The Global Warming Mystery

Although there are still a few scientists who think the planet will be cooling soon, there's a huge and growing body of evidence that the temperature is headed in the opposite direction: up.  If it is, the next questions are, in this order:

• Why is the globe warming?
• What should we do about it?

My interest in science doesn’t mean I’m an expert in climate science, so I have to rely on the evidence and arguments of others before I can draw any informed conclusions.  I do believe that our technological capabilities will be a big factor in the solution, as I mentioned in this energy article—but before we can commit to a solution path, it would be a big help to know why the globe is warming, wouldn’t it? 

A large number of people already have their minds made up; not only are they convinced they know “why,” but they also know “what we should do about it”: we humans are causing it, and the solution is centrally planned and enforced controls on the human activity and technologies that cause it.  That message is getting such wide coverage, I wouldn’t be surprised if a majority of the general public agreed with it. 

But if there is a majority, it doesn’t include me yet.  Reason: I’m not so sure the “Why” question is settled.  In fact, in the mainstream media, I think I’m detecting something Thomas Jefferson warned about:

The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory.

The famous physicist and Nobel laureate Richard P. Feynman gave us a similar admonishment:

For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.

Scientific truths are not determined by popular vote or opinion polls.  They are determined by testing theories against observations.  The book depicted at the top of this article has an interesting title, and an even more interesting subtitle: Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years , by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery.  I’m only partway through it, but wanted to get this posted in case you wanted to see a plausible alternative to the “greenhouse” theory for explaining why the planet is warming: the 1,500-year climate cycle, discovered recently by three European scientists (Willi Dansgaard, Hans Oeschger, and Claude Lorius).  Here’s the opening paragraph:

The earth is warming, but physical evidence from around the world tells us that human-emitted CO2 (carbon dioxide) has played only a minor role in it.  Instead, the mild warming seems to be part of a natural 1,500-year climate cycle (plus or minus 500 years) that goes back at least one million years.

I’m going to withhold judgment on the “Why” question; I need to see the rest of the evidence and arguments in this book.  Until we know why the globe is warming, we won’t know what to do about it.  (Example of an unanswered question: Is increased CO2 causing the globe to warm, or is the naturally warming globe causing CO2 levels to rise?)  When I see new evidence and theories like the one this book lays out, I become a bit more skeptical about the “greenhouse” theory to which so many others have already committed.  As the authors say, if it’s really the 1,500-year cycle that’s causing the warming . . .

. . . then public policy must focus instead on adaptations—such as efficient air conditioning and building dikes around low-lying areas like Bangladesh. 

Seems to me the 1500-year cycle theory should be getting more exposure and debate time from those truly interested in “settling the science.”  Maybe this new book will help liven up the discussion. 

Comments

[Splashman]

Thanks for a (unsurprisingly) reasonable approach to this issue, Steve.

The Goracle and His sycophants scare me almost as much as radical Muslims. Both are scary, but the radical GW fanatics are much more likely to have a direct effect on my life.

[Kevin]

I've been a science junkie since I was knee high to a grasshopper, and I recall talking about this new theory of global warming back in the mid-1980s.

I find all this talk of the "science is settled" to be hugely disturbing. The whole concept is bizarre -- science by definition doesn't settle. Scientists don't talk like that: they argue with each other instead. I've never heard any other school of scientific thought being called "settled" -- not relativity, not evolution, not quantum mechanics.

I've certainly never heard political columnists compelled to compare Big Bang-deniers (of which there are many) to "holocaust deniers", or heard calls to criminalize the denial of plate tectonics. I'm becoming more and more of a skeptic just to piss people off.

[Jimmy the Dhimmi]

The problem is that efficient air-conditioning and constructing dykes, as well as any other poverty reducing, industrial development will emit large amounts of CO2 in the process.

If the warming enthusiasts have their way, the 3rd world will simply have to deal with the misery they encounter now, although they wouldn't have to worry about an extra day or two of summer ever year (that is, if the CO2 is to blame for said warming).

