Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

It would be a lot easier to to accept that point if opponents of the science didn't resort to rather transparent hackery - for example, the second editorial in that post determines that global warming stoppd by taking 1998 (a huge El Nino year) and connecting that to one determination of 2005 with a straight line, that failed to consider the longer term trend or the intervening years.
And Lindzen in the WSJ doent make much sense by saying that climate scientists are faking consensus on the reality of climate change in order to get more money to study... the mysteries of climate change. Followed throwing up the case of a strawman planet with only latitudinal control on temperature gradients, and by a sour grapes rant on the scientific community ruthlessly taking out his pet hypothesis (which is actually how science is suppose to work).

Richard Ally gave a good talk at the European Geoscience Union conference. He pointed out that the atmospheric case is very good - Hansen's 1988 middle prediction for global temperature is very good for the last 18 years, with the exception of the timing of Pinotubo and the '98 El Nino. And radar altimetry tracking the ocean's expansion shows that they are soaking up thermal energy nearly exactly as predicted.

The really big unknown is how the ice caps will respond. They were basically neglected from the last IPCC report, as the science was immature, but since then, there has been abundant evidence that they are doing something. And that their collapse have the potential to be the most devastating effect of global warming. But we still don't understand if they will destabilize.

Aside from that, the real question is the politics of mitigation. I find it very difficult to believe that changing from fossil fuels, especially through improving efficiency, will crush the global economy in the long term.

Posted by Duncan Young at April 14, 2006 10:06 AM

"But we still don't understand if they [the ice caps] will destabilize."

what do you mean by this? i thought that there were predictions of how fast they were gonna melt, and so far they have melted much much faster.

at this point, we really cant afford to be certain, because to be completely certain, it would likely be too late. ive heard talk of a "tipping point" past which global warming would spiral completely out of control, and that that tipping point is in about ten years. at the very least, the people in charge should listen to their own scientists

Posted by ujedujik at April 14, 2006 10:50 AM

actually, at the very least the people in charge shouldnt censor the work of their scientists

Posted by ujedujik at April 14, 2006 10:51 AM

at the very least the people in charge shouldnt censor the work of their scientists

That's pretty amusing. For someone who's supposedly being "censored," Hansen has certainly been making a lot of speeches lately.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 14, 2006 10:56 AM

We can't afford to act when we don't understand what's going on. My take is that of the six points Paul Hsieh lists, we have demonstrated 1) and 2). Namely, global warming is happening and a large part of it is due to human causes. I'd say by 2020, we'd have a good idea of what the answers to 3) through 6) are. That seems reasonable to me especially given the slow rate of change of global warming and CO2 concentrations.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 14, 2006 11:09 AM

Ice sheets are strange beasties. Snowfall is suppose to increase at the same time melting is, so the question is who wins? More snow moving through the system actually cools the volume of the ice down, and increases its strength - but meltwater falling through cracks warms it up and lubricates the base.

For West Antarctica, the question is not so much melting, but will it go afloat? Will seawater penetrate the depths of the Byrd Subglaical Basin in a runaway retreat, or will a perturbed ice sheet quickly re-establish a new eqiliumbrium? Do ice shelves butteress the ice sheet, or are they passive features?

We are beginning to get the data required to answer these questions, but the big problem is getting realistic 3-D models up and running. in order to actually figure out the appropriate questions.

Posted by Duncan Young at April 14, 2006 11:10 AM

We can't afford to act when we don't understand what's going on.

Why not? Any real world situation involves actions under incomplete information. If you are not insisting on perfect information, then explain why what is known so far is not enough to justify action.

Posted by Paul Dietz at April 14, 2006 11:48 AM

Why not? Any real world situation involves actions under incomplete information. If you are not insisting on perfect information, then explain why what is known so far is not enough to justify action.

Well I guess ignorance is bliss and so it is one way to obtain utopia.

Posted by Leland at April 14, 2006 02:21 PM

"ive heard talk of a "tipping point" past which global warming would spiral completely out of control, and that that tipping point is in about ten years."

Yes, I too heard that ten years ago......

Cry wolf too many times and that dog won't hunt.

Posted by Mike Puckett at April 14, 2006 02:25 PM

yes, but by that logic, you'll only be convinced when youre dead

Posted by ujedujik at April 14, 2006 02:34 PM

ujedujik, with that logic, let me sell you my tiger-repelling rock. No one carrying this rock has ever been attacked by tigers. For $100,000, you can be secure from tiger attack.

