Climate Change? Or Just a Stretch of Bad Weather?
Filed under: Feature, Global Warming, Science — Rick Moran on March 2, 2008 @ 9:32 pm CET
I’m no scientist. Neither is Nobel Prize winning global warming alarmist and hypocrite Al Gore. Nor are the legions of global warming deniers who are pointing to a stretch of cold weather as “proof” that global warming is a myth.
We are, most of us, not qualified in any way, shape, or form to make any kind of technical or scientific judgment on most of the evidence relating to climate change unless we happen to hold an advanced technical degree and are able to examine that evidence in its totality and not pick and choose headlines that bolster one’s political position on the issue.
The idiocy inherent in the prospect of myself or 95% of internet commenters - right and left - trying to hold a scientific debate on a subject where almost all of us are not scientists and where most of the evidence is couched in the arcane and mysterious language of scientific disciplines for which the overwhelming majority of us barely realize the parameters of study is self evident.
Not that this matters because at bottom, we who are unable to examine the evidence on the same plane as climatologists, meteorologists, atmospheric physicists, environmental scientists, and a hodgepodge of chemists, archaeologists, anthropologists, and other scientists end up simply believing one side or the other. Like religious fanatics, the two sides argue dogma while rejecting the other’s “beliefs” as apostasy.
Considering the stakes, this is madness. And scientists are not helping matters any. Likening those who question the conclusion that global warming is caused largely by man and that it threatens civilization to Holocaust deniers is far beyond the pale of rational discourse. Similarly, those who use the term “climate Nazis” to describe global warming advocates have no place in this debate.
But because of the monumental importance of the issue, all of this matters little. Even though our opinions are half baked and ill informed, we scream at each other, accusing one side of being in the pocket of big business (or in thrall to the anti-science element in the Republican party) or the other side of blindly following a “scam” that seeks to destroy the American economy and promote a one world government.
Both sides have been guilty of laughable exaggerations. Every heat wave during the summer is trumpeted to the skies by warming advocates as “evidence” that the world is warming up. The ebbing of ice packs, glaciers, and snow pack on mountains, is fodder for the alarmists while every shred of evidence that might contradict the global warming scenario including core samples and faulty CO2 models becomes “proof” that global warming is a lie.
“Earth’s ‘Fever’ Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way,” read a blog post and news release on Wednesday from Marc Morano, the communications director for the Republican minority on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
So what is happening?
According to a host of climate experts, including some who question the extent and risks of global warming, it is mostly good old-fashioned weather, along with a cold kick from the tropical Pacific Ocean, which is in its La Niña phase for a few more months, a year after it was in the opposite warm El Niño pattern.
If anything else is afoot — like some cooling related to sunspot cycles or slow shifts in ocean and atmospheric patterns that can influence temperatures — an array of scientists who have staked out differing positions on the overall threat from global warming agree that there is no way to pinpoint whether such a new force is at work.
And lest you think only one side can’t tell the difference between “climate” and “weather,” here’s an oldy but goody from 2003:
NBC Blames Global Warming for European Heat Wave
It was inevitable. Whenever someplace in the world gets hot for a few days, sooner or later a network story will blame it on global warming.
NBC’s Patricia Sabga won the contest on Wednesday night when she warned that “scientists attribute the extreme temperatures to what’s been described as a dome of hot air hovering over Europe, a summer weather pattern that may become the norm.” Sean Seabrook, identified on screen as a “meteorologist,” then asserted: “Scientists appreciate now that global warming is taking place and I think these occurrences of heat waves will become more frequent, so this may be a sign of things to come.”
The climate is warming. This is indisputable. It has been warming since the end of the last ice age nearly 20,000 years ago. During that time we’ve had rapid warming spells that last centuries and cooling periods as well (the “Little Ice Age” in Europe from 1300-1800 had a huge impact on politics and society).