[UltraViolet]

Great that you have maintained your skeptical and optimistic views towards the greenhouse theory too. I can only wish that you remain consistent in your attitude and give the same treatment to any alternative theories, to me that 1,500-year cycle talk sounds a lot like hand waving and a desperate attempt to milk the scary-issue-of-the-day.

Personally I see that the positives attached to CO2 emissions are worth any trouble that might come from the warming climate. None of the solutions proposed around here (Eurolandia) make too much sense, but less pollution is always a good thing and most production is moving to China anyways so regulation probably won't cause too much damage.

The climate warming phenomenon is really interesting in so many ways, from the psychological guilt and pay -social issue, the science, politics and so on. Definitely worth studying.

[Devin]

The only people who are guaranteed to be untrustworthy in this debate are those who claim the debate is over and that the science is resolved.

[Ben]

"...the solution is centrally planned..."

Leaving the "cause" issue aside, do you really think of carbon trading as centrally planned?

Hypothetically, if we all agreed that carbon emissions were a significant problem, then we could agree that only a certain amount of carbon emissions could be allowed. If we agreed on that, then wouldn't a cap and trade system be ideal? Wouldn't a market based allocation of emission opportunities be the least "centrally planned" solution?

-Ben

[FhnuZoag]

"The only people who are guaranteed to be untrustworthy in this debate are those who claim the debate is over and that the science is resolved."

Oh, way to totally miss the point. The point is this: no scientific issue is every resolved, as science is always progressing. The lesson: It is irrational to ask that the science be resolved (as in that statement) and the debate be over before you act.

It's irrelevant and meaningless to pick on people who are using 'resolved' to mean 'resolved to sufficiently high certainty to act', and it's fallacious to play semantical switcheroo with definitions of proof.

[PseudoNoise]

http://realclimate.org/ is -the place- to go for scientific discussion of global warming issues (much like http://www.pandasthumb.org/ for evolution).

As a science-minded individual, I find the above resource invaluable.

Googling for Fred Singer turned up:
Most dizzying turn-around of a climate skeptic:
Fred Singer "global warming is not happening" (1998,2000, 2002, 2005) to global warming is "unstoppable" (2006)

It's fine to be a skeptic, but I prefer to put more credence in the positions of those who have been proven right more often than wrong.

[muirgeo]

Both are scary, but the radical GW fanatics are much more likely to have a direct effect on my life.

Posted by: Splashman

People who think the results of peer reviewed science are scary....scare me. I'm guessing radical Muslims are more likely not to be concerned with Global warming either because they don't believe in science and put all their trust in their God.

We live in a technologically driven and dependent society. If nothing else the global warming issues tells me we need to teach more science.

[Jimmy the Dhimmi]

Previewing your Comment
CO2 comprises an average of about 0.28% of our atmosphere, and has increased by a factor of of 0.3 over the past 200 years of industrialization.

Meanwhile, water vapour fluctuates between 0 and 4% of the total atmosphere and varies widely from region to region. In addition, water vapor can absorb more than 3000 times the solar radiation and convert it to heat per volume of CO2. Also, water vapor that crystalizes in the upper atmosphere to form clouds can reflect radiation.

The haphazzard nature of the accumulated greenhouse effect of H2O, which even over dry regions, completely dwarfs the CO2 effect, leads me to believe that something other than atmospheric gasses is the major contributor to the current warming trend.

[muirgeo]

Darn. My original post didn't go through. Definitely I'm better at science then economics.

I know the peer reviewed science on this issue. With out reading Singers book I'm guessing his 1,500 year cycles refer to a paper by Keeling" intitle: "The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of Climate Change..."

It's not a good explanation for long term change because it adds no net influence to the forcing of climate.

Further, the best evidence that something is happening on a scale not seen in more then 5,000 years (much less 1,500 years) is visible to the naked eye.

There are multiple sites around the world that suggest the current warming is greater then anything in the past 5,000 years and that it may have already or will soon surpass the warmest climate human civilization has ever seen. Maybe the warmest climate the 100,000 year old species Homo sapien sapien has ever seen.

