From WSJ: There is no consensus on Global Warming

[Lyrima]

I don't know if I agree, or know enough to have an opinion.  Wondering about our collective wisdom on this.

****************************************


Article found here: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB115127582141890238-lMyQjAxMDE2NTIxNzIyNzc1Wj.html


WALL STREET JOURNAL online

There Is No 'Consensus'
On Global Warming


By RICHARD S. LINDZEN
June 26, 2006; Page A14




According to Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we're in for "a planetary emergency": melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes and invasions of tropical disease, among other cataclysms -- unless we change the way we live now.

Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for Mr. Gore's gospel, proclaiming that current weather events show that he and Mr. Gore were right about global warming, and we are all suffering the consequences of President Bush's obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over."

That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place.

The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim -- in his defense -- that scientists "don't know... They just don't know."

So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template -- namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.

They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why.

* * *
The other elements of the global-warming scare scenario are predicated on similar oversights. Malaria, claimed as a byproduct of warming, was once common in Michigan and Siberia and remains common in Siberia -- mosquitoes don't require tropical warmth. Hurricanes, too, vary on multidecadal time scales; sea-surface temperature is likely to be an important factor. This temperature, itself, varies on multidecadal time scales. However, questions concerning the origin of the relevant sea-surface temperatures and the nature of trends in hurricane intensity are being hotly argued within the profession.

Even among those arguing, there is general agreement that we can't attribute any particular hurricane to global warming. To be sure, there is one exception, Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who argues that it must be global warming because he can't think of anything else. While arguments like these, based on lassitude, are becoming rather common in climate assessments, such claims, given the primitive state of weather and climate science, are hardly compelling.

A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended -- at least not in terms of the actual science.

A clearer claim as to what debate has ended is provided by the environmental journalist Gregg Easterbrook. He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.

There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatsoever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas -- albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system. Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected.

Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change, this task is currently impossible. Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with surprising impact. Thus, although the conflicted state of the affair was accurately presented in the 1996 text of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the infamous "summary for policy makers" reported ambiguously that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." This sufficed as the smoking gun for Kyoto.

The next IPCC report again described the problems surrounding what has become known as the attribution issue: that is, to explain what mechanisms are responsible for observed changes in climate. Some deployed the lassitude argument -- e.g., we can't think of an alternative -- to support human attribution. But the "summary for policy makers" claimed in a manner largely unrelated to the actual text of the report that "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

In a similar vein, the National Academy of Sciences issued a brief (15-page) report responding to questions from the White House. It again enumerated the difficulties with attribution, but again the report was preceded by a front end that ambiguously claimed that "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability." This was sufficient for CNN's Michelle Mitchell to presciently declare that the report represented a "unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse and is due to man. There is no wiggle room." Well, no.

More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.

Even more recently, the Climate Change Science Program, the Bush administration's coordinating agency for global-warming research, declared it had found "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." This, for Mr. Easterbrook, meant: "Case closed." What exactly was this evidence? The models imply that greenhouse warming should impact atmospheric temperatures more than surface temperatures, and yet satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979. The report showed that selective corrections to the atmospheric data could lead to some warming, thus reducing the conflict between observations and models descriptions of what greenhouse warming should look like. That, to me, means the case is still very much open.

* * *
So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.

First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists -- especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce -- if we're lucky.

Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

[Syllestrae]

WSJ is notoriously pro-Republican.  It's one step below quoting Bill O'Reilly

Educating yourself is a good thing, but I'd recommend either finding a less biased source, or tempering that w/ some articles from the other side of the aisle as well.

- Syll

[Bindi]

Being a scientist, and having actually looked into the science around global warming, I've got to say that the answer lies somewhere in between the "OH MY GOD WE ARE KILLING THE EARTH" attitude and the "Eh, we haven't affected the earth at all" attitude.

From what I've read, I believe that most of the warming (if you can even call it that...there are places where the ice sheets are growing, no discernable temp raise in the upper atmosphere, etc) is due to a natural ebb and flow effect that the earth is going through. There were ice ages in the past. There were ages where almost everything was tropical in the past. Why think that just because WE are here now, the earth's natural flow will cease?

HOWEVER, we just don't know what all effects WE have on the earth. So I think in general, the take home message should be "do your part to live a more environmentally friendly life, just in case we ARE having a big impact" but keep in mind that humans are part of the ecosystem as well, and we have a right to live here and to prosper, just like any other species.

Species were going extinct long before we built the first car. Continents were moving, volcanos were erupting, hurricanes were hitting, meteors were falling. The earth is living and breathing.

[Dicey Reilly]

/agree Bindi.

What I have read regarding this subject is that climatologists do NOT agree with the accepted global warming gloom and doom prediction models.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can to conserve and limit our negative impacts on the environment, but natural causes are much more likely to be the cause of dramatic global changes.

Humans have an impact, but they are largely localized.  Temperatures increase in cities for example, but once you are a mile or so from that city, the temperature reverts back to its more natural state. 

I think one of the biggest problem that we humans have is our ego.  Everything, always has to be about us.

[Syllestrae]

The earth is a fairly complex machine, but a machine none the less.  And one of the variables in how the machine performs is the air chemistry.

One thing that affects the air chemistry is the amount of vegetation on the earth's surface, particularly trees.  I don't think there would be much debate over the fact that the amount of vegetation is on a decreasing trend (due in significant part to our population growth).

Another thing that affects the air chemistry is the amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere, through both natural and man-made sources.

While the amount of CO2 contribution by humans is small compared to that by natural sources (oceans, bogs, etc), I don't think it's rocket science to say that if globally we're damaging the earth's ability to transmute CO2 back into O2, that any reasonable actions we can take to reduce CO2 would be beneficial.

