Climate change

[doodle]

Tonights Cosmos series is putting out a pretty strong argument that humans are responsible for climate change. Neil Tyson Degrasse is one guy who (like Carl Sagan) I really admire for his ability to cut through a lot of bullshit and get people to think logically and rationally about information. In tonight's episode he does a great job of explaining how we are affecting the climate and explaining why things like volcanos, the sun etc etc, are not responsible for the changes we are seeing. The evidence really is quite overwhelming. I'll post link to episode as soon as it's up on you tube for anyone interested.

[Pointedstick]

To me, the notion that we're causing climate change isn't so world-shattering. What I question is whether we have the time, political will, or technological ability to stop or reverse it.

[Pointedstick]

I also don't understand why politicians don't go for the easier political battles, like air pollution, reducing childhood asthma, things like that. This thing about reducing emissions from old coal plants to slow climate change could just as easily be used as the justification for an outdoor air quality campaign--a connection that pretty much everyone acknowledges and could have real, demonstrable, measurable impact to specific people if ameliorated.

[doodle]

I also don't understand why politicians don't go for the easier political battles, like air pollution, reducing childhood asthma, things like that. This thing about reducing emissions from old coal plants to slow climate change could just as easily be used as the justification for an outdoor air quality campaign--a connection that pretty much everyone acknowledges and could have real, demonstrable, measurable impact to specific people if ameliorated.

I agree...the issue should be reframed when brought into the political arena where emotion and self interest and not reason and logic usually win the day.

[Benko]

If it were so simple/clearcut than there would be no need to suppress publication of  scientific articles that present other viewpoints and harass scientists with opposing viewpoints both of which have happened. 

The earth has not warmed over the last 15+ years.

If you really have a scientific hypothesis (and not a religion) it is testable and there are criteria for the hypotheses being false and criteria for the hypothesis being true.  What exactly is the hypothesis?   

[doodle]

If it were so simple/clearcut than there would be no need to suppress publication of  scientific articles that present other viewpoints and harass scientists with opposing viewpoints both of which have happened. 

The earth has not warmed over the last 15+ years.

If you really have a scientific hypothesis (and not a religion) it is testable and there are criteria for the hypotheses being false and criteria for the hypothesis being true.  What exactly is the hypothesis?   

The hypothesis that CO2 plays a significant role in regulating the temperature of our planet and that things like melting permafrost and artic ice contribute to further releases of gas and warming. This is quite testable and clear cut I think.

Tyson degrasse addressed other hypothesis such as volcanoes, sun activity, orbital shifts etc. and explained why they failed.

[Reub]

Didn't it used to be called global warming?  Why did they change the name?

BTW I boycotted this week's episode and instead watched Mountain Men. There were a lot of cold looking shots on my show!

[Benko]

The hypothesis that CO2 plays a significant role in regulating the temperature of our planet

  This wording is already fuzzy.

and that things like melting permafrost and artic ice contribute to further releases of gas and warming.

So exactly what is the hypothesis?  it sounds like you are saying that the globe should warm.  It has not more over 15 years and unless you can explain that, you have to admit that you have no clue what is going on.

[Pointedstick]

Side bonus: May have attracted more (smart) people into physical sciences/engineering (in lieu of finance and software (most of which seems to be about developing ways to make it easy for people to buy stuff they can't afford)).  Sorry, resident finance and software dudes/dudettes.

As a software dude, I can say unreservedly that I agree 100% with your premise. I actually dream of quitting and breaking into a more physical engineering discipline.

[Benko]

How does one tell the difference between "rejected by peer review" and "suppressed"? 

When the reviewers involved have e-mails published revealing their motives.  See climategate.

Who was harassed?  What did the harassment entail?  Do you have details on this?

 

It was recently.  Here is one article on the events:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/16/r ... -skeptics/

[Tyler]

I also don't understand why politicians don't go for the easier political battles, like air pollution, reducing childhood asthma, things like that. This thing about reducing emissions from old coal plants to slow climate change could just as easily be used as the justification for an outdoor air quality campaign--a connection that pretty much everyone acknowledges and could have real, demonstrable, measurable impact to specific people if ameliorated.

