ice coverage (not the extent of each and every glacier in every conceivable locale, just a decent estimate of the overall effect), increases in humidity, and especially the change of parameters in key places like, say, the Gulf Stream or other major currents that dominate climate.

To go with another aerospace analogy, climate science is more like continuum fluid dynamics rather than a molecular dynamics simulation. In molecular dynamics you try to track every single molecule, an approach used with some success (for small systems) in certain areas of chemistry and materials science. But that's clearly impractical for most situations. You don't care about each and every air molecule passing over an airplane wing, you only care about pressure, density, velocity, and a handful of other macroscopic parameters. So, in climate science the goal is not to predict the weather every day in every locale, but rather to get a much smaller set of predictions.

Finally, I am willing to believe that groupthink can set in when a group has only one expert from a particular discipline, and that person's word becomes Gospel. That may happen frequently in a team where that single expert faces little competition from peers. It's somewhat more difficult to achieve groupthink (although certainly not impossible) in a wider arena where people with similar expertise have to face peer review from one another, and face questions from each other at conferences. A big fish can rule a little pond, but the ocean is fairly Darwinian.

The question is whether climate science is an ocean or a pond.

|3.26.06 @ 9:32AM|#

Finally, I agree with Kahn that it is good to be skeptical about climate science and take the most dire predictions with a huge grain of salt. I'm personally not sold on every prediction coming from that field.

However, I see very little healthy skepticism on this forum. (I think your concerns are reasonable, Kahn, I'm not referring to you.) I come here not to defend the predictions of climate scientists, but rather to rebut the most absurd attacks of people who seem to have very little interest in truth. The climate scientists may very well be wrong, for all I know, but most of the criticisms offered on this forum are baseless.

But it's hard being the defender of climate science. This thread has been fun, but I don't know that I'll jump into every future thread that discusses global warming. I think I'll let various people do their own little groupthink thing in some future global warming threads. Far be it from this scientist to deny people the pleasure of a circlejerk.

|3.26.06 @ 9:55AM|#

ew

|3.26.06 @ 10:49AM|#

Final thought: The Hit and Run consensus seems to be that climate science is one big echo chamber, but libertarian bloggers are dispassionate, independent, and honest seekers of truth.

uncle sam|3.26.06 @ 11:52AM|#

Yes there are other factors involved, but all of significant factors have been accounted
for.

Have they? What are ALL the significant factors and how can it be known that they ARE all the significant factors?

|3.26.06 @ 12:37PM|#

Uncle,
By 'ALL', I really mean 'all that I can think of and many I can't'.
Even the albedo effect of white caps on a windy ocean are taken into account. Some good data on the effect of airliners was gotten when on 9/11/01 the U.S. shut down all air traffic over the country. Plenty of other stuff

but that is a question you need to pass by a set of real climatologists (or their blog), not this FedExKinkos monkey.

|3.26.06 @ 1:18PM|#

thoreau,

However, I see very little healthy skepticism on this forum.

Thanks for that. And your response makes me feel better, because I wasn't entirely sure before where you stand. You may be right, too. It may be a lot closer to a fluid continuum than a molecular dynamics problem. I'm just not sure yet, myself.

I like to believe scientists and engineers are more resistant to group think than the general populace. But with the things I've seen happen at work over the years, I wonder if group think isn't just fundamentally a function of group dynamics, when groups achieve some certain critical mass.


sam,

Over a hundred years ago it was basically predicted: if man adds enough of this stuff quickly enough, then it will warm up the climate. Sure enough we did, and so the climate is now warmer.

You're still missing the fact that there is some kind of effect at play which has a much longer time scale than 100 years. You know, there used to be hippos in the Nile in Egypt, about 2500 years ago. But there isn't enough water there today for them. Chinese civilization also began 3000 years ago in the north China plains, growing wheat. Today there isn't enough rainfall there to grow wheat. There's clearly a "big-time" cycle at work, for lack of a better term.

I've seen zero evidence to convince me that anybody understands (even roughly) either the frequency or the amplitude of this big-time cycle -- which very conceivably could be larger and more significant than what you're describing over the last 100 years.

We don't know, btw, that this big-time effect even behaves like a sine wave, which I'm sort of implicitly assuming here.


I'm not saying it's impossible that man has an impact on the atomosphere. I'm sure he has some impact. What I'm saying is, DoomSayers-Are-Us doesn't know a) what that impact really is, b) that man is the root cause of whatever is going on right now, or c) that even if we took our most draconian measures available, we could have any effect at all on whatever's happening, given today's technology.

My answer is that the best approach is: don't do anything radical that will damage our economy in any serious way -- and keep studying the problem!

I do believe it can be understood. I also believe it will take a while longer to get good at it, for all the reasons I've given above.

|3.26.06 @ 1:55PM|#

"You know, there used to be hippos in the Nile in Egypt, about 2500 years ago. But there isn't enough water there today for them."