But overall, for this last post-ice age epoch the temperature has been rising. No one disputes this. The problem, of course, is the last 100 years or so of human industrial activity and the burning of fossile fuels. Many scientists see the “spike” in average temperature of .75 degrees C as directly related to the increase in CO2 emissions resulting from the burning of hydrocarbons. Others point to a peak of sunspot activity or ice core samples that show past rapid warming periods where there has been an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
I have no clue who has the upper hand in this debate. Flat statements like “global warming is real” or “global warming is a scam” mean nothing when each side is contradicted by sound scientific evidence. This despite efforts by some in the global warming crusade who seek to end debate on the issue for political, not scientific reasons by trying to postulate that there is a “consensus” that catastrophe is ahead unless we reduce our emissions.
Whoever heard of ending debate on a question of science when there is credible evidence that challenges what has become conventional wisdom? What reputable scientist would agree with this nonsense? No one knows or can accurately predict what the weather will be like 100 years from now. Models that attempt to show a correlation between specific levels of carbon dioxide and temperature have been shown to be useless. No one knows what effect increased temperatures will have in the future. No one even knows if reducing emissions will effect the rise in temperatures one iota.
Closing off debate on climate change is not a question of science but of politics.
It is inevitable that politics would dominate the global warming debate because the solution proposed - reducing emissions - impact ordinary people’s lives enormously, perhaps even catastrophically. For some, whose agenda includes what can only be interpreted as the downfall of the capitalist system, the climate change debate is secondary to imposing their ideas of socialism and reduced influence of the nation state. Others may see a loss of profit and influence unless global warming is “debunked.” And when the cost to the US economy is measured in the trillions of dollars to “play it safe” and proceed as if global warming is the calamitous threat some say it is, the arguments for and against take on an urgency the demands attention.
And then there is the vast bulk of ordinary citizens - you and me - who are caught somewhere in the middle, forced to try our best to understand the debate by reading flawed analysis of both sides in a scientifically ignorant media. Even those few general interest science publications that lay people can read and understand are usually tainted by bias for or against anthropogenic climate change.
In the end, we are left believing one side or the other based largely on our political leanings and not on our scientific acumen. In a way, I envy those who can follow the debate on a technical level and are able to keep the spark of scientific inquiry alive by listening to all sides in this debate and evaluating evidence based on the facts while leaving politics on the outside.
If the only thing you take away from reading this is to have a little more respect for those who don’t agree with you on global warming, I will be content. Because at the moment, speaking for myself, I just don’t know. And the price of ignorance - on both sides - may be too much for us to bear.
1 Dr Coles
March 2, 2008 @ 5:37 pm CETOver 400 World Wide Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007. See http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz
2 wj
March 2, 2008 @ 6:43 pm CETAnd the most interesting of the viewpoints I have seen raised is the one which points out that, on past cyclic patterns, we were due to enter a several hundred year "Little Ice Age" again in the mid-1800s. But man-made greenhouse gases from industrialization, especially the heavy use of coal, headed off that substantial global cooling.
What it all seems to come down to is this: climates change over time, both from natural and from man-made causes. At any given moment, both causes are in play, to different degrees. What is important is how we attempt to adapt to those changes — increase or decrease of greenhouse gas emissions, shift agricultural patterns, population migrations, etc. What isn’t an option is to stop all climate change completely, so we won’t have to change how and where we live.
3 redfish
March 2, 2008 @ 6:57 pm CETRick,
I agree that there are a lot of hackish arguments by people who talk about the science for political purposes; I don’t think its hard for someone, if they want to, to understand the issue as much as scientists do. Scientists are not super-beings, and many of us who chose not to pursue a degree in science nonetheless have studied it and could have done so if we wanted to. Second, I think climate change is as much about politics as it is about science. The clue comes from the fact that people who are activists for climate change always use worst-case scenario computer models. While most scientists agree that humans are affecting the climate, they, by far, recognize that the computer models are not completely objective. Some people who are scientists choose to promote these models, nonetheless, because, many scientists are also political creatures, like the rest of us.