I'm with you.  As skeptical as I am about the stated degree of anthropogenic global warming, I'm all for actions to make the environment measurably better today.  Unfortunately near-term, local, measurable issues don't require unquestioned perpetual global governance and top-down economic control, so statists ignore them.  Big solutions require big problems. 

I just watched the Cosmos episode in question.  On balance, I found it to be one of the better episodes.  Like the one on evolution, Tyson does a very nice job of laying out the basic scientific principles in a clear manner and addressing a few common critiques at the same time.  And all in words that a scientific layperson can understand.

That said, it also vastly oversimplified some issues (claiming CO2 is the single most important greenhouse gas, but ignoring water vapor), omitted important facts (charting the warming since the 1800s but not mentioning the Little Ice Age or noting that is still cooler now than in the middle ages far pre-CO2 spike), generally started to unnecessarily veer left politically toward the end (the Apollo missions were all about nuclear missiles and "instruments of death", and evil cheap coal & oil is the only thing that thwarted solar power through the early 1900s), and wrapped it up with a straight-up animated fairytale (that if we all just come together, solar power will turn the Sahara into a tropical green paradise). 

(As an aside, I found it interesting they made the direct argument that Kennedy appealed to nationalism to go to the moon to hide his true desire to threaten the Russians with a display of nuclear dominance, then closed the episode quoting Kennedy while showing images of utopian green cities.  And I was disappointed that in a show ostensibly dedicated to scientific solutions to CO2 emissions, the only mention of nuclear power was in reference to ballistic missiles and mushroom clouds.)

Good entertainment.  Very educational for a young person.  Strong on scientific basics.  But IMHO short on a thorough and honest analysis of a complicated issue.

[Benko]

Tenn PA

I should add that scientists/researchers are human and so are rarely bias free.  However  there is a difference between the bias of an individual researcher and what goes on in this topic. 

[Mountaineer]

Why isn't the EPA going after water vapor?  It is more significant than CO2.  OK, I'll stop exhaling my CO2 (I'm just trying to provide food for the plant life on the planet, forgive me) and get back to figuring out how to stop water from evaporating and thus save the planet so the wackos can pursue some other cause. 

From Wikipedia:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

When ranked by their direct contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[17]

Compound, Formula, Contribution (%)
Water vapor and clouds, H2O, 36 – 72% 
Carbon dioxide, CO2, 9 – 26%
Methane, CH4, 4–9% 
Ozone, O3, 3–7% 

In addition to the main greenhouse gases listed above, other greenhouse gases include sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons (see IPCC list of greenhouse gases). Some greenhouse gases are not often listed. For example, nitrogen trifluoride has a high global warming potential (GWP) but is only present in very small quantities.[24]

[doodle]

Why isn't the EPA going after water vapor?  It is more significant than CO2.  OK, I'll stop exhaling my CO2 (I'm just trying to provide food for the plant life on the planet, forgive me) and get back to figuring out how to stop water from evaporating and thus save the planet so the wackos can pursue some other cause. 

Does this answer your question?

Here are the perfect ingredients for a conspiracy theory: water vapor is the most important factor influencing the greenhouse effect but doesn’t feature on the UN’s list of greenhouse gases responsible for anthropogenic global warming.

Critics of the idea of man-made global warming love this simple fact and have turned it into one of their most potent arguments to sabotage decisive climate action.

So why doesn’t the UN’s climate body the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) list water vapor as a greenhouse gas? It’s because water vapor does not by itself increase temperatures. It amplifies already occurring warming.
Water vapor’s role in the Earth’s climate system is defined by the very short time it remains in the atmosphere and actively traps heat. While additional CO2 from factories or airplanes can remain in the atmosphere for centuries, extra water vapor will only remain a few days before raining down as water.

The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is in equilibrium. The atmosphere can only hold more water vapor if overall temperatures increase. So a small warming effect caused by human CO2 emissions will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

The added water vapor leads to even more warming, thus amplifying the CO2 warming effect. Water vapor follows temperature changes, it doesn’t cause or, as climatologists say, ‘force’ them. As a feedback effect, water vapor is comparable to a car’s turbo charger that increases a motor’s power.

However, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere changes regionally. While there is virtually no water vapor above deserts or the Arctic and Antarctic regions, the air above the equator can consist of up to four percent water vapor.