Don't believe me? I guess you'll only be convinced when you're dead.

Posted by John Irving at April 14, 2006 02:51 PM

there is evidence for global warming, and mike puckett in saying "Cry wolf too many times and that dog won't hunt." seems to be saying that it would be unable to convince him otherwise. only overwhelming evidence will do, i suppose, but like i said before, by that time it might be too late (especially if the predictions keep being too cautious). your example is cute, but is inapt, as there is evidence for global warming (yes, one might count the fact that none have died by tiger as evidence, but it isnt evidence of the stone's usefulness)

Posted by ujedujik at April 14, 2006 03:24 PM

Mike, John,
Go to Glacier National Park, the Alps, The High Andes, Tibet or Kilimanjaro and count the glaciers. Look at the Arctic sea ice (if you can find it). Observe the repeated observations of the surface velocities, elevations and gravity signal from the glaciers draining Greenland and the Amundsen Sea Embayment of Antarctica.

There's your [insert large carnivoius mammal here]. We just dont know its mood yet.

Posted by Duncan Young at April 14, 2006 03:27 PM

"Go to Glacier National Park, the Alps, The High Andes, Tibet or Kilimanjaro and count the glaciers. Look at the Arctic sea ice."

Yes and go look at the shrinking polar ice caps on Mars. The issue isn't whether the Earth is warming, but what is causing it. The Earth is still warming from the last Ice Age (and the Little Ice Age) and there is little demonstrated evidence that mankind's CO2 emissions are causing it. The global warming on Mars would indicate that a good part of the cause, if not all of it, is the Sun.

We shouldn't throw good money after unproven "hypotheses" like Kyoto until we have reasonable certainty that we know the cause and that the proposed solution will work. Currently we have neither. We don't really know if we have a problem. The hundreds of billions that Kyoto would siphon out of our economy could be used to fix known and urgent problems. First, do no harm (economic or otherwise). The Precautionary Principle is a philosophy for cowards.

Posted by Jim Breeding at April 14, 2006 04:36 PM

(yes, one might count the fact that none have died by tiger as evidence, but it isnt evidence of the stone's usefulness)

As much evidence for the rock's usefulness as for man-made global warming. The short form of the arguments is "Earth is warming (here and there, but not uniformly or predictably). We've had an industrial revolution at approximately the same time (but the warming trend has not followed the pattern of development, and please disregard wild-ass guesses as to the effects of urbanization on local temperature measurements, not to mention the effects of vulcanism and solar activity). Therefore, ipso facto (ignoring inconvenient factos), man causes global warming." You're better off with my rock, man. Tigers at least are real and occasionally proven maneaters.

Posted by John Irving at April 14, 2006 05:10 PM

Jim,
The trend on Mars you point out consists of two data points at one location separated by one Martian year. The influence of anthropogenic CO2 on global temperatures is somewhat better constrained.

Posted by Duncan Young at April 14, 2006 05:16 PM

... please disregard wild-ass guesses as to the effects of urbanization on local temperature measurements, not to mention the effects of vulcanism and solar activity.

John, could you point to the peer-review models that don't go to great effort to account for these forcings?

Even one?

Earth is warming (here and there, but not uniformly or predictably)

Again, could you point to the people saying that global warming should be uniform? And the warming trend has proven very predictable at the multiyear level.

It's exactly these kind of thin, strawman, talking points that prevent me taking the ostrich contingent seriously.

Posted by Duncan Young at April 14, 2006 05:27 PM

Duncan, can you please point to the peer-reviewed literature that has a specific benchmark detailing the effects of urbanization on increasing temperature readings in a densely populated area?

Here's a hint, you can't, there is no standard, every researcher makes their own guess.

No ostrich here, just a merry skeptic on the Sagan model. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there's more than enough reasonable doubt as to the nature, or even existence, of persistent, man-made global warming. Then when you take the step from that skepticism and examine the motives and politics of those pushing for radical economic measures that have no other pollution-controlling benefit, anything but healthy skepticism seems just a little bit like superstitution and cultish behavior.

Posted by John Irving at April 14, 2006 05:38 PM

Assume for the sake of argument that global warming is happening, and that it's due entirely to the release of CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.

What do we do about it?

Do we stop burning fossil fuels immediately (more or less), sending our economies into a tailspin and cause more human misery than if we don't stop burning fossil fuels, causing the Antarctic ice sheets to slide into the sea?

