Global Warming Theory Received Coolly.

[ainwood]

Solar activity has been very low for a while now - I posted on it over a year ago.

 

[Cutlass]

I don't have time for much right now, but...

reducing arable land and freshwater supplies

Reducing arable land at low latitudes through desertification and disturbed precipitation patters gains nothing. So there'll be more deserts in the south and farms in the north. A net waste. There is no arable land under ice packs. And you want to farm Canada and Russia, you already can.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The truth is that it has been acknowledged for years that yes, there are natural cycles at work also, but that the warming trend for the last 100 years or so is far beyond that which could conceivably be natural, and that the difference can only be accounted for as man-made, with CO2 the main culprit.

To heaten up the debate a bit I would like to point out, that this is wrong.
As we all know ice holds the climate history of earth. Drillings in Greeland have now proven that between 13500 and 9000 BC climate changes took place which easily outweight the change experienced the last centurys. We are talking about variations of 10 degrees in a few years.
I have read this in an German popular science magazine called "Welt der Wunder". And this magazine has made it clear in the past that it beliefes the impact of CO2 to be valid. Therefor some kind of bias in favour of a natural climate change can not be suspected.

 

[El_Machinae]

A reasonable POV.
IMO, there is no question of being able to stop global warming anyway - BUT we should do all we can to slow it and keep it from getting out of hand. That minimizes the disruptions we'll experience while adapting - and you're right, we will have to adapt to changes.

It will make a huge difference, though, whether we adapt to, say, a 2 degree C warming in the next 100 years or a 5 degree swing in the same time frame.

Adapting is certainly part of the solution. It's going to be cheaper for New York to build dykes that it will to stop the CO2 production that makes dykes necessary in the first place. Though it will probably be cheaper to slow CO2 production, and thus slow the need to build the dykes.

There's an issue with pollution economics, though. Causing climate change will force some people to adapt who've never benefited from the pollution. If a pig farm opens next door, you'd not benefit but only suffer. In normal economic principles, one would negotiate compensation to downstream victims of pollution. You might mind a pig farm next door, but if they paid you a sum of $1 million per year, you'd probably not mind so much. (there's actually an intermediate price to be negotiated, and if pollution cannot be afforded by the pig farmer, then we don't allow the pollution)

This means that the people doing the pollution and causing the climate change actually have a moral & economic onus to compensate those who're forced to adapt. Well, either that, or cease pollution. In the end, in some cases it will be cheaper to slow pollution. In other cases, it will be cheaper to pay for adaptations.

Though you'll find that extra-national payments to downstream pollution victims will not be popular with certain segments of society, even though this is basically the way the Free Market theory deals with pollution effects.

 

[Dragonlord]

Though you'll find that extra-national payments to downstream pollution victims will not be popular with certain segments of society, even though this is basically the way the Free Market theory deals with pollution effects.

Oh, how right you are! Massive understatement, if anything.
Just imagine how the people now protesting 'there is no problem' and fighting any CO2 reduction measure tooth and nail will react when someone suggests paying the coastland developing countries compensation for the land they'll lose and/or the dikes they'll have to build!

I think I might have to go buy some virtual earplugs as a precaution...

 

[aelf]

Not sure if this was stated before, but to my knowledge, the fossil fuels that we burn in our factories let off about 3% of the gasses that cause global warming. (Not sure if that statistic is entirely accurate, but oh well.)

I know I'll get blasted as a heretic here, but I personally believe that, while global warming is real, it is not as dangerous as many people say it is.

It always seemed to me that the left-leaning politicians who are fighting against global warming are incredibly fanatical about the topic. Probably why we haven't seen an answer to Mr. Gore's "Inconveniant Truth".

Uh, how about because millions of lives are potentially at stake? Not dangerous enough for you?

 

[El_Machinae]

Not sure if this was stated before, but to my knowledge, the fossil fuels that we burn in our factories let off about 3% of the gasses that cause global warming. (Not sure if that statistic is entirely accurate, but oh well.)

3% is a fine number to work with. Remember that we're talking about climate change, not just climate Greenhouse gas changes, not just greenhouse gasses. If 3% of some number is changing, then the 3% becomes important, because it perturbs the entire system.

For example: the 'fever response' only affects the portions of your body that deal with infections. The 'fever response' might only influence 3% of the total heat that your body produces. But no one would say that a fever is unimportant!