In humid equatorial regions, where there is already a strong natural greenhouse effect, additional CO2 and water vapor have little impact on local climate. The opposite is true in cold, dry places, which is one reason why warming is much more pronounced in Polar regions.

[doodle]

If not man made causes, what else would account for this increase in CO2 over the last 200 years?

[Mountaineer]

If not man made causes, what else would account for this increase in CO2 over the last 200 years?

1. Faulty measurement techniques, for example placing sensors near a volcano (Hawaii). 

2. Unreliable prior data.

3. Unreliable data compilers.

I believe from a "logical" standpoint, I need not prove the chart is incorrect, just show some examples of why it could be. 

Even if the graph is 100% correct, where is the proof that higher levels of CO2 will cause a significant problem?  It is almost all speculation from my perspective; i.e. hypothesis, not proof.  This whole "global warming" thing strikes me as trying to control input when effect on the output is not known.  I could say the same thing about "gun control" and "welfare programs" but those are different issues, albeit with a similar objective - people control using a strategy of getting the people to willingly be controlled.  And, as someone pointed out earlier, we can't even predict the weather accurately a couple of days in advance, why do you think we can predict it years into the future?

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

Didn't it used to be called global warming?  Why did they change the name?

Because now it's responsible for warm weather, cold weather, rising water levels, falling water levels, droughts, floods, locusts etc.

Basically all the same weather that's been happening forever.

Any climate "change" from one day to the next is because greedy capitalists burn dinosaur juice to make their lives better.


Didn't we used to have glaciers covereing most of this continenet? Aren't we still coming out of an ice age? Even if the planet is a degree warmer than 100 years ago or two hundred years......that's basically the time span of a tiny weather pattern on the sun. I mean, there's been a storm on Jupiter for thousands of years (at least hundreds)  right?

Planetary weather patterns can persist for a long time.

Personally I hope for global warming. I'm from Michigan originally and spent time in Canada. Those poor people need a break.

[Pointedstick]

If not man made causes, what else would account for this increase in CO2 over the last 200 years?

Just to play devil's advocate, how does that graph show global warming? If we were to superimpose on it another graph showing actual mean temperatures, wouldn't we see the Medieval Warn Period during a time with no human-caused carbon spike? What about the Little Ice Age?

Assuming all data sources were correct, such a graph would appear to show a very poor correlation between atmospheric carbon and global temperatures, no?

[Kshartle]

If not man made causes, what else would account for this increase in CO2 over the last 200 years?

Just to play devil's advocate, how does that graph show global warming? If we were to superimpose on it another graph showing actual mean temperatures, wouldn't we see the Medieval Warn Period during a time with no human-caused carbon spike? What about the Little Ice Age?

Assuming all data sources were correct, such a graph would appear to show a very poor correlation between atmospheric carbon and global temperatures, no?

I suspect because like Rueb pointed out....it's no longer about global warming. It's about how can I do a study to show something is different than before, blame it on quasi-freedom of humans to better their lives, and convince enough people with authoritarian tendencies to support the squashing of other humans and keep them down.

I might have paraphrased what he was pointing out.

[Pointedstick]

I think ultimately, something we can all agree on is that weather patterns and changing of the climate will result in winners and losers. For example, the Medieval Warm Period transformed northern Europe from a frozen wasteland into a productive agricultural zone, but turned the Fertile Crescent into a desert. Was that fair? Was it anybody's fault? Neither. But that's just the way the world is, and it'll be no different today. It is this cosmic unfairness that I believe has hoodwinked liberals, who find the concept highly distasteful but (in my experience) are only willing to do things about it that assuage their guilty consciences rather than actually prove effective.

Given that we can't seem to manufacture a political consensus on changing or reducing our standard of living today to potentially prevent something tomorrow, oughtn't we focus on either making ourselves winners, or moving to the places that we project will win, or compassionately protecting the people we project will be the losers? Because even if we manage to stop human-caused climate change (unlikely), I think it should be pretty gobsmackingly obvious that until we develop geo-engineering or terraforming technologies, there are always going to be natural weather patterns and climate change that we won't be able to change, just adapt to. So shouldn't we focus our energies on adaptation rather than prevention? That's our species' advantage, I think. We should play to our strengths.