There is just no significant evidence for a natural forcing to explain the current warming. The most likely suspect, the Sun, has not significantly changed its output in 50 years and the warming is ongoing.

These sites I speak of include multiple areas worldwide where glaciers have melted back revealing 5,000 year old plant material ( tree trunks, moss and forbs). Very suggestive that the current warming is unprecedented in 5,000 years.

Also the near loss of Mt Kilimanjaro's 7,000 year old ice cap and the multiple collapses of ice sheets know to be 3,000 or more years old is suggestive.

Arguing that increased CO2 won't warm the planet is like arguing gravity won't work tomorrow. The basic laws of physics on the issue are pretty straight forward.

Make fun of the Goracle if you wish. But he wrote a book on the issue in 1994 and since then the 10 warmest recorded years on Earth have occurred. That's not being precient (?sp)...that's being scientific.

[Steve]

to FhnuZoag:
Your ideas are welcome, but your profanity is not. Please consult a thesaurus for more acceptable nouns and adjectives. In the meantime, I will continue deleting offensive comments.

And before you comment again, please read this:
http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2006/11/new_policy_comm.html

[Ethyl Added]

Review at realclimate (or at least a review of an Avery talk on the book): http://tinyurl.com/ypxlpx

[Counter Revolutionary]

muirgeo, these kinds of arguments just amaze me: "These sites I speak of include multiple areas worldwide where glaciers have melted back revealing 5,000 year old plant material ( tree trunks, moss and forbs). Very suggestive that the current warming is unprecedented in 5,000 years."

All they show me is that the cycles exceed 5,000 years, and the longer the cycles the less impact of man.

Unprecedented in 10K or 20K or even 1,000K? Now what?

[smess]

I have deliberately stayed away from studying the global warming issue because of how it has been so politicized in the past ten years, so I am no expert and have no scientific basis for arriving at any conclusions one way or the other. Having said that, I have about 48 years of memory and have lived continuously within 10 miles of where I was born and raised in northeast United States.

During my lifetime, I have seen no anecdotal evidence of anything resembling a change in the climate patterns in my area. We have had cold winters, warm winters, snowy winters, and dry winters. We have had both wet and dry summers, and some summers that have been somewhat cool, and some where the hottest temperatures in the summer have touched 100 degrees. In college in the early 1970's, I did an undergraduate report that was based on a Scientific American article that said we were on the verge of a 10,000 year global cooling cycle. This article was followed up by a popular Reader's Digest article in 1974, I believe, with the same result. I have vacationed every summer on the same stretch of Rhode Island seashore since 1966, which has not changed one bit, although there were times when the water eroded the sand, and the shoreline was then built back up over the next few years.

I have yet to see palm trees growing in my area. As a counterpoint, there are now moose, bear, and coyote here, none of which I ever saw when I was a kid. Due to global warming, or cooling, or perhaps, a cleaner environment?

I am most skeptical when the baseline argument for or against global warming results in the redistribution of billions of dollars (Kyoto), or the heavy taxation that will be imposed to regulate and administer solutions. Politicians have a knack for completely distorting the facts, when it means an extra billion or two dollars for their districts.

I have spent my entire adult life evaluating and checking on so-called facts in my line of business (which has nothing to do with meteorology, by the way). When justifying my positions to business owners, I must have my facts straight, or they will shoot me full of holes. I find it surprising how the global warming debaters, both for and against, are so loose with facts. The issues behind such facts, especially in the global warming debate, are incredibly complex, and I do not have the time in my own life, to do the requisite research to get to the bottom of the arguments.

Until then, I trust my anecdotal observations and have yet to see anything that resembles warming or cooling.

[Opinionated Vogon]

Steve,

I ran across this summary of G.W. today and think you might enjoy it.
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html All in a Good Cause

[Ariah]

By all means, read Fred Singer's book (new ideas are always interesting), but I must admit I doubt its veracity. Cycle concepts I've encountered plenty of, but 1,500 year cycles seem pretty silly. Why not at least pick something consistent with the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age?

