Decision ‘08

Global Warming: Myth and Reality

Good piece in the New York Times that attempts to assess what we do and don’t know about global warming, a condition taken as a given by most liberals but still seen as contentious by a lot of conservatives:

Between the poles of real-time catastrophe and nonevent lies the prevailing scientific view: without big changes in emissions rates, global warming from the buildup of greenhouse gases is likely to lead to substantial, and largely irreversible, transformations of climate, ecosystems and coastlines later this century.

The Earth’s average surface temperature rose about 1 degree over the 20th century, to around 59 degrees, but the rate of warming from the 1970’s until now has been three times the average rate of warming since 1900. Seas have risen about six to eight inches globally over the last century and the rate of rise has increased in the last decade.

In 2001, a large team of scientists issued the latest assessment of climate change and concluded that more than half of the recent warming was likely to have been caused by people, primarily because we’re adding tens of billions of tons of carbon dioxide and other long-lived greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, mainly by burning coal and oil.

There is no serious debate any more about one thing: more of these gases will cause more warming. Dr. Lindzen, who contends any human climate influence is negligible and has long criticized those calling global warming a catastrophe, agreed on this basic fact in his article.

At the same time, few scientists agree with the idea that the recent spate of potent hurricanes, European heat waves, African drought and other weather extremes are, in essence, our fault. There is more than enough natural variability in nature to mask a direct connection, they say.

…The latest estimates, including a study published last week in the journal Nature, foresee a probable warming of somewhere around 5 degrees should the concentration of carbon dioxide reach twice the 280-parts-per-million figure that had been the norm on earth for at least 400,000 years. This is far lower than some of the apocalyptic projections in recent years, but also far higher than mild warming rates focused on by skeptics and industry lobbyists.

As a result, by 2100 or so, sea levels could be several feet higher than they are now, and the new normal on the planet for centuries thereafter could be retreating shorelines as Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets relentlessly erode.

Rivers fed by mountain glaciers, including those nourishing much of south Asia, could shrivel. Grand plans to restore New Orleans and the Everglades would be rendered meaningless as seawater advances. Manhattan would become New Orleans — a semi-submerged city surrounded by levees. In summers, polar bears would be stuck on the few remaining ice-clotted shores around the largely blue Arctic Ocean.

I always welcome articles like this because (a) I don’t have the expertise, nor the time, to determine on my own what is or isn’t true in this debate, and (b) the consequences are too great to take the threat lightly.

Having said that, it’s still just one article. The only way for a non-scientist such as myself to really know is to take the plunge and immerse oneself in the literature. Frankly, I don’t see that happening for me, and as a result, I’m afraid global warming will always carry a whiff of the unknown for myself and millions like me.

Not for the first time, I’ll have to put my trust in the scientific community to get it right, and (a longer shot) for the politicians to make the right policy changes.

Wow…that doesn’t lead to a surge of confidence, does it?…

17 Responses to “Global Warming: Myth and Reality”

1 David M. Smith Says:
April 24th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Hi Mark,

Shouldn’t the burden of proof be on those making the case for radically changing our lifestyle to combat global warming? Shouldn’t the burden of proof be greater than laboratory results and computer models?

I’m not sure how rising seas are associated with global warming. Doesn’t H2O contract as it changes from a solid to liquid form? Doesn’t air hold more moisture the warmer it gets? Shouldn’t the seas be lowering along with global warming?

Perhaps the seas aren’t rising? Perhaps the land is lowering as a result of all of the oil being sucked out of the earth and the erosion due to deforestation? [Thought I would toss a bone to the nutters.]
2 Mark Says:
April 24th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
I agree the burden of proof lies with those who assert the seriousness of global warming. My only quibble is that we can’t set a standard of proof so high that by the time it is met we have irretrievably lost the game…
3 David M. Smith Says:
April 24th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Hi Again Mark,

Who is hurt by global warming? How is anyone hurt?

Even if worst case catastrophic scenarios come to pass, which is most unlikely, we should be able to adjust and deal with it.

The cure should never be worse than the disease.
4 mikebdot Says:
April 24th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
If something melts and it is above sea level to begin with and it attached to the earth (i.e. not displacing water [read: floating in it]), then sea level will in fact rise. I don’t recall where I read this recently but somewhere it was estimated that this (glaciers melting) would raise the water on the East coast by 20-30 feet which would have quite an impact.

It is indeed true that it has not been proven global warming is the cause of the rapidly melting glaciers or that the temperature rise over the past 100 years was the cause of greenhouse gases, but, it certainly doesn’t hurt to think about changing limits if the all/most the physical formulas point towards the large possibility of human caused warming. (In short, I agree with Mark).

My pet theory is that all of the BTUs and kW-hrs being generated in power plants and during various heat transfer systems (engines, A/C units, Heaters, coal fired plants, etc.) is actually the root of the warming. The amount of stuff we burn or blow up (tiny explosions) is just incredible, not to mention the number of homes with HVAC systems and other large buildings for business, etc. I think the greenhouse gases are just a red herring. But then again, I’m a mechanical engineer and know very little about greenhouse gases and a little bit about HVAC systems (I will not pretend to be an expert as I’ve forgotten most things I learned in school and don’t use them in corporate America).
5 mikebdot Says:
April 24th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
I agree with David that the cure should never be worse than the disease. So, if we have expend almost the same number of lives “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here” as the number of people who were killed on 9/11 (we’re getting pretty close), does this make Iraq a failure? If the cure for 9/11 was sacrificing all these troops and terrorism still happens post Iraq, what was the point?
6 megapotamus Says:
April 24th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
The science is dubious but before you even get to the “hockey stick” and all the other bric-a-brac that adorns the anti-global warming movement the whole thing deserves skepticism on simple epistemological grounds; that is, all the hooha on global warming is a repeat with modest editorial revision of the new ice age we were supposedly entering during the Carter years. The simple fact is, the earth is ALWAYS either warming or cooling, what you NEVER have is a perfect state of equilibrium. Also, you are NEVER free of excitable folks who perpetually feel the weight of the sky. And human emissions of CO2 are a TINY fraction of global yearly emissions which are geological or biological in nature and, most importantly, not constant themselves. The marine mudslide that sent the Xmas tsunami last year released titanic amounts of CO2, as does any volcanic eruption.
7 peter Says:
April 24th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
I don’t pretend to have any expertise in the subject, but it seems intuitive that the fact that the earth has been warming or cooling since we started keeping records is not relevant, for the simple reason that the number of cars, trucks, factories, and power plants grows every year. The amount of gases emitted into the atmosphere is far greater than it has ever been, and the question is whether this unprecedented scale would create an environment which cannot be rectified.