[doodle]

I suspect because like Rueb pointed out....it's no longer about global warming. It's about how can I do a study to show something is different than before, blame it on quasi-freedom of humans to better their lives, and convince enough people with authoritarian tendencies to support the squashing of other humans and keep them down.

"Global warming" and "Climate Change" have been used within the scientific community for decades now. Are you talking about the connotations of these words in the political arena? Lets not mix science and politics.

'Global warming' is the temperature increase produced by adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation.  The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation, which is prevented from radiating into space by greenhouse gases (GHGs). Just a tiny amount of GHGs - less than 1% of the atmosphere - keep the Earth around 33°C (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them.

'Climate change' is a consequence of global warming. As the temperature goes up, the extra energy changes all the patterns we are familiar with. Global warming destabilises the weather, the seasons, rainfall, humidity, and of course the ice at the poles. This destabilisation is called 'climate change'. (The term is also used to describe the long-term effects of global warming).

If not man made causes, what else would account for this increase in CO2 over the last 200 years?

Just to play devil's advocate, how does that graph show global warming? If we were to superimpose on it another graph showing actual mean temperatures, wouldn't we see the Medieval Warn Period during a time with no human-caused carbon spike? What about the Little Ice Age?

Assuming all data sources were correct, such a graph would appear to show a very poor correlation between atmospheric carbon and global temperatures, no?

One of the most often cited arguments of those skeptical of global warming is that the Medieval Warm Period (800-1400 AD) was as warm as or warmer than today. Using this as proof to say that we cannot be causing current warming is a faulty notion based upon rhetoric rather than science. So what are the holes in this line of thinking?

Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming.

Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the globe.  The National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions in 2006 found it plausible that current temperatures are hotter than during the Medieval Warm Period.   Further evidence obtained since 2006 suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times  (Figure 1).  This was also confirmed by a major paper from 78 scientists representing 60 scientific institutions around the world in 2013.

Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

Overall, our conclusions are:

a) Globally temperatures are warmer than they have been during the last 2,000 years, and

b) the causes of Medieval warming are not the same as those causing late 20th century warming.

[doodle]

I think it should be pretty gobsmackingly obvious that until we develop geo-engineering or terraforming technologies, there are always going to be natural weather patterns and climate change that we won't be able to change, just adapt to. So shouldn't we focus our energies on adaptation rather than prevention? That's our species' advantage, I think. We should play to our strengths.

Yes, but the speed at which we are changing the climate is quite a radical deviation from the natural cycles that the Earth goes through. Also, man has not figured out how to live (at least with what most would define as a decent standard of living) outside of the natural ecosystem. Warming of our climate has massive ecological implications that could seriously undermine the survival of our species, our civilization, and quality of life.

[Pointedstick]

Yes, but the speed at which we are changing the climate is quite a radical deviation from the natural cycles that the Earth goes through. Also, man has not figured out how to live (at least with what most would define as a decent standard of living) outside of the natural ecosystem. Warming of our climate has massive ecological implications that could seriously undermine the survival of our species, our civilization, and quality of life.

Could be. But we'll simply have to adapt, won't we?

[Pointedstick]

Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming.

That's an argument I hear about stuff going on today. For example, supposedly this year's crazy cold winter was caused by a "polar vortex" whose origins lie in the changing climate. So part of the world gets hotter and part of it gets colder. Maybe the hotter part gets hotter than the colder part gets cold (explaining a general rise in mean temperature), but again, this further suggests adaptability as a reasonable reaction.

Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

Of course there were causes; nothing happens for no reason. The point is that such events are as impossibly to practically prevent as carbon emissions are politically, so we should plan accordingly.

[doodle]

This years crazy cold winter was actually above the historical mean temperature.

Despite the frigid temperatures that kept those in the eastern United States shivering all winter, the period from December 2013 to February 2014 was the 8th warmest on record globally, the U.S. National Climatic Data Center reported Wednesday. That warmth early in the year could set the stage for another record or near-record warm year, one NCDC scientist said.

And February, which was the 21st warmest globally since record keeping began in 1880, was the 348th consecutive month where temperatures were higher than the global average;