Or do we continue burning fossil fuels until we can get nuclear power on-line, thereby keeping the world's economy humming, and using the wealth created to ease whatever catastrophe is allegedly heading our way a few decades from now?

I'd choose option number two. Alas, the eco-freaks so hate the idea of modernity and prosperity that they will (and do) reflexively choose option number one, no matter how many people suffer and die in the resulting economic chaos.

Posted by Hale Adams at April 14, 2006 05:40 PM

"seems to be saying that it would be unable to convince him otherwise. only overwhelming evidence will do, i suppose, but like i said before, by that time it might be too late (especially if the predictions keep being too cautious)."

The Global Warming crow destroyed their own credibility by hitching their wagon to everything climate related and calling global warming the culprit.

Remember what happened to the little boy who cried Wolf.

Mabey you can make a wolf repellent "Hokey Stick" to hold him at bay!

Posted by Mike Puckett at April 14, 2006 06:13 PM

Duncan, can you please point to the peer-reviewed literature that has a specific benchmark detailing the effects of urbanization on increasing temperature readings in a densely populated area?

John,
Here's an example.

And a search on Google Scholar on "effects of urbanization on "temperature measurements"" gets 284 hits.

The extraordinary claim is that converting 300 million years worth of sequestered carbon into a very well understood radiatively active gas in a couple of centuries will have no impact on climate.

How's the sand down there?

Posted by Duncan Young at April 14, 2006 06:13 PM

The Global Warming crowd destroyed their own credibility by hitching their wagon to everything climate related and calling global warming the culprit.

Remember what happened to the little boy who cried Wolf.

Mabey you can make a wolf repellent "Hockey Stick" to hold him at bay!

Posted by at April 14, 2006 06:14 PM

The abstract you link to, Duncan, betrays a sense of foregone conclusion. Similar, therefore, no impact?

For a given value of "similar" I guess, but still a W.A.G. But thats enough for a cultist who thinks calling reasonable people "ostriches" is a useful point.

Posted by John Irving at April 14, 2006 06:25 PM

...sending our economies into a tailspin and cause more human misery than if we don't stop burning fossil fuels, causing the Antarctic ice sheets to slide into the sea?

Aw Gawd, who's being Chicken Little now! Economic apocalypse if we move toward rapidly toward hybrids, more trains, and reforestation of all those bankrupt family farms- doom and starvation if the picture window becomes unfashionable! Famine will abound if we invest in geological carbon sequestration, and seal leaking gas lines!

It's like Y2K all over again!

Mitagating climate change just ain't that hard people. Just a matter of herding cats.

Posted by Duncan Young at April 14, 2006 06:31 PM

Mitagating climate change just ain't that hard people. Just a matter of herding cats.

We aren't arguing over that proposition, Duncan. We're arguing over the best way of doing so (hint: it is now, and never was, Kyoto or anything resembling it).

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 14, 2006 06:36 PM

Economic apocalypse if we move toward rapidly toward hybrids, more trains, and reforestation of all those bankrupt family farms-

Hybrids don't correct pollution unless their initial charge comes from a non-polluting source, i.e nuclear. Japanese models do, American models do not. Trains require power, either through diesel or electricity, which comes in the U.S. primarily in the form of fossil-fuel fired plants. As for reforestation, considering the enormous percentage of forest in the U.S., and the fact that the majority of "bankrupt family farms" come from the Great Plains, which weren't de-forested to begin with, one wonders where you get re- from.

You start with the conceit that climate change can be mitigated, then proceed to the assumption that it should be. But considering that climate is a chaotic system, and granted your assumptions that man-made systems are greatly affecting the various climates of the Earth, your changes are likely to bring about more unpredictability rather than the impossibility of stopping or reversing the clock.

Since you seems to have plenty of links at your disposal, please point to the model from ten years ago that accurately predicted our current climate. Again, none exist. The doomsayers of the time were placing the tip-over before now. Go back ten years from that. Same story. And ad nauseum ad infinitum. It's odd that you should bring up Y2K, which was a potential real problem solved by real work, based off proven models and experiments which demonstrated real failures possible without correction of the systems.

Tsk. The biggest scam of the catastrophic global warming cult is linking themselves to anti-pollution efforts, when the two are more like apples and orangutangs in terms of relation. The bugaboo of the global warming priest is CO2, which is a non-pollutant that those added trees you want would be happy to receive. Pollution control advocates recommend reductions of materials toxic specifically to flora and fauna, or with a degrading effect on the environment.

