RSS Feed MenuMy recent post advocated getting over Al-Goraphobia and looking at the science, not merely a polarizing political personality. Now it is time to lay out some data. The headlines give a confusing array of information. Are we really cooling? Is ice melting or expanding? It snowed the day Al Gore testified to Congress, does that mean anything?
The effect, perhaps by design, is to leave the reader thinking that nobody really knows what they are talking about. Confident only in confusion, the average American quickly moves on to “real” problems. However, as the wise author Dallas Willard states, “Descending to particulars always helps to clear the mind.”
Why, as a rational Republican, do I believe fighting global warming should be a high priority for our nation?
First, there is no doubt that global temperatures are generally warming. Recent claims that temperatures declined after 1998 are technically true, but recent years are still historically very, very hot. The graph below shows temperatures up to 2005 as it differs from the average for the entire period. The dots are the annual temperature points and the blue line is the smoothed trend-line. Every year since 2005 has been among the top 10 warmest years in thermometer recorded history. Amazingly, the entire top ten falls in the years since 1997.
As you can see, the “decline” trumpeted by some (the slight dip after 1998) is about as convincing as the recent “rise” in the stock market since its November low. Financially, we are still in a big bear market even if on some days the Dow is up 3%, and climatically we are still in a warming trend even if each and every consecutive year is not hotter than before.
Second, with solid science dating back to 1827, there is no debating that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas. And thank goodness it is. The greenhouse effect, fueled primarily by CO2 and water vapor, has produced a temperature range favorable for life.
But, the greenhouse effect can get out of control. The CO2 rich atmosphere of Venus blocks most solar radiation from making it to the surface, but that energy is then trapped by the greenhouse effect. The net impact is a temperature increase of 500 degrees C. Venus is nearly three times hotter than the thinly CO2 blanketed Mercury, even though Mercury is closer to the Sun.
There are a number of cycles that naturally affect the Earth’s temperature, related to the Earth’s axis wobbling, cycles within our orbit, sun spots, etc. Yet, through these cycles a clear correlation exists between CO2 and temperature. The interrelationship is complex and it is true that temperature can in certain situations “lead” and result in releases of CO2 from the carbon “sink” of the oceans. The full impact from a variety of positive and negative feedback loops is difficult to precisely estimate, but the basic theory that more CO2 helps trigger higher temperatures is quite sound.
Third, there is no doubt that CO2 levels have been rising since the industrial revolution. It is not hard to see why: tons and tons of carbon have been transferred by combustion from a solid (coal) or liquid (oil) or underground gas (natural gas) to atmospheric CO2.
The graph below captures the correlation between CO2 and temperature well. (Note: The pre-thermometer information is largely based on ice core analysis.) The graph also highlights the reason for concern. For hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 has ranged between about 180 and 300 parts per million (ppm). Currently we are at 385 ppm , and with each SUV trip to grocery store and new Chinese coal power plant we all contribute, in big and small ways, to a rapid rate of increase.
Frankly, no one knows what the future holds at 500 or 600 ppm, but we can surmise that it probably will not be good. Our societies have been built on a framework of climatic stability. Coastal cities expect the oceans to stay about where they are. African farmers expect the rains to come just as they did for their ancestors. South American kids expect that malarial mosquitoes will stay at lower elevations like they always have. But change is coming, and at a pace that is unprecedented in human history. Acting now can soften the blow.
In a nutshell, that is why I am concerned—for myself and all who will call Earth home in the future.
(Note: Some of the information in this post is taken from Global Warming: The Complete Briefing by Sir John Houghton, an atmospheric physicist who is also an evangelical Christian and former adviser to Margaret Thatcher.)
bigdaddy // Jan 31, 2009 at 9:41 pm
JJWFromME: So, when I point out that the graph in the article that implies that rises in C02 caused rises in temperature is misleading (read the words in the article that imply just that), you respond by saying that I am being misleading. You then site some url that uses words like “clearly allows for” to prove your point. They don’t seem too sure about what they are saying.
Let me get this straight, the earth’s temperature goes up, then 800 years later, C02 levels go up, then later, temperatures go down and then C02 levels go down 800 years later, and you are telling me that the C02 levels are the culprit in this saga. Why would temperatures fall with high C02 levels? Maybe, just maybe, there are other factors at work here. Maybe solar activity has more to do with earth temperatures than C02 levels. The earth has been much warmer (medieval warming period, holocene optimum, etc) long before man started producing CO2 emisions. It’s also been much cooler that it is in present times. What makes the climate we are enjoying now the “perfect climate”?
I know I can’t convince you to think outside the “we’re all gonna die, unless big government saves us” box, so this will be my last post. My mama told me never to argue about religion and that is what global warming alarmism has become.
JJWFromME // Feb 1, 2009 at 7:16 am
What the article I linked to says is that in the historical record (which is just one piece of evidence for climate change, among a number of them) CO2 can be both a cause and an effect of climate change. If the temperature goes up, more CO2 is released. And if CO2 is released (sometimes called a feedback effect), the temperature goes up further. And of course, CO2 is not the only cause of temperature fluctuations. So don’t mistake a description of something that’s somewhat complex as being “not too sure of what they’re saying.” Lastly, if small government can solve this problem, more power to it. The point is to be sane about the future, recognize a problem, and do something about it.