4 Dan Pangburn
March 3, 2008 @ 5:13 am CETThere is no historical data that supports the premise that human activity has any significant effect on climate. The observation of glaciers melting may look dramatic on TV but does not show that human activity is the cause. There is, however, substantial evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide level does not significantly influence climate. You can check out the global warming issue yourself. Credible websites are included in my post at http://hypsithermal.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/to-those-who-will-fight/
5 kritter
March 3, 2008 @ 7:03 am CETThe worst course seems to be total inaction while both sides endlessly debate the issue, which is the course we are currently on. The oil industry hired scientists to come up with evidence that disputed global warming, so that there would be "controversy" and drastic action would be forstalled (not to say that there aren’t some who genuinely don’t believe in it- just as there are educated historians who doubt the Holocaust ever occured) We are fiddling while Rome burns.
In Maryland, it was 60-70 degrees for several days in February- which is highly unusual for our area. (usually its the coldest month of the year with several severe snowstorms.) If the consensus of more than 90% of the world’s scientists is that we are experiencing global warming than I believe them.
6 Michael van der Galien
March 3, 2008 @ 8:41 am CETKritter: of course the question isn’t whether we are experiencing global warming (duh!), it’s whether we contribute to it. If so, how? And if so, how much? And then: can we do something about it? If so, how? Will that be effective? How much will it cost us? And so on.
7 Nick Percival
March 3, 2008 @ 4:56 pm CETI agree that Rick Moran is not qualified to make pronouncements on this topic and that there has been a lot of hype not only from Al Gore, et al, but also, particularly recently, from the opposition. However, many with common sense and a basic understanding of science were perfectly justified in pointing out that the sun was the principle source warming and also pointing out gross GW exaggerations and internal contradictions.
8 Rich Horton
March 3, 2008 @ 7:15 pm CETI’m not sure I buy the contention that the world is divided up into "people who CAN know" (i.e. scientists of various persuasions,) and "people who CAN’T know" (i.e. the rest of us poor slobs). Any system of governance that reputes to be democratic has to value the "poor slobs" no matter what the "stakes" supposedly are.
The options are, A) be less democratic, and defer to an scientific oligarchy, or B) remain democratic.
The troubles I have with option A is that 1) I kinda like the whole democracy thing, and, 2) I remain unconvinced that scientific fact rather than political ideology is the determining factor here, OR that we can be assured it will remain so in the future.
And, on a more practical level, there is much here that does not require a science PhD to have a valid opinion on. For example, the prediliction the AGW crowd has to portray climate as an ongoing "Tragedy of the Commons" scenario only require a rudimentary knowledge of game theory and logic to make an evaluation, which any college educated person has the tools for….even if you took no classes harder than "Underwater Basket Weaving 101".
Similarly, AGW models make predictions one can investigate and measure even if you are not up on fluid dynamics yourself. (Although, you will also have to deal with the sophistry of those who wont own up to the failure of their so-called models to predict anything….which will often result in post-modern BS that no one should have to waste their time with. It’s the climate science version of "it depends on what your definition of is is.")
Certainly, the drive to label those who do not conform "deniers" with all that that implies, should be resisted at all costs.
9 bill-tb
March 3, 2008 @ 7:46 pm CETThe sun will win the argument … Computer models reflect more the data that is input than the science that they attempt to model, no engineer would bet a dime on totally predictive models, without coraborative test data. So why not model the past and predict today?
Two websites of interest
http://spaceweather.com/
http://solarcycle24.com/
The suns magnetic field died down in Oct 2005 and the sun has been quite since.
10 kranky kritter
March 3, 2008 @ 8:12 pm CETI hope that whoever posted as kritter isn’t hoping folks will confuse him with me. Most people now know that corrected data show pretty conclusively that there has been some warming. What we still don’t know fills a lot of space. We still don’t know whether it’s certain to continue let alone how much or how long. We still don’t know how much if anything human behavior has to do with it. And we still don’t know whether or not the changes such warming may bring will be primarily negative.