Given the technological advancements we've had over the last several years, I don't see anything standing in the way of cost-effective reduction in our CO2 emissions... except for political opposition from certain businesses and their lackeys in government.

- Syll

[Grimaldo]

I have no doubts that we humans as a society in whole have dramatically affected the environment.  Whether or not we're on a collision course with catastrophe remains to be seen.

Factoid:  Over the last 100 years the average temperature has increased 0.6 - 0.8 detgrees C. 

Factoid:  The amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface has actually decreased dramatically in some areas.  As much as 10 - 20% in some areas.  Why?  A phenomenon known as Global Dimming.  Airborne pollutant particles actually increase the cloud formation, essentially blocking the sun and reducing the amount of solar energy.

Factoid:  During the three days following September 11, 2001 all airplanes over the United States were grounded.  During those three days the average temperature range increased 2 - 3 degrees C.  (not just average temperature but the range of temps - a supposedly more accurate measure of the temperature's "pulse" so to speak)  Scientists believe the lack of air travel  reduced particulate pollution in the atomosphere temporarily alleviating the Global Dimming phenomenon.

I believe humans have changed the climate both with both Global Warming AND with Global Dimming.  Therefore we can't reduce one without reducing the other.  If we were to dramatically reduce particulate pollution we would reduce the effects of Global Dimming and accentuate the problem of Global Warming.  The reverse is also true:  if we dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emmissions, we'd reduce the Global Warming, but accentuate the Global Dimming effects if nothing was done about particulate pollution - essentially chilling out the earth just a bit. 

Doesn't really matter though.  Sometime in the future, all life on earth will be wiped out by a huge asteroid.   

If you're curious about the Global Dimming phenomenon, go here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

[Noa]

in the early nineties, i switched from auquanet hairspray to that aussie stuff in the purple bottle.  it came in a nonaerosal pump.

you can thank me later.

[DeeCaudill]

Maybe Mr. Lindzen has been compromised:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen

According to a 1995 Harper's article he was making $2500/day in consulting fees from energy interests.

I don't consider his opinion to be a sufficient excuse to stop worrying about our environmental impact on the world.  Then again, I'm not going to build a bomb shelter, stock it up with canned beans, and wait for the end of the world because of Al Gore either.

[Alirrin]

Then again, I'm not going to build a bomb shelter, stock it up with canned beans, and wait for the end of the world because of Al Gore either.

To be fair, I don't think Al Gore would want you to do that.  My impression is that he wants people to pressure their leadership to encourage development of alternate fuels and renewable resources, and to continue research into environmental impact.

[Bindi]

For an interesting read about alternate fuels, check out www.biofuels.com. It's a fairly unbiased look by a coop in NC that makes biodiesel from used veggie oil (like you'd get from the deep fryers at Mc'D's or whatever...my Kid's College 11-14 year olds just made biodiesel yesterday using old peanut oil that was used to cook a turkey! Yum!) and they list the pros and cons of using biodiesel. It's neat stuff, especially since you could make it in your back yard.

[Flann]

I could worry, and the temperature is still going to change, up or down. I can't stop it from happening, and no matter what we do, WE, humans, won't stop it.

Does anyone not realize that all this warmth comes from a huge nuclear explosion?  Who is to say how THAT sucker may fluctuate in the next 100,000 years. They can theorize that it is stable. That our orbit is stable. But internal conditions of the sun are, might it be said, impossible to measure. We see the effects. That's it. We can harp about CO2 levels until we go red in the face. We can stop using any advanced mechanical devices and live in caves. If the sun fluctuates a tiny bit, or something, anything, blocks more energy from getting here, our temp will change. No matter what hairspray we use.   

Our scientists cannot tell me what the temp will be tomorrow at 3 pm and know for sure. To allow these same people to tell me humans are having a measurable impact on the earths' temps is giving them too much credit. They are guessing, since it seems likely. I agree that it seems likely. But we cannot KNOW that we are causing anything. Some don't agree anyway. The whole system is way too complicated for us, right now.

So quit worryin. The world aint goin anywhere. The hype is for political reasons, anyone can see that.

*shrug*

Flann

[Noa]

We can stop using any advanced mechanical devices and live in caves.

but then we wouldn't have advanced mechanical devices to know if we were making any difference.   

[Lyrima]

WSJ is notoriously pro-Republican.  It's one step below quoting Bill O'Reilly

Oh. I didn't know that.

[Syllestrae]

Yeah, it's like how NY Times is notoriously liberal.

I hear the reporters from the two papers get in street brawls from time to time.

- Syll

[Alwynn]

Do they snap their fingers in time as they hop step there?

[DeeCaudill]

Rumble Rumble Rumble
Mutiny Mutiny Mutiny

(I suppose that pop-culture reference is too obscure...)

[Flann]

Yep, missed me completely.

Anyway, I look at this debate as similar to evolution vs creation, however the current way of wording that one is.

Without overwhelming evidence, such as an apple falling down and bapping you on the noggin, people will just get a gut feeling and go with it. It's hard to disprove a gut feeling without indisputable proof.

Flann

[PinkRose]

Is it really a pop reference if it refers to a 1949 movie?

[DeeCaudill]

I wasn't even thinking about the movie.  I was thinking about a Stan Freberg record.

[Anaris]

UGH, this topic always drives me bonkers because I've taken too many international environmental law classes in my department...  It gives me migraines and varicose veins just thinking about it...

I'll just stick to fashion...



Or, I can send you a 15-page research paper I wrote on the subject a couple of years ago, pre-Katrina....