B.A.Borton // Feb 1, 2009 at 7:35 am
A correction to my previous post, ‘anthropogenic factors are insignificant’ – That statement should be interpreted as to my understanding how CO2 production by humans effect climate change. I do not want it to be interpreted as an endorsement of a lasafair (sp?) approach regarding detrimental environmental activities. I do agree however with Roger A. Pielke, Sr. (http://climatesci.org/) when he states:
‘The neglect of including the diversity of human climate forcings indicates that the real objective of those promoting the radiative effect of the addition of atmospheric CO2 as the dominate human climate forcing is to promote energy and lifestyle changes. Their actual goal is not to develop effective climate policies.’
JJWFromME // Feb 1, 2009 at 8:14 am
Well, as Obama said during his inaugural address, “we’re not going to apologize for our way of life.” But he also appointed physics Noble laureate Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy, who talked about manufacturers… assigning the job [of addressing problems] to the engineers, instead of to the lobbyists. (See my link below.) And as for people talking about other causes of warming other than greenhouse gases. You have to come up with actual persuasive evidence. As Naomi Oreskes put it: “As American geologist Harry Hess said in the 1960s about plate tectonics, one can quibble about the details, but the overall picture is clear.
Yet some climate-change deniers insist that the observed changes might be natural, perhaps caused by variations in solar irradiance or other forces we dont yet understand. Perhaps there are other explanations for the receding glaciers. But perhaps is not evidence.
The greatest scientist of all time, Isaac Newton, warned against this tendency more than three centuries ago. Writing in Principia Mathematica in 1687, he noted that once scientists had successfully drawn conclusions by general induction from phenomena, then those conclusions had to be held as accurately or very nearly true notwithstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined.
Climate-change deniers can imagine all the hypotheses they like, but it will not change the facts nor the general induction from the phenomena.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/24/opinion/oe-oreskes24
JJWFromME // Feb 1, 2009 at 8:31 am
And remember, it’s not *me* you have to persuade, it’s the actual scientists working in the field. Any discussion we have here is not relevant to that. This is where you get into the legacy, I think, of conservatives like Irving Kristol (who I mentioned below). It’s a permanent suspicion of the “New Class.” How the heck do you get things done in a complicated world when you have a set of people (some of them in the media) who have permanent resentments and suspicions against whole classes of professions?
gerrysh // Feb 1, 2009 at 6:43 pm
… and the hits just keep on coming …
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-%20says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/
sinz54 // Feb 1, 2009 at 6:47 pm
JJWFromME: It’s true, ordinary Americans always harbored deep suspicions of the Establishment, the banks, the “robber barons,” etc. But ordinary Americans used to take considerable pride in the achievements of their scientists and inventors. Americans were proud that Einstein made his home here; that our scientists developed the A-bomb first; that American astronauts walked on the moon first. What changed? Some of the advances of modern science have threatened not just our way of life but our entire civilization–nuclear destruction, chemical pollution, etc. And that’s triggered a backlash by folks who wonder if science isn’t digging into areas best left alone. Also, scientists started getting involved in political lobbying and political activism themselves, incurring the suspicions that Americans have traditionally had of being sold a political bill of goods. Groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists are just using their scientific knowledge to rationalize a doctrinaire left-wing agenda. Finally, the resurgence of Christian fundamentalism, which for centuries saw the scientific worldview as a philosophical threat to revelatory truth, has been counterattacking against Darwin’s theory of evolution and against advances in the social sciences.
JJWFromME // Feb 1, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Biologists, scientists, teachers, all permanently suspect, thanks to the stoked resentments from people who want to disguise a political debate as a scientific one: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/05/opinion/05krugman.html
B.A.Borton // Feb 1, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Lets see, an Op-Ed piece from the Los Angles Times written in July of 06 and now an Op-Ed posting from New York Times written in August of 05. Truly fonts of unbiased, even handed reporting if ever there was any.
By disguising a political debate as a scientific one, you mean the IPCC?
JJWFromME // Feb 1, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Well, the Paul Krugman column is a clearly partisan article and it may not belong in this discussion. But the rest of the material is not. If you see it all as such, to me you are clearly seeing your own ideological biases in a funhouse mirror. It must be difficult living in a world with liberal enemies lurking around every corner like that. (Which again, brings to mind the Hofstadter essay that I linked to below.)
B.A.Borton // Feb 1, 2009 at 9:23 pm
So out comes the misdirections and personal attacks. Please don’t presume to know how or what I feel. I take the people I meet one at a time and treat no one as my enemy unless they give me just cause. You did called me out on prisonplanet (honestly I should have found a different source for the same article, I was too hasty, so thank you). All I was doing was just pointing out that the LA Times and the New York Times are probable about as unbiased as say using Fox News or the NY Post editorials for sources. This started out as a discussion about climate change and anthropogenic CO2 emissions. If you have to lower the level of discussion to that of the last post, I feel that we may have strayed a tad bit off point, no?
JJWFromME // Feb 1, 2009 at 10:01 pm
No personal attack. It’s just what I think. Anyone who sees every organization mentioned on this page as “biased” is seeing their *own* biases through a funhouse mirror:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change I quote the other sources to make certain points, convey insights. And it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans whether Professor Naomi Oreskes is publishing a piece in the NY Times, the LA Times or the Washington Times. It has nothing to do with anything we’re discussing. (And also it seems to me we’re taking up too much of this site’s bandwidth with this silliness, so this will be my last comment in this post.)
B.A.Borton // Feb 2, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Sorry, I cant leave this thread without a shout-out to gerrysh! – http://wattsupwiththat.com – What a great site! Everybody should peruse. Thanks for the post!