In an op-ed in today's Washington Post, Emily Yoffe asks an interesting question:
All this is not to say that it's not getting warmer and that curbing our profligate environmental ways is not a commendable and necessary goal. But perhaps this movement is sowing the seeds of its own destruction -- even as it believes the human species has sown its own. There must be a limit to how many calamitous films, books and television shows we, and our children, can absorb.
It doesn't seem sustainable to expect people to remain terrified by such a disinterested, often benign -- it was so nice eating out on the patio! -- and even unpredictable enemy.
The article goes on to say:
There is so much hubris in the certainty about the models of the future that I'm oddly reassured. We've seen how hubristic predictions about complicated, unpredictable events have a way of bringing the predictors low.
It's also hard to believe assertions that the science on the future of our climate is settled when climate scientists can't agree about the present -- or the past (there is contention about the dates, causes and even the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that followed). Now, Gore and others say that Katrina was a product of global warming and that we can expect more and bigger storms. But there is actually brisk scientific debate over the role global warming plays -- if any -- in the creation of hurricanes.
It is important to recognize that this statement misrepresents the state of science on climate change. While there is indeed scientific debate over many aspects of the science of climate change, there is no debate that dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is going to warm the planet. The only question is how much will it warm.
Based on all of the data we have, there is a strong agreement in the scientific community that the global average temperature will rise a few degrees Celsius over the next century if we do nothing to reduce emissions. Uncertainty on other issues, like the effects of global warming on hurricanes, does nothing to reduce the considerable certainty in our predictions of future warming.
Finally, I find it odd that the author takes reassurance in the fact that the models predict serious temperature increases. Not only does this assume that the models are wrong, but it assumes that the models are wrong in a specific direction: that they overestimate climate change. While the models might be wrong (but I wouldn't bet on it), uncertainty cuts both ways. Things could be far worse just as easily as they could be better. This does not reassure me.
Anthology features Americans’ personal stories of global warming
20 climate experts call for aggressive U.S. action
Comments View as Flat
Steve Bloom Posted 12:28 pm
25 Jun 2007
Beltway drivel
Her article smells to high heaven of AEI (or similar) talking points. I assume people like her get a fairly steady barrage of such material.
Here's what she said about hurricanes:
"Recall that the experts told us last year would be a record-setting hurricane season, but the series of Katrinas never materialized."
Except that no expert made such a prediction.
"Now, Gore and others say that Katrina was a product of global warming and that we can expect more and bigger storms. But there is actually brisk scientific debate over the role global warming plays -- if any -- in the creation of hurricanes."
Not exactly. The debate is over whether the global warming signal is large enough to be detectable now.
A point that keeps getting made all the time is that even if the global warming signal is present we can't blame any particular hurricane or increase in hurricane strength on global warming, which implies that there will come a time when we can. But that's not true. Even with a large and incontrovertible signal, it would remain possible for any given storm to be largely the product of "natural" factors. We can only describe the AGW-hurricane connection in statistical terms, which IIRC is what Gore did.
"A study from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution last month, looking at 5,000 years of Atlantic hurricanes, found 'large and dramatic fluctuations in hurricane activity, with long stretches of frequent strikes punctuated by lulls that lasted many centuries' -- with the stormier periods occurring during cooler ocean temperatures. But talking about Earth's constant, and still inexplicable, climate changes and cycles is not useful if you're trying to shock."
Contrast that with the Post's own coverage of the study:
"In their paper in the journal Nature, Jeffrey P. Donnelly and Jonathan D. Woodruff conclude that the issue remains unsettled -- that the occurrence of intense hurricane activity even when global and ocean temperatures are relatively low does not necessarily mean that global warming will not lead to greater hurricane dangers. Rather, they say it means that patterns of hurricane intensity can change significantly without a global ocean temperature rise, and that with the increase the effect could be greater."
Which is rather the opposite of what she implied. What a lot of these denialists really don't seem to get is that AGW + natural cycles = worse juju than AGW without natural cycles.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 12:34 pm
25 Jun 2007
Non-linear Effects
Hello Andrew Dressler my current thinking is that we're thinking linear and using empirical equations that are steady-state. The science is really, really solid there, IMHO. The question if there is a exponential shift that could occur within a very short span of time, triggered by things we suspect but do NOT fully understand. Arctic melt comes to mind, as the IPCC indicated.
If one examines the climactic record as reconstructed, shifts in hot and cold periods were very rapid. Similar events would perhaps be comet strikes, massive volcanoes, magnetic pole switches, and hypothesized algae blooms. So far, the science cannot deal with these "paradigm shifts" other than to note that they happened with remarkable quickness and severity.
My understanding is that the secrets lie in places such as the arctic ice pack, where centuries of ice can be carbon-dated for and analyzed as to CO2 and particulate content. Few trees are left from the 1700's although they would be fantastic to examine. Results are almost bizarre and shocking, although I wish I could put my finger on a single and authoritative study. To me it is clear that mankind has at least had a slightly measurable effect on the climate since the Industrial Revolution of the early 1800's, maybe moreso than we prevously thought.
What say you sir?
-sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:09 pm
25 Jun 2007
"Some experts say"
"Some experts say"
http://greyfalcon.net/outfoxed
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 3:04 pm
25 Jun 2007
Theirs is wrong; mine is right
The Bailo Model of Climate Change shows us entering the Goldilocks Optimum this year.
It begins a long term period of unprecedented prosperity due to the beneficent effects of solar heating.
Positive effects include health, wealth and overall good tanning.
John Bailo
You Read It Here First
Permalink
greenvoice Posted 9:30 pm
25 Jun 2007
Greenvoice
Just because the scientific data reveal that global warming is not an imminent danger are we to continue ti live recklessly, showing no consideration for the environment we live in?
Join one of our campaigns at www.greenvoice.com and help us save the planet!
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 11:02 pm
25 Jun 2007
ORNL climate forecasts in 1971
"I think reactors DO turn highly intelligent engineers into gibbering idiots. They all seem to believe that what happens at the nuclear power plant is the whole story of nuclear power." - Parogrin
35 years ago, I spent a year working at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Contrary to the myth that reactor scientists never looked at the big picture, ORNL had many environmental scientist and a number of social scientists including Dr. Claire Nader, Ralph Nader's sister. At a time when the popular press was concerned about global cooling, the scientists at ORNL were concerned about the long term consequences of CO2 emissions, including global warming. In 1974 Alvin Weinberg discussed global warming in an article in Science, and in 1975 he testified about it before congress. There were no climate models then. Just an appreciation for facts. Since 1971, I have not have the least doubt about what the future held. The forecasts from ORNL in the early 70's have turned out to be entirely accurate.
Charles Barton
Permalink