[Robert Schwartz]

The missing question is whether warming is bad for us. The parade of horribles suggested by Gore et. al. is not very impressive.

Polar bears? Oh come on. They are bears, they can and will eat anything.

Bangladesh? It would be cheaper to build dikes than to de-industrialize the rest of the world.

Malaria? It is not really a tropical disease. It was present in temperate climes until we learned how to drain swamps (what they now call ecologically sensitive wet-lands).

As Bjorn Lomborg pointed out to Congress, which ignored him because he is not a movie star, cold is far more dangerous than hot.

We can adapt to warm weather and so can the natural world, it will be cheaper and more responsive to put air-conditioners and screens in European apartments than it will be to shut down industrial civilization.

Check out Prof Lomborg's web site before you panic:

www.copenhagenconsensus.com

[Counter Revolutionary]

Part of the problem, as I see it, is the arrogance of man. Ariah, don't mean to pick on you but am only using your comment as an example. Ariah said: "Why not at least pick something consistent with the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age?"

Why pick man attested cycles when we have ample evidence of 40-50K ice age cycles.

No human influence and still the planet warmed. Several times.

[muirgeo]

All they show me is that the cycles exceed 5,000 years, and the longer the cycles the less impact of man.

Posted by: Counter Revolutionary

The evidence I presented says nothing about cycles. You've simply assumed it must be a cycle with no basis for your assumption. The evidence does suggest it is warmer now then it has been for over 5,000 years which makes it anomalous for human civilization. This evidence is also consistent with the theory of anthropogenic warming.

Your position is as if you have a line up of suspects to a crime. One witness identifies one suspect as being seen around the crime seen. The other suspects all have good alibis. Then you conclude there must be some other suspect aka "cycle" even thought you have no evidence or other witnesses making such a claim.

The question is what is it about the current suspect that you don't want to prosecute? Maybe some convoluted connection between the suspect and some ones faulty economic ideology? I donno just speculating.

[muirgeo]

The missing question is whether warming is bad for us. The parade of horribles suggested by Gore et. al. is not very impressive.

www.copenhagenconsensus.com

I look at it from the other end. The missing question is whether fixing the problem is bad for us. The parade of horribles suggested by the old school economist is not very impressive.

For about what we spend in Iraq in 2-3 months we could likely fund a massive program for alternative energy.

Likely outcomes:

High capacity storage energy devices that will charge in minutes and run a car hundreds of miles.

Similar units for the home.

Advantages;

1) Huge technology boom just like the government created when it brought forth the atomic bomb, the Apollo project,computers and the internet.

2) Massive secondary economic expansion resulting in the new technology.

3) Non centralized power sources freeing people to make their own energy independent of multinational corporations and Muslim countries harboring resentful terrorist.

4) Cleaner air

5) Minimized impacts from climate change

6) Independence of Middle Eastern Oil.

7) ANWR untouched for thousands more years

8) Prosperity to third world countries now able to generate electricity efficiently.

Not responding risks our future and keeps us subservient to multinational corporations and Middle Eastern energy sources.

I look these economic nay sayers and I think man what ever happen to Americans holding themselves to a higher standard? What ever happen to the "Can-Do-Attitude" of the Americans? Since when were Americans so comfortable being so dependent on others?

The idea that the solutions to global warming will kill our economy are far more suspect then the said consensus of the IPCC...IMO.

I have suggested a response that has merit regardless of the global warming issue. Many seem to pooh-pooh such ideas out of hand. To which I ask why the defeatist attitude? Did the Manhattan Project fail? Did the Apollo Project fail?

Is a technology boom that leads to energy independence and more individual freedom from multinational corporations and Middle East Oil not a noble goal in and of itself?

This is something that will HAVE to happen as the Earths oil supply is not endless and certainly no amount of drilling up our beautiful country would ever return us to oil independence.