Posted by John Irving at April 14, 2006 06:44 PM

Kyoto, as signed, was not going to solve global warming.

But then again, the X-Prize was never going to deliver a fully formed commercially viable passanger space vehicle, by its deadline.

In both cases, that was not the point.

Posted by Duncan Young at April 14, 2006 06:47 PM

In both cases, that was not the point.

VERY true. In one case, the point was to encoruage private development of technology to spur space exploitation.

In the other, it was a international attempt to degrade the economy of the United States to allow countries with less-effective systems and economies to compete.

Neither had anything to do with climate, though, they had that in common.

Posted by John Irving at April 14, 2006 06:50 PM

Since you seems to have plenty of links at your disposal, please point to the model from ten years ago that accurately predicted our current climate.

Hansen's 1988 mid-line presentation, as mentioned, does an exellence job. You have Google. And the ocean topography data for which the pattern of thermal expansion is eerily good.

And again the stawman of eliminating fossil fuels altogether - the key is reduction.

But considering that climate is a chaotic system,..
So are orbits - yet that doesnt stop space travel. At the timescale being discussed, climate is a machine.

The bugaboo of the global warming priest is CO2, which is a non-pollutant that those added trees you want would be happy to receive.
Ever worked on a farm? Most growth is nitrogen limited, well before CO2 limits kicks in.

Posted by Duncan Young at April 14, 2006 07:03 PM

john irving- the US used to have forest all over. some states were pretty much completely forest.

also, this is an interesting article: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/es18/docs/Ruddiman_article.pdf
it argues that humans have been altering climate since the start of agriculture and deforestation, but that since the industrial revolution our impact has grown exponentially. he even asserts that had we not impacted climate through agriculture, we would have had a miniature ice age. theres other interesting stuff there too.

Posted by ujedujik at April 15, 2006 12:08 AM

"At the timescale being discussed, climate is a machine"

Sure, an extremely complex stochastic machine being approximately descibed by enormous self consistent computational codes. And unlike orbital mechanics, some of the "perturbations" are still not well understood/modeled.

My experience with this type of "science" is that it requires a lot of tweeks. Usually with the solution you want in mind. This works best when you can compare the solution to a natural phenomena that is already well measured, then you can back fit your results and possibly derive some new knowledge from it by examining the causal factors inside the code. When used in a predictive way, it is not particularly accurate and easily susceptible to manipulation. It does have an advantage in that Joe Average seems to think that anything that drops out of a computer model must be correct.

Hence the apocalytic scare scenario results which so often pop up in the European press from various modelers. They get their names in the paper and perhaps tenure from their highly useful efforts to keep the gas taxes coming in and the foreign oil balance of payments down for their grateful governments.

Personally, for reasons wholy separate from GW, I'd prefer the more direct solution as suggested by Jerry Pournelle. Build 100 1000MW reactors and be done with it. If it were understood from the get go that we aren't going the "less is more" route, the debate (the GW debate, anyway) would suddenly become much more reasoned and scientific.

Viva Chris Landsea!

Posted by K at April 15, 2006 01:39 AM

So called climate sceptics say that it's all political propaganda disguised as science. To me the sceptics themselves more often seem precisely that. Not always. There are historical scientific "paradigms" that have been generally accepted but later proven wrong, but that doesn't make everything just dismissable.

If scientists discover some unpleasant things about this world and those things warrant some actions, it's understandable and also regrettable that some political factions that find those actions very unpleasant, like to say that those scientists are wrong, that those things don't exist.

Sure, there are a lot of crackpots on both sides saying all kinds of things. Some environmentalists jump to conclusions attributing every disaster to climate change, some ultra-rightwing nuts claim everybody is just Bush basher leftist propaganda. That doesn't bring any useful discussion, it just makes the talkers look like idiots.

But the factual physical world doesn't care about opinions or journalism or fairness in opinions. Climate change caused by humans exists or doesn't exist in whatever form regardless of all that.

Roughly speaking, even if the probability of it being true is less than 80%, but it's consequences would be devastating (sea level rise by multiple meters, agricultural changes, diseases, extinctions, whatnot), isn't the expected value of harm still huge? And warrant action?

The same people here propose asteroid watching and deflection missions, even if the risk of collision is much smaller. Why? Because still, if the unlikely happens, the effects can be devastating.

You can never reach 100% certainty and often you act on very uncertain data.

