Global Weirding

[fluffhead]

Really good op-ed piece by Thomas Friedman in today's times - there's so miuch idiocy being spouted from both sides on the climate change issue, and he lays it out so nicely in plain english.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/op...ml?ref=opinion

[Laker]

That article didn't really discuss any "idiocy" from the left. His position is that human caused global warming now "climate change" actually exists and that nobody should question the science behind it. I love how the left always rips those not convinced that we are causing the climate to change by saying that big oil funds the research. Who funds climate change research? The govt, universities? I am sure they are not biased at all. They wouldn't have any interest in getting more research dollars to fund themselves would they? In a perfect world scientists would be objective, but that isn't reality.

[Rapunzel]

I'm in agreement with Laker. I didn't see it as a "balanced" piece - it's just an op-ed criticizing those not in lock-step with the Church of Gore.

[Sheherezade]

I liked the article, Fluff. The take home point for me was in the title "Global Weirding". Even though that isn't the wording I'd use, I can understand how environmental scientists get tired of explaining that Global Warming doesn't mean that the weather will get warm. Hence the change in terms to "climate change". Still, a snow storm hits (cold!) and all the pundits hit there laugh tracks and start with the "Hey! Where's that warmth we were promised, bozos??" schtick.

I won't pretend that Freidman is a centrist, though. As a scientist that left the field in part because of the pressures to "lean" the data in order to obtain grants, I'm a little offended by Laker's comments - but realize that there are pressures on scientists as well (as he states). That given, I can't see how there would be more money to pin climate change on humans than there would be funding to pin climate change on the changes in the earth's core. If anything, there has been evidence that leaning the data AWAY from human causes would have helped advance a scientist's career in the Bush years. Saying it was due to human causes could get you in a lot of trouble.

[fluffhead]

I think it's insanely difficult to pin any short-term temperature increase on any particular cause. But the long-term data is quite compelling, and indicates a probable linkage with post-industrial revolution carbon dioxide increases. Might this be a routine climate cycle? Of course. But the greenhouse effect is a fact - otherwise we'd be a heck of a lot colder. And CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas. And my own personal feeling is that humans should seek to minimize their impact on their surroundings (I know that many do not agree), so I'd think that minimizing greenhouse gas emissions would be wise.
And look at all the trouble we've brought upon ourselves because of our dependence on fossil fuels - exxon valdez, two gulf wars, dick cheney (ok ok sorry) - why would we NOT examine alternative energy sources, and try to boost efficiency?

[Rapunzel]

There's reality and then there's insanity. The problem with what I call the Church of Gore is this off-the-deep-end anti-humanity spin. The article didn't even touch that side of things - thus it didn't actually show both sides.

[Rapunzel]

And, Laker is correct - science departments at universities definitely do have agendas. They may vary from institution to institution but science is a club - and if you're not "in" you're "out" (as in ostracized, ridiculed, etc.). Centuries ago we saw this same behavior with the Catholic church. Today it is definitely the Church of Gore. There is no such thing as a completely "objective" scientist and there is no such thing as a completely "objective" science department.

If data is presented which negates or substantially reduces the man-made possibility of global climate change over a very brief period of time (as in a mere century) then either the author is ridiculed on a personal level and/or the actual material is ignored. Ostracism and cliquishness in the scientific community are alive and well.

[Rapunzel]

Here's an example of how the scientific community can be led by popular assumptions rather than real data:

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/?a=f


The above author does not have his belief destroyed by the destruction of the "hockey stick" graph. However, it shows that some firmly held beliefs (such as that there was NOT significant global warming during the Middle Ages) can be grossly incorrect and/or misleading.

[Rapunzel]

Also see:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0714124956.htm
Excerpt:

Based on findings related to oceanic acidity levels during the PETM and on calculations about the cycling of carbon among the oceans, air, plants and soil, Dickens and co-authors Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii and James Zachos of the University of California-Santa Cruz determined that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by about 70 percent during the PETM.

That's significant because it does not represent a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Since the start of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels are believed to have risen by about one-third, largely due to the burning of fossil fuels. If present rates of fossil-fuel consumption continue, the doubling of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels will occur sometime within the next century or two.

Doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an oft-talked-about threshold, and today's climate models include accepted values for the climate's sensitivity to doubling. Using these accepted values and the PETM carbon data, the researchers found that the models could only explain about half of the warming that Earth experienced 55 million years ago.

The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models -- the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming -- caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM."

This teeny tiny bit of very important data is so very important because it shows that correlation does not equal causation. The VERY popular assumption today is that CO2 levels rising equates to world wide, epic global climate change (in the warming direction). The assumption is just that - an assumption. It's a leap of faith.

[Rapunzel]

And, the follow-up to that important data on a previous warm up on the planet is this interesting article:

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+...ticle10973.htm

(And, the above article also demonstrates the cliquish, faith-driven atmosphere of current environmental science as well).

[Rapunzel]

Sorry, that these are in seperate posts - I can consolidate them in a bit - but here is another article from years ago on how the hockey stick was incorrect and known to be incorrect years ago (published in Technology Review in 2003):

http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/23-Me...alwarming.html

What is believed by "environmentalists" is more supposition and faith than science.

[SoonerTexan]

I've never tried to delve deep into the science, but a few comments a meteorological teacher said a few years ago stuck with me. He just said a lot of it is blown out of proportion--there are effects, and oddly enough some of the "bad" things humans do counteract some of the other effects (though I highly doubt on a large scale). I'm inclined to believe him since he was an Oklahoma Climatological Survey employee and spent his life studying the stuff

[Vanquisher]

It is just my opinion, but lots of others share it, and I am a leftie. I think climate change is inevitable and largely not caused by human influence. I see the earth as a dynamic, evolving system that goes through periods of warming and cooling. Just me.

[ladymoreta]

I think climate change is inevitable and largely not caused by human influence. I see the earth as a dynamic, evolving system that goes through periods of warming and cooling. Just me.

I agree with this. I don't really know that we're as important as we think we are...

I do think it's a great idea to minimize polution and try to leave the Earth in a lot better shape than it is now. I'm just not convinced that climate change is the most valid reason to do that.

[Rapunzel]

It is just my opinion, but lots of others share it, and I am a leftie. I think climate change is inevitable and largely not caused by human influence. I see the earth as a dynamic, evolving system that goes through periods of warming and cooling. Just me.

Well, you're a leftie and I'm a rightie, but I agree with you on this. 100%.