You know it might be baseless speculation, but it might actually be possible that this probelm is a result of the mythical Aswan Dam and resultant irrigation (and Just maybe the Really Big Drought they are having in the Central East African watershed)...I haven't seen it for my self, so I can't be sure.

The problem in North China Plains might have had something to do with overgrazing, overfarming, or just plain doodah stupid clueless luck of the climate...or all three.

Clearly the climate was warming anyway over the milenia. It's just that it is clear to me that there has in this time never been this much warming this fast during the whole Holocene era.

I agree with studying the problem further and not implementing EnviroNazi methods...they won't jelp any.

uncle sam|3.26.06 @ 2:13PM|#

Greenland is an island covered with glaciers, snow, and ice. Why is it called Greenland?
Because it was green back when the climate was warmer.

It's just that it is clear to me that there has in this time never been this much warming this fast during the whole Holocene era.

Really? Do you have links to temperature plots covering this time range? Love to see it.

Do the data actually show that CO2 increase has preceded the temperature increase?
Some past records show temp increases preceding CO2 increases.

|3.26.06 @ 2:29PM|#

Sam,

I agree with studying the problem further and not implementing EnviroNazi methods...they won't jelp any.

Okay, sounds like we're predisposed to different end outcomes. That's fine. I'm just glad it sounds like we basically agree on how to approach the problem. That's the "net output" that matters right now. We can debate the truth as we learn.

With that, I have to go get my proposal written.

You know, I had a dream about snakes on a plane last night. What the hell did you do to my poor brain?

|3.26.06 @ 2:32PM|#

"Greenland is an island covered with glaci...blah...blah...blah"

Dude, don't be lame.

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/greenland-used-to-be-green.html

Read that site thoroughly before bothering again.

on short notice, here is an old (5-6 yo) chart showing temperature variation alongside Co2 variation:
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

I may find better later.

As I explained earlier, most of the time, in terms of geological ages, some warmign even occurs; then as things thaw, various greenhouse gasses are emmitted causing further warming...slowly. What causes a warming event can be a varietyof things. One of the normally rarer -posibilites- is sudden realeses of massive amounts of Co2. Like we are experiencing now.

|3.26.06 @ 2:37PM|#

"What the hell did you do to my poor brain?"
call me Darth Sam =)

More evil for you:
http://www.snakesonablog.com/

Thomas Paine's Goiter|3.26.06 @ 10:36PM|#

1)the current increases in CO2 are really small in comparison to the total concentration of all greenhouse gases.

More problematic are the solutions. Moving to alcohol powered autos greatly increases the amount of water vapor (the most significant greenhouse gas) in the air.

Moving to electric is going to require massive pulls on the power grid to charge millions of batteries twice a day. Where is that power going to come from? Natural gas, oil and coal.

Going to fuel cells requires massive amounts of hydrogen. Hydrogen that is produced by burning massive amounts of natural gas.

uncle sam|3.26.06 @ 11:33PM|#

Damn thing ate my last post.

So maybe Greenland wasn't really 'green'.

At http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/ the conclusion:

"Thus we seem to be headed for some very large climate changes. Temperatures could increase rapidly, and then decrease just as rapidly--as they have repeatedly over the past 420,000 years. Another possibility is that there will be so much GTGs in the atmosphere that they will actually override historical patterns of thermohaline circulation and climate change." is still speculative and reveals no induction from the data to choose one possibility over the other.

The main motive force behind current AGW "hysteria" is largely political and it's supporters have not been able to provide any conclusive evidence, as yet, to justify their suggested proposals which, as per the Kyoto protocal, seem to be largely directed at western economies and is supported by many countries that are exempted from its strictures.

|3.27.06 @ 1:44AM|#

uncle,
you only asked for a graph, I found one. I didn't even have time to read the whatever sillines/wisdom was present on the site the graph came from. [/shrug] All I could gather from it in that short time wash that it was a tad old.

Ehen it comes to dangerous conditions, one does not wait for conclusive proof.

The Kyoto protocal is largely directed at western nations because most of the Co2 came from western nations. It's just picking up our own trash really; and it takes an economy to be able to do the pick up. The Kyoto treaty matures in 2012, and a new treaty is drawn up...which in theory will include many more nations. The carbon trading is a neat mechanism too....so long as it is voluntary.

|3.27.06 @ 2:04AM|#

p.s.
here:
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/20000yrfig.htm
is another graph showing the last 20,000 comparing temperature to Co2 levels. The termperatures do vary, but they do generally correlate well with the level of Co2. (it's a pity that page hasn't been updated since '03 though)

|3.27.06 @ 2:19AM|#

Thom Paine,
"Moving to electric is going to require massive pulls on the power grid to charge millions of batteries twice a day. Where is that power going to come from? Natural gas, oil and coal."

One of the neato things being developed is technology which allows ordianry homes to be off-grid...or at least Net-Zero energy while on the grid. This sort of thing is expected to be operationally mature around 2020-2025...as in people will expect that this will be normal, and contractor, architechts, and realtors will know what they are doing. As techology advances, homes could be net producers of distributed energy.

