D4P wants me to state my position on global climate change. I haven’t done so because normally I take positions only on subject about which I have a lot of expertise. t g rightly guesses that I focus on the political question rather than the scientific one.
But if I have to take a position, I would say I am still skeptical about climate change. I am skeptical about any policy position that depends so heavily on computer models. I’ve spent years analyzing computer models and I know they are most often used as black boxes to confuse and dismay the public. Climate is a complex if not a chaotic system that is not amenable to modeling.
I am skeptical about the interpretation of the last century’s climate data. The data show that the earth was warming from about 1900 to 1945, when the computer models say humans were not emitting enough greenhouse gases to influence climate. Then the data show the earth cooling from 1945 to 1971, when the computer models say humans were emitting enough greenhouse gases to influence climate. Then the data show the earth warming from 1971 through the present day (although some say it peaked a few years ago). This sounds to me more like the temperatures are cyclical than that the earth is warming.
I am skeptical about any movement that people jump on because it supports their preconceived notions. “The suburbs cause traffic congestion. Oh, they are the remedy for congestion? Well, the suburbs reduce people’s sense of community. Oh, the suburbs have a higher sense of community than the cities? Well, the suburbs cause obesity. Oh, they don’t cause obesity? Well, the suburbs cause global warming. A ha! Gotcha now.”
I am skeptical of the anecdotal evidence used to support climate change. It goes from “there were some big hurricanes in 2006,” to “Big hurricanes are consistent with climate change,” to “Big hurricanes prove the climate is changing.” It sounds like the evangelicals who used to argue that every earthquake and tornado proved that Armageddon was about to take place.
A medical weight http://www.donssite.com/truckphoto/super_shockwave_jet_truck.htm viagra on line loss center can personalize a program that many people attended, and achieved goals. Transmits Dopamine in the body Dopamine is a neurotransmitter cost of prescription viagra that plays a role in sending nerve impulses (including those relating to ejaculation) in your body. Thus the blood flow to male reproductive system is being damages slightly, but as the time passes the need of human health pfizer viagra tablets enhanced, which again includes many improvement in lifestyle and relationships. cialis get viagra Causes The disordered neuroendocrine function. Likewise, I am skeptical of claims about glaciers. “Glaciers are receding in Glacier National Park. That proves the climate is changing.” The glaciers have been receding in Glacier National Park ever since the park was created in 1910.
I am skeptical of a “scientific consensus,” especially when most of the scientists in the consensus are not climatologists and when the state climatologists who don’t share the consensus are fired by politicians who do. Science doesn’t work by consensus and it certainly doesn’t work by having scientists who aren’t experts in a particular field drown out the voices of those who are. Over the past 35 years, I’ve watched science become increasingly political, and when it becomes political it is no longer science.
I am skeptical of any system that rewards people for taking one position and penalizes them for taking another. The United States alone spends $2 billion a year on climate change research. Researchers who believe in anthropogenic climate change get research money, who those who don’t get nothing. Back when acid rain was the big scare, I met a scientist who told me he had the perfect set up. “I tell the electric companies that I can’t prove their plants are causing acid rain and I tell the environmentalists that my data are consistent with the hypothesis that the plants are causing acid rain. They both help me get more research money.”
I am skeptical of any problem in which the high-cost solutions get all the attention while the low-cost solutions are ignored. When Obama says high-speed rail will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, everyone applauds. Meanwhile, for about 5 percent of the cost, we could install the most up-to-date coordinating systems at every signalized intersection and have a much bigger effect on emissions.
I am skeptical of any problem in which the solution Congress prefers — cap and trade — just happens to give Congress the opportunity to provide huge political favors to rich corporations.
I am skeptical of any problem where we are stampeded into taking action for the sake of action when the costs of not taking action are many decades into the future, which means, first, that discounted back to the present those costs are very low and, second, that we may find much less expensive solutions in the meantime.
Those are just my opinions. Since the fundamental question of whether anthropogenic climate change is really happening is beyond my area of expertise, I don’t have a definitive opinion. The hysteria I see over this question reminds me too much of other threats that proved to be false, which leaves me skeptical about this one. But if the political dynamic requires that we do something, we should at least do things that are cost effective and produce other benefits as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Rob,
Call me skeptical, but you’re the first person I’ve heard call oneself a scientist. Do you conduct… science? Are you a physicist, a botanist, a social scientist?
Hi tg. Yes, I am a scientist, my official title is Associate Scientist. I study a great big atmosphere, the lower Solar atmosphere. Since you asked, and if anyone is interested there are some, as fare as we know, unique things occurring on the Sun at the moment. You are probably aware it goes through an 11 year sun spot cycle, and each cycle the spots appear at high latitudes and gradually migrate toward the equator. The spots appear in pairs, and each cycle the polarity of the lead spot is switched. Now the sun has been really quiet recently, so much so we were beginning to wonder if a new Maunder Minimum was imminent. But in the last few weeks, some active regions have appeared. But the interesting part is, and this is strange, in the same hemisphere have appeared spots where one pair has the polarity order of the previous cycle, and the other pair have the polarity order of the new cycle! Sorry, I know probably not everyone will find this exciting.
This sounds more septic, than skeptic.