The biggest reason not to fund a Manhattan like energy project is if you are an Oil company sitting on trillions of dollars of profit to be made with out lifting a finger. Do you think the oil companies really don't care if high efficiency capacitor driven cars are successfully created? Do you think the coal lobby likes these ideas?

Many fear people like me wanting to supposedly set up an all controlling government. I want nothing of the sort and I'd suggest the kind of control many fear already exist in the names of companies like Exxon Mobile and Haliburton ect...

So again why the defeatist attitude? Why the complacency of our dependency on Exxon and Arabs?

[Devin]

"Oh, way to totally miss the point. The point is this: no scientific issue is every resolved, as science is always progressing. The lesson: It is irrational to ask that the science be resolved (as in that statement) and the debate be over before you act."

You misunderstand. As you say, science is always progressing. There will never be a consensus and the debate will never be over. Therefore, the only people who are not trustworthy in this debate are those who claim otherwise.

As far as acting on the whims of the latest scientific catch-phrase, I'm not sure what you are expecting people to do. Especially when those who cry the loudest seem to be unwilling to sacrifice their own lifestyles for the cause.

[Bob]

I have no credentials in science whatsoever. However, I have studied manias and this is a big one. I won't debate whether is is good or bad to spew burnt fossil fuel into the air. I'll concede that if we had our druthers we wouldn't do it.

But, I digress. My main peeve with this whole thing is the prevailing behavior. Challenge any assumption and one gets hammered by the Goreites and the other PC nuts. This is PC mania at its' best.

Al wants to ban incandescent bulbs. Al never had to pay his way for anything. Why can't these former politcos just go away and swing on a porch or something?

[Jon]

muirgeo said -

I look at it from the other end. The missing question is whether fixing the problem is bad for us.

I respond -

With respect, you're skipping at least one very important step - that is, you first need to determine there is a problem that needs "fixing".

Then you need to determine that the "fix" isn't worse than the original problem, but that's a whole other matter entirely.

muirgeo said -

For about what we spend in Iraq in 2-3 months we could likely fund a massive program for alternative energy.

Likely outcomes:

High capacity storage energy devices that will charge in minutes and run a car hundreds of miles.

Similar units for the home.

I respond -

Sorry, but the most likely outcome - especially if you're talking about massive GOVERNMENT (tax-financed, congressionally set-up) investment as opposed to private-sector investment - is that we will have poured billions of dollars into technologies that will never, ever come close to doing what you suggest they will do - though it will feed a great many academic researchers and (to a much lesser degree) their armies of graduate students.

muirgeo said -

Is a technology boom that leads to energy independence and more individual freedom from multinational corporations and Middle East Oil not a noble goal in and of itself?

I respond -

Ah, the fear of "multinational corporations" - as if I'm supposed to embrace without question "multinational socialism" as embodied by the UN. No thanks.

Besides, what makes you think the multinationals won't get in on the "clean energy" business if they determine they can make a buck off of it? My fantasy is that Haliburton is the first to come up with said technology - I can then sit-back and watch peoples' heads explode.

And sure, there are plenty of perfectly sound reasons why pouring tons of gunk into the atmosphere (or waters, etc.) isn't a great idea. I'm totally on-board with that. And we should, to the extent it's practical, work toward cleaner energy generation technologies (nuclear comes to mind almost immediately, but I don't see many proposals for new nuke plants coming from the lips of Al Gore or his ilk).

That said the willingness, heck the demand of the AGW-phobics that we MUST bypass anything that remotely resembles a cost-benefit analysis of global warming "solutions" (such as Kyoto), or that any cost-benefit analysis that IS done doesn't seem to take into account the cost of keeping the third-world (over-)populated with poor, uneducated people who lead short, miserable lives is, to put it mildly, suspicious.

[Steve]

Vogon:
Almost forgot to thank you for that link; it was a good read. I hadn't heard about the data fudging (non-)scandal.

By the way, it looks like I underestimated the market penetration achieved to date: it's 83%, not just a majority.
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=reality_check_83_of_americans_now_say_gl&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1&ref=rss