Global Warming Perception

[ggeezz]

I've been wondering what affect this winter will have on US perception of Global Warming. Any thoughts?

On a related note, I've been trying to think of a way to effectively communicate my stance on Global Warming politics. Here's what I've got:

It's like there's a person who's smoked 3 packs a day for 50 years and he's now dying of lung cancer**. And we're telling him how absolutely critical it is for him to cut back to 2.5 packs per day immediately.

** Or rather, he may die of lung cancer. That part is complicated, but it's also not the point.

[AGS]

My stance on global warming is this: We have less than a century of reliable global data, and the temperatures are slightly warmer. Is it really a big deal?

[nathan]

Well, here on the West Coast we are in an el nino cycle, so we've had a warm and mild winter. So maybe we should break this down regionally.

[ggeezz]

Well, here on the West Coast we are in an el nino cycle, so we've had a warm and mild winter. So maybe we should break this down regionally.

But you've heard about all the snow and freezing temperatures quite a bit on the news right?

I was going to mention the olympics site not having enough snow. It's not so much about what's happening outside your door, as much as what gets publicity (though your local weather does get plenty of local publicity). Recently, people have been thinking a lot about Haiti.

I guessed you West Coast folks were used to having your climate dominated by the Pacific.

[Kafir]

It's like there's a person who's smoked 3 packs a day for 50 years and he's now dying of lung cancer**. And we're telling him how absolutely critical it is for him to cut back to 2.5 packs per day immediately.

My first thought was that that's pretty close. Hence I am attracted to potential cures--geoengineering--over behavioral changes that may be more symbolic than anything else.

But there is a difference, in that the limiting case of cancer is death. It's improbable that climate change will kill off all humanity, though. So we do have a potentially meaningful set of choices, because climate change is a continuous variable: if sea levels rise by five feet, rather than six feet, that inundates thousands fewer square miles, and leaves probably millions more people's homes above water.

This is untrue only if there are hard thresholds, where once we pass a certain global temperature, climate change continues uncontrollably in the same direction. Which is possible, but not necessarily true--and if it is true, limiting carbon emissions is futile only if we are already past that threshold.

The more substantive argument is that attempts to limit greenhouse gas emissions might do more harm--for instance by perpetuating poverty in developing countries where disease and malnutrition kill more people than climate change is likely to--than good. I have no idea how likely that is to be true. But it isn't an argument against trying to mitigate global climate change; it's an argument for weighing the potential benefits against the probable costs.


AGS--what's your background in climatology?

[AGS]

Uh... well I had geography in high school... and that had climate stuff in it.

Humour aside, I took some time to look at the available data (google turns up quite a bit) and if you look at comparative graphs there is not a lot of increase. Even when you take the historical data (that is very region based from medieval europe as a for instance and is often inferred from crop yields) the results is at best a slight increase.

[Kafir]

Sorry, AGS. That was unfair of me. I must've been in a bad mood last night.

A better question--is your position that the observed or inferred changes are so small that they are likely to represent quirks in our measurements, rather than actual climate change? Or that the apparent changes are likely to be real, but that they are too small to be worth worrying about? Or both?

[ggeezz]

A better question--is your position that the observed or inferred changes are so small that they are likely to represent quirks in our measurements, rather than actual climate change? Or that the apparent changes are likely to be real, but that they are too small to be worth worrying about? Or both?

That brings up an interesting point. There are those who don't think the earth is warming at all (bad measurements or analysis or fraud). Those that think it has warmed slightly, but it's not a problem (split that into, man-made and natural). Those who think it has warmed, but we don't know how much more it will warm. Those who think it will continue to warm but it won't be a (significant/large/enormous) problem or we're too uncertain of what the problems will be. Those who think we are too uncertain to make any valid conclusions whatsoever.

I really meant that part after **.

And unfortunately the issue tends to get portrayed as A or B.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35343948/ns ... york_times

And yet I still think the vast majority of animosity is all for naught because none of the researchers (that I'm aware of) think scaling back GHG emissions slightly will make much of a difference. Some think we're toast no matter what and others think we can stop the damage by cutting all emissions tomorrow.

[jrcagle]

I've been reluctant to stake a position because of all of the unknowables.

I've decided that's a position: there are too many unknowables.

The fundamental model, that CO₂ acts as a one-way valve for heat, is established science. And the basic model,

ΔT = 5.5 ln ( conc. CO₂ / ref. conc. CO₂)

is basic science (Beer's Law, more or less).

The three questions are,

(1) is 5.5 the correct coefficient, and
(2) Are there negative feedbacks that we haven't accounted for, and
(3) Are there other forcing factors that are in fact going to overwhelm the CO₂?

Lindzen argues (2) on the basis of cloud cover. Anthony Watts implicitly questions (1) on the basis of improper surface station siting. And the paleoclimatologist whose name starts with P and I can't remember at the moment argues (3) on the basis of the Holocene warming island that we currently live in.

---

For my part, I'm with the bumper sticker: Energy Independence *Is* National Security.

That is, I would like maximal development of solar energy ASAP.

Jeff

[ggeezz]

For my part, I'm with the bumper sticker: Energy Independence *Is* National Security.

That is, I would like maximal development of solar energy ASAP.

Jeff

I agree, expect the most effective paths to energy independence in the short term are coal and oil shales.