More skepticism:
“Every month University of Alabama at Huntsville climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer report the latest global temperature trends from the satellite data. Below are the newest data updated through May 2009. Interestingly, there has been essentially no warming trend for nearly a decade now.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Rob, Thanks for the details. I, too, after watching the sunspot activity for the last year, have wondered if a new Maunder Minimum was imminent. I find your description interesting, especially how the same region is producing spots from the new and old cycle.
Hey rob, Thanx for acknowledging that I’ve done a plethora of research on this. It seems that you did not quite follow some of my points. How can you compare Earth to Venus in light of the pressure & CO2 levels being 100 & 200 times greater. Nobody is arguing about CO2 being a GHG. The dispute is on how powerful, with levels below 1% of the air. In a century, CO2 has increased by 35% (280-387ppm), while temps increased by 1.2F. Hmmm???
I didn’t say anything about a model. It’s funny how you mention a Nobel prize. Do you say that to anybody you disagree with. Unless, are you saying that to fully compare the inner-workings for the atmosphere of Earth & Venus, one would need some spectacular models that are not yet known enough about to construct?
BTW, you say that your title is Associate Scientist. Does that mean you have an associate degree? Usually to be considered as a scientist one would need at least a masters if not a doctorate. I don’t mean to bash you, but I’m wondering about what area of expertise & how much. I’m surprised you haven’t mentioned the Milankovitch Cycles, in regards to past temp. Of course, the time-scale for them is long that a century of temps is insignificant.
Hi Scott. I think I may be following most of your points, and sorry my writing has not been sufficiently clear. Your are correct about no one really knowing how “powerful” CO2 is as a greenhouse gas, especially at low concentrations in Earth’s atmosphere. You mentioned in detail the increase in CO2 level and the proportional level of increase in temperature, and again I want to commend you on obviously devoting substantial time to researching this subject. It is a good point, but keep in mind two things as you analyze this type of data; 1. the atmosphere is nonlinear- responses are not proportional to inputs, and 2. the atmosphere is complex, there is not a direct correlation between CO2 level and global temperature. Regarding the first point, the amount of CO2 could double in the atmosphere with no appreciable effect on temperature, but then just a slight amount more could cause a major cascade. On the second, there are so many factors contributing to average global temperature, it is extraordinarily difficult to isolate the CO2 component. The current CO2 level is not really a concern, it is the rate of change in CO2. In your posts you present quite a few data points, but remember the concern is really about dynamic processes, not static states. You had a good argument on Venus and Earth, when comparing the current measured state of Venus against the current state of Earth, they are pretty incommensurable. The argument I presented on the origin of the CO2 concern was based on the implications of a theory on the past state of Venus and a potential state of Earth- could the processes which turned the past state of Venus into the present state also occur to any degree on Earth? The concern is whether a constant forcing, such as CO2 emissions, even in small amounts, can potentially trigger a runaway positive feedback effect as appears to have occurred on Venus. Historically the Earth’s atmospheric CO2 level has fluctuated and a runaway feedback effect has not occurred (although even this statement is contested, in your readings, have you come across the Snowball Earth hypothesis?). We are currently pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at an increasing rate, and the atmospheric concentration is increasing. We do not have a handle on the precise implications. For instance, another unanswered question is can the anthropogenic CO2 component exacerbate natural CO2 emission as, say, from melting permafrost- the current total CO2 concentration and emission is not completely, or even dominantly anthropogenic, the anthropogenic concentration is a very small proportion- but because of nonlinearity we just cannot tell if it can have a significant effect. The underlying difficulty is we do not, and current understanding indicates we likely cannot know what the effects may be without just watching what happens. So this is why I made the conclusion caution is warranted- because of the uncertainty in both state and dynamics.
My Associate Scientist title has nothing to do with my degree level- its funny but I had not even thought of such a connection! We have three scientist tracks, Associate, Project, and just plain Scientist. Having just a plain Scientist title is similar to having tenure at a university, you generally pursue you own funding and also have direct money from the core budget, primarily from the NSF. Project and Associate Scientists work more on individual projects and grants, so we are typically always a bit more concerned about our future funding. Due to the economic state, as with companies and contract employees and universities and non-tenure track professorships we are seeing proportional change in Projects and Associates and less permanent Scientist positions. Projects and Associates need at least an MS, Scientists always a PhD and two or more years of postdoctoral work.
Regarding the Nobel Prize argument, I never used that one before. And yes, that was in regard to comparing Venus and Earth with certain accuracy (If I offered that argument to anyone who disagrees with me, I think we could agree I was suffering from a runaway arrogance effect, I don’t even agree with everything I write), or even just developing a type of model which would be able to predict the future state of an atmosphere with certainty. The implication is such a model could predict the future state of any complex nonlinear system with certainty, and that would be, as far as we know, an impossible task, certainly worthy of a Nobel prize because it would disprove much of what we think we know, although time and effort usually do this for us anyway. The power of such a model would be tremendous and ultimately make the Universe a boring place! So naturally, if you have one, let me know, or keep it to yourself so I can feed my family! Actually, now that I think about it, you would also be able to predict the stock market, so disregard the previous sentence.
Here’s another site the alarmists should read:
http://www.nipccreport.org/aboutNIPCC.html
Some good news: looks like they’re having a burst of common sense Down Under:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/24/could_australia_blow_apart_the_great_global_warming_scare_97148.html