Decision ‘08

I Realize There Are Still Some Dissenters On Global Warming…

…but it sure seems that a scientific consensus is being consolidated, and it ain’t pretty:

Global warming caused by human activity is real and will continue for hundreds of years, a panel of some of the world’s top climate scientists said Friday.

Officially releasing a 21-page report in Paris on the hows and the what of global warming — though not telling the world what to do about it — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gave a bleak observation of what is happening now and an even more dire prediction for the future.

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level,” the report said.

…A senior U.S. government scientist, Susan Solomon, said as the report was released, “There can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities.”

The report said man-made emissions of greenhouse gases can be blamed for these problems: fewer cold days, hotter nights, killer heat waves, floods and heavy rains, devastating droughts, and an increase in hurricane and tropical storm strength (particularly in the Atlantic Ocean).

And if you think it is bad now, the harmful effects during the 21st century “would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century,” the report said.

The panel predicted temperature rises of 1.1 to 6.4 C (2-11.5 F) by 2100. That was a wider range than in the 2001 report. However, the panel also said its best estimate was for temperature rises of 1.8 to 4 C (3.2-7.1 F).

On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7 to 23 inches (18 to 58 centimeters) by the end of the century. An additional 3.9 to 7.8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters) are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.

And on a short-term basis, there isn’t much we can do about it:

And the report said no matter how much civilization slows or reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and sea level rise will continue on for centuries.

“This is just not something you can stop. We’re just going to have to live with it,” co-author Kevin Trenberth, director of climate analysis for the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, said in an interview. “We’re creating a different planet. If you were to come up back in 100 years time, we’ll have a different climate.”

Obviously, this has some disturbing implications, but as an official hater of hot weather (who inexplicably lives in brutally hot Austin), let me just say: nuts…

13 Responses to “I Realize There Are Still Some Dissenters On Global Warming…”

1 too many steves Says:
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:40 pm
The big differences between this report and the last one (2001):

the range of expected temperature rise has narrowed,
the estimated high end for temperature rise is lower,
the estimated sea level rise is lower,
the observed upward temperature trend of the past 8 years is negligent,
the overall likelihood that humans cause or contribute to global warming has been raised to “very likely” or 90 - 95% certainty.

So, all the catastrophic predictions are measurably lower/better than 2001. Human activity is just getting more of the blame pie. While this is plausible it is no more than a hypothesis at this point.

Also, released today was the report summary, not the full report. Please recall that it wasn’t that long ago that scientists were predicting a new ice age and catastrophic worldwide famine.

Too much religion, not enough dispassionate science.
2 Fred Says:
February 2nd, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Not only were they predicting an Ice Age, but they were also using the exact same figures for the years 1875 to 1975 (the period of the Industrial Revolution.) to blame the exact same culprit (industrial pollution - In this case soot cutting off sunlight or reflecting it back into space.)

And they were recommending the exact same solutions (I.E, the only way to save the world was to give more power to those who believed in the theory).
3 Mark Says:
February 2nd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Hey, all I’m saying is if the Austin summers get any hotter, I might as well move to the surface of the sun…
4 too many steves Says:
February 2nd, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Well, I can’t recall a milder winter in the Boston winter than the current one - and I’ve lived here a long time. Looking on the bright side: I don’t think I need that much of rise in sea level to turn my home into oceanfront property.
5 too many steves Says:
February 2nd, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Ugh. s/b: ‘milder winter in the Boston area’
6 Andy Vance Says:
February 2nd, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Holy smokes. Where are you guys getting this stuff? On second thought, nevermind. Let’s start with a common sense (heh heh) principle of science.

TMS claims we should put less credence in the new report because it’s at odds with previous data. On it’s face, that kinda makes sense, because it appears the climatologists have changed their tune. But why is this version different?

As scientists accumulate more data, and tools for analysis and measurement improve, observations and predictions become more precise, right? Greater precision allows scientists to become more confident in their conclusions.

Does this invalidate Fred’s case? After all, that wasn’t merely an instance of refinement of data, it’s an about-face. Again, we have to ask why.

And the answer is the same: more information is available, providing a better answer. When the “global cooling” studies were conducted, scientists weren’t even looking at greenhouse gases. They were simply trying to find out why the climate seemed to be getting colder, and sailing into uncharted scientific territory.

Does that invalidate these new reports? Possibly, if there’s some reason to believe there’s another major variable they’re completely overlooking. But the fact they they were wrong then does not in and of itself invalidate the science today, any more than Ptolemy’s theories invalidate Galileo’s. Or more aptly, any more than Darwins’ invalidates Dawkins’.

Anyway, if you’re truly interested in an overview of both the state of the science and a frank examination of its uncertainties - and not just how the dirty hippies are sneaking in socialism through the back door - try this.
7 Mark Says:
February 2nd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Andy, thanks for the link…I won’t pretend to take a side, because I don’t know the science, but as I said in the piece, it seems that the consensus is growing that (a) it’s real, and (b) it’s a serious threat. That leaves a whole ‘nother conversation about solutions, but still, I think I’m leaving the doubter camp - as, it must be noted, the President apparently signalled he may be doing in his SOTU:

America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment — and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.

Now it’s a small signal, and I know a statement does not a policy make, yet it’s a signal nonetheless…
8 too many steves Says:
February 2nd, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Andy: no, I’m not trying to discredit the report, in fact a tightening of the range of effect is exactly the result I would expect from additional scientific study.

What I am trying to discredit is the hyperbolic reporting and overreaction of the chicken-littles of the global warming alarmist crowd.

What I want is good science, reported without public policy prognostication. If we know the world is warming - which is pretty clearly the case - then it is critical to know the causes, great and small, in order to devise a plan on what, if anything, we should do.

Here’s another link you might find interesting:
9 too many steves Says:
February 2nd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Hmmm… and I need a lesson in posting links:

http://www.junkscience.com/
10 Andy Vance Says:
February 2nd, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Ok, dudes. My bad for reading so much into your comments. My Requip prescription ran out, and the knee jerks are coming back.

But I do think it’s a mistake to read the report as walking back from earlier dire predictions (just the opposite, in fact), I have no freaking clue what should be done, and I think Steven Milloy is a BS artist par excellence.
11 too many steves Says:
February 2nd, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Hey, it was just a link to an alternative opinion, that’s all.
12 fred Says:
February 2nd, 2007 at 4:50 pm
No, No, they used the exact same set of data to show that the temperature was decreasing during the exact same set of years. Galileo (actually Kepler) never said that Tycho’s basic sightings were all wrong (that the planets were orbiting in the opposite direction, say) he said he had a better, or more elegant, way of explaining the data, which itself was correct. Of course, that one set of scientist was wrong, says nothing about other group of scientist, expect to emphasis that error is always possible. Think of the phlogiston theory of matter. That also had a scientific consensus.
13 Dennis Says:
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:21 am
On a lighter note, I can’t help but notice this post on global warming comes right after a post on Punxatawney Phil predicting an early spring.