And Kyoto protocol at last. What's so bad about it? I've heard USA already does internal emissions trading in other pollutants than CO2. That makes things more efficient and also gives the freedom to choose the way how to mitigate pollution. For example, in my country, we are building nuclear power. Kyoto didn't prevent that, it actually encouraged it.

Posted by meiza at April 15, 2006 05:21 AM

Well, here we go again. Some people want to keep on sucking up all the fossil fuels, and wasting most of it, and some others would rather they didn't.

Item: The Earth's homoeostatic processes are struggling, already, to keep the planet as cool as it is. The CO2 level in the atmosphere is about as low as it can get and still keep plants alive. Evidence; plants that can use lower levels of CO2 are taking over from less efficient ones. Source; James Lovelock's works.

Item: Methane production in the areas that used to be permafrost is increasing year by year for the simple reason that many of these areas aren't permafrost any more. Need I remind anyone that methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than co2 is?

Item: There are several areas of ocean floor where an entire ecology lives on methane clathrates. Best guesstimate is that 2 deg C rise in deep ocean temperature would cause a (probably sudden) massive release of this trapped methane.

Item: (from New Scientist sometime in March '06) The deposition of calcium carbonate in the shells of some phytoplankton is critically dependent on ocean surface water acidity, which is in turn affected by atmospheric co2. Simply put, if the co2 levels get high enough these plants will die, thus removing a carbon sink.

According to climate modelling, there seem to be five attractors in the climate space, one of which is totally stable, one of which is fairly stable, three of which are not.

1: Snowball Earth. If the planet gets here, only a massive change such as major volcanic eruptions will get it out.

2: Ice Age.

3: Current climate, more or less.

4: Warm world; Carboniferous Era is an example. Life abundant, very uncomfortable for humans.

5: Hothouse. Venus conditions or worse. Maybe worse, because water is also a greenhouse gas and Earth has considerably more. Conditions: 350 deg C, 90 atmospheres of almost pure CO2. Completely stable short of massive astroengineering projects.

We are conducting a planetary-scale uncontrolled experiment, the beneficaries of which are those who like wasting fossil fuels on (for example) cars that are three times as big and fuel-intensive as needed for almost any use. I cannot conceive of any possible use for a Humvee on city streets, for example, except as an example of conspicuous consumption.

The possible losers in this experiment? Anyone who lives less than about 30 metres above sea level. Or at worst, EVERYONE.

What price Texaco's profits if the ground their vaults are standing on is melting?

Posted by Ian Campbell at April 15, 2006 05:25 AM

It's stuff like this that keeps critical thinkers from just betting the farm that global warming is happening, man-made, and can be prevented.

Where does 80% come from? Is there some research that says if only 80% of our fears are true, then global warming is real? Or, is such a tolerance arbitrary?

Sea level rising is a hypothesis. Large scale tests on the hypothesis are very inconclusive. Water level is affected by many variables, and 1 happens to be temperature.

Agriculturual changes: In the 1930's, we had the great Dust Bowl. Certainly that's evidence that man can effect his environment. In the 2000's, the area effected has been recovered for several decades. I'd say this suggests a localized rather than global effect.

Diseases/Extinctions: Mutation in DNA has been occurring for billions of years. We are just now able to track the movement of species world wide, and even that capability is limited to a small fragment of the total number of species. But let's bite into this a bit more...
We know that diseases are becoming less resistant to medicines. Is this because of man's over use of fossil fuels, or man's over use of anti-biotics? I'd say most Doctors would claim the latter, and if they are right, what would Kyoto have done to help the situation?

Posted by Leland at April 15, 2006 06:01 AM

Leland, your strawmen and non-sequiturs warrant no response.

Posted by meiza at April 15, 2006 06:30 AM

To paraphrase the post at Geek Press, there are two major questions: is the Earth warming, and is it entirely human agency at fault?

I do think there is warming. Mostly because other parts of the system (not just Mars, but Jovian moons. And those "two data points" Duncan mentioned have been expanded upon, including by optical-telescope observation) are warming. I am however willing to discount the warming of Pluto as a residual effect, similar to continued cooking of microwaved food for a moment after removal from the oven, of its closest approach to the sun. Also anecdotally, I contrast the winters I remember of the Fifties and Sixties with those of the Nineties an current decade.