Also using updated wind maps and conventional wind power technology, the U.S. could hypothetically generate up to 7 times it's current needs just on that...operationally we will only get about a 7th of that. But using unconventional wind technology in unconvetioonal locations (offshore, High altitude) we can get alot more. Then there is Solar, and Nuke power.

Yes we will get alot of power from convetional fossil fuels for a while, but they will quickly price themselves out of market, much like whale oil did. Natural gas is already going the through the roof. Coal has doubled in price over the last ten years. The sooner fossiles Peak�, the sooner they can be eliminated as a soource of Co2. This is why I support eliminating subsidies on fossil fuels (all subsidies actually...except maybe basic research on alternatives), promote free markets, minimal regulations, and corruuption free governments world wide...so we can all get rich, while eliminating anthropogenic Co2...YAY!

"Going to fuel cells requires massive amounts of hydrogen. Hydrogen that is produced by burning massive amounts of natural gas."

not all fuel cells will use hydrogen. Some use methanol; some have been devised to run on diesel or even glucose...so who knows...

|3.27.06 @ 3:07AM|#

The Kyoto protocal is largely directed at western nations because most of the Co2 came from western nations. It's just picking up our own trash really;

Are you sure? I think China and India are already pretty close to our emissions levels, if they haven't surpassed us already.

The carbon trading is a neat mechanism too....so long as it is voluntary.

Voluntary = useless concept. Europe can't make it work now, even with the supposed force of "international law" (whatever the hell that is) behind Kyoto.

|3.27.06 @ 3:30AM|#

"Are you sure? I think China and India are already pretty close to our emissions levels, if they haven't surpassed us already."

you are correct in terms of total volume; per capita is another matter, but I imagine that will be reached by the 2012 deadline.

"Voluntary = useless concept. Europe can't make it work now, even with the supposed force of "international law" (whatever the hell that is) behind Kyoto."

you might be right...but I use it (www.terrrapass.com), and I bet that more people would use it willingly if it were offered on personal business level, for instance if there were a check box on your monthly energy bill for willingly paying for the Co2 cleanup, many would check that box, not all but many. Carbon Fund:
http://www.carbonfund.org/
allows one todo much of that, but it's much more awkward.

One could make a case for requireing government activities & services to make use of it (excepting say wars or other disasters).

uncle sam|3.27.06 @ 2:32PM|#

Ehen it comes to dangerous conditions, one does not wait for conclusive proof.

As long as one knows enough not to make things worse in reacting to the dangerous conditions.

I do think we would become more efficient energy users if we didn't have the political process to insulate us from market forces.

I percieve that many of statist persuasion are using AGW catastrophe scenarios to panic people into supporting more government power over market processes which, I think, is the wrong way to go.
When people start feeling too much pain without perceiving too much benefit, they will change their minds about the policy.

When the market is left to operate freely, people change their behavior in response to coditions. If energy prices are left to rise according to scarcity, people will adopt ways to use left.

Nanotechnology
There are many mundane things that can come out of this field that can make a big difference. Smart clothing that can provide better insulation will allow us to use less energy heating our homes, so too for better home insulating materials. Not to mention improved solar conversion, better batteries, etc. We don't need a singularity, we just need to evolve.

Mark Bahner|3.29.06 @ 10:41PM|#

C'mon Reason, I've got good stuff here!

Mark Bahner|3.29.06 @ 10:43PM|#

Well, this is weird. Trying again:

Ron Bailey wrote (March 24), "Economic growth is not static--in fact the Employment Policy Foundation projects that US GDP in 2077 will grow in real terms twelve-fold by 2077 to about $130 trillion."

That probably significantly underestimates US GDP growth by 2077. If the U.S. matches the world per-capita GDP growth from now to 2077, I predict that the U.S. ***per capita*** GDP in 2077 will be approximately a factor of 50 higher than in 2005.

To put it another way...the U.S. per-capita GDP in 2005 was approximately $42,000 (per the CIA World Factbook). If the U.S. per-capita GDP grows at the average rate of the world from now to 2077, I predict that the U.S. per-capita GDP in 2077 will be approximately $2,000,000 (in year 2005 dollars).

How will this sort of astounding economic growth be possible? Simple: economic growth is created by human minds. As computers equal and then far exceed the capability of human minds, the effective population (in "human brain equivalents") goes to infinity. Ergo, economic growth dramatically increases.

See here for details:

http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2005/11/why_economic_gr.html

So why does this matter? If the average person in the U.S. is making about $1.5 million per year in 2077 (since income is usually about 3/4ths of GDP), why in the world should we (relatively) poor slobs in 2005 sacrifice for them?

Mark Bahner|3.29.06 @ 11:01PM|#

I realize I'm probably too late for this interesting discussion, but:

"Serious question: if global warming and its problems are proven beyond doubt and the only way to solve the problem is through regulation and restricted energy use, would you still prefer to keep making matters worse rather than adopt a cure you don't like?"

Why would the only way to solve the problem be through restricted energy use? Why not do ocean iron fertilization?