My bedroom window might only influence 5% of the light that hits my house: but drawing the shade on hot afternoons makes a big difference for my comfort.

Finally, a couple of degrees might not seem like much with the swings we see in the seasons: but it makes a big difference to changes in the climate

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think I might have to go buy some virtual earplugs as a precaution...

Yes, that is clearly how funding for various scientific activities should be determined. By wearing virtual earplugs to ignore all the competing theories other than your own.

It’s a trend that Charlie Perry, a scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey, follows closely. For the past few decades he has been charting the correlation between droughts and floods in the Midwest and the activity of the sun.

Charlie Perry is a research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. For decades he has been following the correlation of sun activity and climate.

Perry knows his and Svensmark’s theory isn’t a popular one.

Even the USGS’s official point of view is that carbon dioxide is unequivocally the cause of climate change. Because of that, much of the research Perry has done has been on his own time and without the aid of grants.

Despite the doubters, Perry said he is not giving up.

“I am having too much fun,” he said. “I am finding out something new that no one else is finding out.”

This isn't science. It is politics on a global scale.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's not just politics. You need to show previous successes to get further grants to study a specific field. The article talks about how they've failed with previous predictions of their found cycles ("it was hard to fit three years"), and so what can happen is that their early work was funded but then later work wasn't (in that area, he's likely had grants in other topics funded) because of previous failures.

I've had colleagues frequently have side projects get defunded from a lack of success. And I've frequently seen them use a few extra hours and dollars to run a quick pilot study (a fishing expedition, it's called) hoping for some success. There's no way the pilot studies would be approved, since they were premised on a wing-and-a-prayer. They were labours of love, instead.

If his 34 year cycle prediction works out, he'll be able to study it further.

Sunspot cycles are not a competing theory for global warming, except to the layman.

Finally, though, you've strawmanned his position. He was commenting on my concepts of economic justice, and not about science funding.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It's not just politics. You need to show previous successes to get further grants to study a specific field.

That is true. The difficulty is in discriminating when it is one versus the other, expecially when the latter is used as an excuse for political reasons.

Charlie Perry has also been studying this phonomenon for decades now. Don't you think that shows a certain degree of 'success'? Why the sudden recent change in his funding?

From what I've read, virtually all research on theories that are seen to compete with or dispute the impact of anthro global warming are no longer getting funded on a global scale. That is what I think is terribly wrong here.

Sunspot cycles are not a competing theory for global warming, except to the layman.

Hmmm. This rather biased website would suggest there is at least some room in the scientific community for disagreement on that particular opinion:

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

Some uncertainty remains about the role of natural variations in causing climate change. Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. At most. During the initial discovery period of global warming, the magnitude of the influence of increased activity on the Sun was not well determined.

And Charlie Perry and other atmospheric researchers would apparently disagree. Would you characterize them as being 'laymen' in this particular field?

Finally, though, you've strawmanned his position. He was commenting on my concepts of economic justice, and not about science funding.

You are right. I did. I misunderstood where hiscomment was directed. Many of the posts appear to have drifted substantially from the OP in that regard.

However, I think all this is related and wouldn't be surprised his opinion on conducting future scientific research into other theories would be the same. For decades, the anthro CO2 global warming theorists were seen as a fanatical splinter group which received little or no funding from any source. Ironically, it is now the other way around.

As for me, I remain skeptical as to the actual impact anthro CO2 has versus the apparent historical fact that we are now on the cusp of a new ice age, and I await further research before becoming convinced how big of a threat it may be. In some areas of research, such as sunspot activity, it may be a very long wait. Global warming is now a $5 Billion industry and it is growing rapidly, while the research in other potentially contributory processes is deliberately being curtailed. I think anybody who is objective about scientific reseach must perceive this as being deleterious to the entire process of scientic research.

I thiink it was wrong to not fund the global warming theorists decades ago, and it is wrong to not fund those who disagree or remain skeptical with that theory today. We need more overall scientific research in all areas to make an objective decision on what should be done, not less. And what we clearly don't need is using the denial of funding to stifle scientific dissent.

 

[Ayatollah So]

To the best of my knowledge, and this is from a report this year, the water vapour changes due to CO2 changes effectively double the greenhouse effect of CO2. For every degree the CO2 will raise temperatures, new water vapour will also raise the temp a degree.

Yup. Hotter air is capable of holding more water vapor, so if the relative humidity stays relatively constant, that means there is more water vapor in a CO2-warmed world. And so far the relative humidity looks to be roughly constant in the face of temperature change. So, water vapor changes lead to an enhancement of the original CO2 effect.