So is it our fault? Doubtful. We may be contributing, but I cannot agree that without our contribution there would be no changes - nearly the only certain thing about climate is that it does change. And if I did, I certainly would not be blaming the US popularity of SUV's: more likely, I would be protesting about things like the current and rapidly expanding output of pollutants in places like India and China, which are trying to upgrade their infrastructure to provide better standards of living. Nor can I bring myself to endorse the "scientists" who deny the Medieval Warm and/or the Little Ice Age ever happened while also refusing to disclose their own methodology and thus ensure their work cannot be replicated or (according to them) challenged.

Posted by John Anderson at April 15, 2006 09:05 AM

"john irving- the US used to have forest all over. some states were pretty much completely forest."

ujedujik, you excel at repreately being wrong.

The Great Plains and the Desert Southwest were neither forested prior to the arrival of man to the North American continent.

The Great Plains are and were a grasslands like the Sanvannah or the Russian Steppes.

Your statement is purely ignorant and assisnie.

Posted by at April 15, 2006 10:11 AM

"Leland, your strawmen and non-sequiturs warrant no response."

In other words when you can't produce an intelligently rebuttal, just be smugly righteous instead! Eh meiza?

Posted by at April 15, 2006 10:15 AM

> For someone who's supposedly being "censored," Hansen
> has certainly been making a lot of speeches lately.

Hansen is a Democratic activist who's been complaining about Republicans "censoring" him since 1989.

The most famous example was in 2004, when the Bush Administration "censored" him by refusing to pay for a trip to Iowa to speak on behalf of candidate John Kerry.

Posted by at April 15, 2006 12:55 PM

Global warming on Mars is attested to not by "two data points," but by thousands. There have been over 10,000 filar-micrometer and red light CCD measurements of Mars' north polar cap taken over the past 40 years, and they show that it has been shrinking. See "Global Warming on Mars," a post over on Arcturus dated last August 13, which I can't provide a link to because Rand no longer allows direct links to anything on Bl*gSp*t.

Getting back to the original point, I would refine Paul's list as follows - we should act, by which I mean take whatever measures the situation requires, not merely confine ourselves to addressing CO2 emissions, as follows:

If climate change is occurring;

If that change will significantly affect human existence;

In such a way as to first address the portion of that change driven by human activities;

In recognition of the likely amplitude of technological advance over the next century; and

In recognition that the past 8,000 years has been a period of unusual stability, and extraordinary measures may be required to maintain that stability.

Meanwhile, there is not one SUV on Mars. Not one Evil Oil Company. Not one neo-conservative Jewish policymaker plotting Bad Things. But the north polar cap has been shrinking for 40 years (21 Martian years). How can that be?

Posted by Jay Manifold at April 15, 2006 02:15 PM

Jay Manifold presents a superb post.

If climate change is occurring; If that change will significantly affect human existence; In such a way as to first address the portion of that change driven by human activities; In recognition of the likely amplitude of technological advance over the next century; and In recognition that the past 8,000 years has been a period of unusual stability, and extraordinary measures may be required to maintain that stability.

Homo sapiens evolved during a remarkable period of climatic stability. If that period is coming to an end (whether by human CO2 or that Russian theory about Tunguska or by increases in the solar flux or intervention by the Flying Spaghetti Monster) we need to figure it out.

Too many nations have nukes to just say "We'll be fine, bleep everyone else"

Posted by Bill White at April 15, 2006 02:51 PM

"40 years of [...] red light CCD measurements"

Jay,
Given CCDs only date back to the mid-seventies, and have only been used widely in astronomy since the eighties, I have a problem with that statement. A radical transition in measurement methods always requires careful investigation. The other problem with terrestrial observations is factoring change in the Earth's atmospheric composition. Colour me unimpressed. Can you cite a paper? Or an abstract? Excuse me for not taking a second hand account of a talk in a blog post as irrefutable evidence of solar system wide solar forcing (which, of course, has been nearly continually tracked from space using similarly configured instruments since 1980).
And I've never heard of John's Jovian moon claim - not in the peer reviewed literature, or at the last seven LPSC's or AGU meetings. They are big conferences though.

However, even if there is a trend on Mars, it matters not that there are not SUV's on Mars. There are massive dust storms that vary tremendously on an interannual basis. There are significant changes in obliquity, far larger in amplitude than Earth's, on the tens of thousand year basis.

As Rand is want to remind us - correlation is not causation.