There is an interesting and upsetting piece in today’s Times which reports that the mandatory placement of catalytic converters in lawn mowers would be equivalent to taking 800,000 cars off the road in California alone. Apparently lawn mowers spew 93 times as much on a gallon-for-gallon basis as the average car. However, vigorous lobbying by Briggs & Stratton has stopped the government from requiring them to be installed. A Senator from Missouri, which has two of their factories, is also the chairman of the committee which sets funding for the EPA. You can debate the merits of government intervention in business, but to me this seems a clear case where government regulation would be unquestionably useful (and also a clear case showing how the lobbying of business efforts can work against the common good).
8 David M. Smith Says:
April 24th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Hi Peter,

The fact that the earth has been heating and cooling from the beginning of time is very relevant because it demonstrates the self-correcting mechanism built into the earth’s environment. Volcanoes, fires, lawn mowers, cow farts, etc., all effect the environment, but for every action there is a reaction. Warm air rises and then cools. Cold air descends and warms. Sea currents are similar to air currents. Warm air rises creating clouds that cool the surface, descending cold air removes clouds which allow the sun to reach and warm the surface. Taken together, all of these factors create a balancing effect. Perhaps human activity has created more variability, but I doubt humans have beaten the self-correcting mechanisms.

Government is having difficulty with simple problems nowadays. Please, oh please, keep the government out of Global environment manipulation.
9 David M. Smith Says:
April 24th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Hi mikebdot,

No, Iraq is a success. Your formula is a failure. : -)
10 peter Says:
April 24th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Cow farts, huh? I guess I’ll have to factor them into the equation…

The crux of your argument is the statement that “I doubt humans have beaten the self-correcting mechanisms.” I certainly don’t have the knowledge to contradict you — but since none of us know for sure, what if your supposition is wrong? (Or, as they say, what if it’s not true and it’s merely suppository)

Given the uncertainties involved, and at least the possibility that things could go wrong in an irreversable way, it seems prudent to err on the side of conservation — and if that means fewer Ford Explorers on the road, or catalytic converters in lawn mowers, then so be it –
11 David M. Smith Says:
April 24th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Hi peter,

If I am wrong, the earth will be warmer and the earth should be a better place for humans to live. More land and climate for agriculture, more oxygen producing plants, more rainfall, more available drinking water and water for recreation, more tropical paradises, less football in snowstorms on ice in Chicago and Green Bay, more two piece bathing suites…
12 peter Says:
April 24th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Well, I’m with you on that last point…
13 Ryan Bonneville Says:
April 24th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Mark - A noble effort at taking a serious problem seroiusly. The only observation I want to add is that your comment section has turned into exactly the same debate we always get on global warming. One side marshals scientific evidence that warming trends are occurring, seas are rising, and so on, and the other says “Well, I seriously doubt humans can mess up the Earth” or “It seems to me that melting the glacials would make the sea level lower” or “Wouldn’t warming up the Earth be good for farmers?” It’s science vs. superstition, and it would be funny if it weren’t just another example of Americans willfully mis-educating themselves.
14 David M. Smith Says:
April 25th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Hi Ryan,

Labeling dissenters as uneducated is ignorant of you. There are indisputable facts in the debate over global warming and there are very disputable conclusions based on the facts. You can take a side and make a claim that your side is the scientific side, but that would be very unscientific of you.

Here is a place to start your education, if you care.

“For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero). “
15 megapotamus Says:
April 25th, 2006 at 10:09 am
Yes, David. Our Liberal Superiors are all rational and sciency… except when it dissagrees with their presumptions. Global Warming stopped in 1998. Eight years ago. Does that mean it won’t warm more? No. Does it mean we are in for a new ice age? No, although we had many of the same crowd of folks declaring so back during the Reagan era. The earth was much warmer in a not-too-recent past, it is known as the Medieval Warming Period or the Medieval Climate Optimum. Optimum for what? Well, human activities; this is when wheat was raised in huge volume in Norway and Greenland was green. Also at this time two cities came to the height of their power: Amsterdam and Venice. Of course when the world cooled and the icecaps refroze, these cities were left landlocked and obsolete as they would be inundated if the caps thaw anymore… Oh wait. That never happened to these canal dependent cities. Hmmm. Well, that’s only history and history can’t stand up to science. Or truthiness.
16 David M. Smith Says:
April 25th, 2006 at 11:00 am
Hi megapotamus,

In 1968 I spent a good chunk of the fifth grade learning about the coming ice age. That summer, my home town had 14 consecutive days when the temperature went above 100 degrees Fahrenheit. It was the warmest (hottest) summer on record and it is still the warmest (hottest) summer on record.

The earth has a long way to go before Global Warming is a problem. Regardless of the real science, we will hear from all of the same Chicken Little’s.
17 Harnzy Says:
August 18th, 2007 at 7:11 am
Is Global warming real though???