Clouds are a tricky question, as you note. I guess we'll find out whether they can save our bacon, after it's already too late if it turns out they won't

 

[El_Machinae]

It's hard to explain why sunspots are not a competing theory, I guess.

First off, the idea that sunspots change is not disputed. The fact these changes cause differences in solar output is not disputed. The fact that this output affects heat is not disputed.

Heck, even the idea that the solar wind could influence albedo is not disputed (just the data are).
I pointed out that in 2001, sunspots were clearly part of the published equation.

If this fellow finds a 34 year cycle, that will be great. It will be welcomed. But, as you can see, even a 34 year cycle does not explain the variation that we're seeing in heat levels. It explains some of the current heat, but not the variation. It might explain warming trends within those cycles (we'll see), but it doesn't explain general warming trends.

In fact, if you include sunspot influences on warming trends (using them to 'smooth out' warming graphs) the correlation with CO2 becomes even tighter. The same will obviously occur with seasonal data, El Nino cycles, etc.

And studies that look for changes will always get better funding than studies looking for no change. It's the nature of the way we use statistics in Science. If a oceanographer says "I think that CO2 & warming will explain the loss of coral reef", he's more likely to get funding than if he said "I would like to show that CO2 & warming is not affecting the oceanic vents". Statistically, showing 'no change' is much more expensive on your n, and it's also more boring.

And frankly, if the reefs are dying, I'd like to know why. I'm less interested in why the vents are stable.

edit: x-post with Ayatollah So. , the news was that there was a number involved. The CO2 degree warming will be roughly matched by further H20 warming, instead of some other number.

edit x2: I'm still agnostic on future effects of clouds. Recent data is that they will hurt, not help. Further data is obviously needed. Here's what I've posted before.

The main question these days is 'what will happen to cloud cover?', since increasing levels of water in the atmosphere might increase cloud albedo. In the time I've been watching this question, there's only been one report that's made it through detailed analysis, and that report is that low-level clouds are dissipated by warming. Ostensibly, this means that the warming issues will be aggravated. The climate model that successfully predicted this dissipation (and wind trends) also is one of the more 'worst case' models indicating a 4.5*C increase with a ppm doubling instead of the 'average' 3.1*C increase with a ppm doubling.

The politicians have committed to keep the warming below 2*C, and so this indicates that maybe the Western world needs to be a bit more proactive in reducing and mitigating our carbon pollution.

Here's an editor's summary of the cloud report I mentioned.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/325/5939/376


The July 24, 2009 AAAS Science podcast has an interview with an author of the study.

 

[Dragonlord]

Yes, that is clearly how funding for various scientific activities should be determined. By wearing virtual earplugs to ignore all the competing theories other than your own.

Thank you for taking my quote out of all context and portraying me as closed to reasonable arguments.
Next time, please actually read my posts before flaming me.
I didn't post one single word about funding, and that I don't 'ignore' competing theories should be obvious by my participating in the debate at all.

Edit: OK, I see El Machinae already defended me and you conceded. No problem, then.

 

[Dragonlord]

However, I think all this is related and wouldn't be surprised his opinion on conducting future scientific research into other theories would be the same. For decades, the anthro CO2 global warming theorists were seen as a fanatical splinter group which received little or no funding from any source. Ironically, it is now the other way around.

I thiink it was wrong to not fund the global warming theorists decades ago, and it is wrong to not fund those who disagree or remain skeptical with that theory today. We need more overall scientific research in all areas to make an objective decision on what should be done, not less. And what we clearly don't need is using the denial of funding to stifle scientific dissent.

Please don't put words into my mouth.

As it happens, I have absolutely no problem with funding 'other theories'. The only problem I have is with the deniers who assert there is no problem and we need do nothing. And I agree fully with your second paragraph above.

My opinion is that global warming (or climate change) is real and will be a problem. Exactly how much of the problem is man-made and how much natural is, for me, a side issue. The real question is: what do we do about it? And the categorical deniers, who find ever new reasons for not doing anything at all, are part of the problem, not of the solution.

 

[El_Machinae]

So, just to show that scientists are not ignoring sunspots, I'll point out that Science published an article (and popularisation) on sunspots & climate two weeks ago.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol325/issue5944/index.dtl
(the search word 'climate' will find the two articles on the index page.