And the physics of CO2 and CH4 infrared absorption is very simple. And current levels are way higher that anything seen in the last 400, 000 years. Again, the onus is on the "skeptics" to explain how dumping much of the crust's reduced carbon reservoir, accumulated over the entire Phareozoic, into the atmosphere in a geological instant is not going to significantly affect global climate.

Posted by Duncan Young at April 15, 2006 04:18 PM

I think the biggest problem with Kyoto is that it attempts to replace real economic exchange with a gun to the head.

OK, as I understand it, Global warming is happening. Humans may (probably) have a large impact on it. Europe has a high probability of becoming a desert due to Global warming (Europe's weather is highly dependant on ocean currents) - the US will be largely uneffected (ocean currents do not modify Chicago weather by that much - and a lot of our land is uncomfortably cold right now). Looks like Europe may be in trouble.

The Europe solution: let's get the US to agree to harm itself for the possibility of helping Europe. Some USians agree, most are ambivilent.

A smarter Europe solution, taking into account the nature of humans: let's pay Texaco $100M if the US reduces emmissions by 10%. Now Texaco will spend up to $100M to reduce emmissions.

I can see the appeal to Europe of the first option, but it is the same appeal of having jobs that you simply cannot be fired from. It is the appeal of assuming that human nature only applies to yourself.

Posted by David Summers at April 15, 2006 10:14 PM

Duncan

You missed the AND in the statement about CCD's.

Also, you might want to recheck the IPCC website. CH4 concentrations have leveled off in the past few years.

Also, you might want to check the IPCC website about temperatures. We still have not reached the temperatures of the midevil warm period much less the Holocene maximum of 8000 years ago. Interestingly, ocean levels were about 1 meter higher at about that time.

Also, you might want to run some calculations on the observed increase in solar irradiance since the year 1900. It equals about 0.1% of the total solar flux of 1358 watts/m2 or about 1.38 watts average. Interestingly enough the CO2 related climate forcing is estimated at this time to be about 1.5 watts/m2. Interestingly if you look at the error bars the two numbers are indistinguishable from each other.

It is clear that temperature is influenced by solar irradiance, Milankovitch cycles, as well as CO2, CH4 and H20 (vapor) concentrations with H20 being a greater contributor than CO2. Why is it that we don't talk about H2O and its role?

Warming may be real but it is far from established that it is antroprogenic in nature.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Wingo at April 15, 2006 10:36 PM

"If scientists discover some unpleasant things about this world and those things warrant some actions, it's understandable and also regrettable that some political factions that find those actions very unpleasant, like to say that those scientists are wrong, that those things don't exist."

That statement presupposes that all scientists are of pure noble virtue, interested only in seeking Truth, wherever it lies. The history of science itself belies this. When acceptance of "theories" reaches a certain tipping point in scientific circles, they take on an independent dogma almost religious in nature. New evidence shaking those theories takes decades, sometimes, to gain acceptance. A lot of mainstream scientists will spend their entire careers and protect their grant streams defending their pet status quo.

In the 20th and 21st centuries, I would posit that the greatest threat to scientific Truth is all the government and large corporate funding streams that potentially corrupt the process. If certain "findings" will increase that funding stream, as opposed to findings that go counter to the political winds, one must admit, with that amount of money and one's career options at stake, the temptation must be there.

Just the posts here indicate anthropocentric global warming theory is a hot potato. I always try to follow the money. Who paid for the research, who stands to benefit from the results?

I'm not saying the entire system is corrupt - but if the temptation is there and the grants are big enough, human nature will be what it is. Plus otherwise obscure researchers get their names in the newspapers and get photo-ops with prominent pols.

Posted by T at April 16, 2006 04:46 AM

the US used to have forest all over.

Right. When the dinosaurs roamed.

As in, a vastly warmer planet.

Posted by McGehee at April 16, 2006 07:03 AM

Homo sapiens evolved during a remarkable period of climatic stability.

And outlasted the neanderthals by being better able to adapt to changing global climate.

Posted by McGehee at April 16, 2006 07:04 AM

Dennis,
You missed the AND in the statement about CCD's.
I didnt - that's why I mentioned radical changes in measurment methods.

CO2 verses solar forcing:
Both are in models of climate change - and their effects are distinguisable by their latitudinal patterns.

CO2 verses water:
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are regulated at timescales of hundreds of years - H2O on timescales of hours to days. One controls climate - the other is basically restricted to weather.

Posted by Duncan Young at April 16, 2006 09:35 AM

'the onus is on the "skeptics" to explain how dumping much of the crust's reduced carbon reservoir, accumulated over the entire Phareozoic, into the atmosphere in a geological instant is not going to significantly affect global climate'

No Duncan, the onus is on the Global Warming true believers to prove that increasing CO2 levels are a problem that require a draconian and economically damaging "solution" like Kyoto. Proving a negative is logically impossible and therefore an invalid question. But is typical of watermelons to try and slither out of doing the hard work by trying to dump the responsibility of proof on the skeptics. Extraordinary claims require proof; so far human-cause GW doesn't even have ordinary proof.

Posted by at April 16, 2006 10:46 AM

> The CO2 level in the atmosphere is about as low as it can get and still keep plants alive.

What?

Posted by Andy Freeman at April 16, 2006 02:52 PM

Mister/Miss " ",

Your talk of "proof" would seem to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the scientific method. Fundamentally, one disproves hypothesis by examining their predictions. There is no scientific fact that has been 100% demonstrated as the One and Only Truth. This is how science is able to advance. However, as it seems some require gospel Truth as the only advice on policy decisions (while taking economic speculation as engraven of stone tables), science can do them no good.

Andy:
Solar luminosity is increasing over geological time as hydrogen is consumed in the core. The Earth responds to this forcing by taking CO2 out of the atmosphere through chemical weathering (which is temperature dependent). As CO2 is returned through volcanism at a fairly constant rate, the Earth's is able to respond to long period fluctuations in temperature. Breakdowns in this regulation cycle are what is behind the Snowball Earth idea. However, the timescale for this process is thought to be millions of years - although I am going to see a talk next Friday that will propose that it also controls glacial/interglacial concentrations of CO2 - still thousands of years too long to mitigate anthropogenic green house gas emissions.

Posted by Duncan Young at April 16, 2006 06:31 PM

Duncan Says

CO2 verses solar forcing:
Both are in models of climate change - and their effects are distinguisable by their latitudinal patterns.

_________________________

References please. It is a fact, as shown on the IPCC's own website that solar irradiance has increased by 0.1% since 1900.

That is a total planetary dose of solar energy increased by 1.38 watts/m2. I think that what you are talking about is the Milankovitch forcing that is latitudinally based (variation in obliquity is the big one there and then precession). Latitudinally based variations are not part of the variation in eccentricity, which is the major driver on 110,000 year scales that couples to precession and oblquity variation. Read the graduate text "Paleoclimatology" as well as google Milankovitch for more details.

What I am talking about is an increase in the Sun's output in the optical band. That is a totally separate discussion.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Duncan says

_______________

Huh? The total amount of H2O in the air yes varies on short timescales of course and that is weather. However, with increased temperature you get increased H20 in the air. Consult any temperature versus vapor pressure curve for evaporation that you want. With that increased vapor H20 you get more clouds, which cause a negative feedback with respect to solar radiation. This is what has recently been detected with the apparant increase in lunar albedo since earlier in the 20th century.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Wingo at April 16, 2006 10:50 PM

Duncan

You really need to read more about solar luminosity variations.

Here is a recent one by Duke University.

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html

It is well known that the Maunder minimum of the 1600's was a major factor in the Little ice age. Sunspots have been increasing in intensity for the last several solar cycles compared with previous centuries.

The Sun of course has a lot to do with climate.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Wingo at April 16, 2006 10:55 PM

Dennis,
Re: water vapor - dont be confusing absolute and relative humidity now. Its the former that increases as the result of warming, and effect infrared absorption - its the latter that controls precipitation and clould formation. Warmer temperatures increase the ability of the air to hold water vapor, and don't necessarily lead to increace precipitation. The average water vapor concentration ends up being controlled by the longer term forcings ie solar, albedo and CO2.

And of course Milankovitch cycles have a big impact on climate, as do solar luminosity variations - it was a collapse in luminousity in the late fifties that was behind the brief global cooling scare of the 70's (which, incidentally, very rarely made it through peer-review). However, we can't rely on solar variations to bail us out of anthropogenic warming, and for the next 30,000 years, Milankovitch cycles can't either - we have entered a long epoch of warm northern winters. The observed solar forcing is, of cource included in all models of recent global temperatures and cannot explain the ninetes alone.

I may have misspoke on the latitudinal trend - although it does come out of the distribution of land on Earth. Greenhouse warming should be concentrated over land as that is where most of the infrared reemission is concentrated.

Posted by Duncan Young at April 17, 2006 09:15 AM

Post a comment