[Vision2020] Scientific Consensus?: Global Warming, etc.

[Ted Moffett]

Paul et. al.

Paul wrote on 4/1/07:

I'm having a hard time sorting out what is general scientific consensus
about the subject and what is politically motivated cruft.
------------
Our original exchange in August, 2006, involved CO2 levels increasing from
human impacts, and the GWP (global warming potential) of these increases,
compared to other global warming variables.  I demonstrated with numerous
references why some of the information you posted to Vision2020 was "junk
science."  I also read in your posts from August, 2006, that you addressed
"scrubbing as much CO2 out of the air as possible" indicating you addressed
the problem of CO2 increases:

Your post on CO2 and other global warming issues from August 2006:

http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2006-August/034659.html

My response:

http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2006-August/034778.html
------

Now, to address your recent post on climate change and human impacts:

The climatologists have been "doing their thing."  The work of the IPCC is
one significant source for presenting their findings.  It presents a very
different picture on the uncertainties about human impacts on climate change
from the one you paint.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

The presentation of junk science introducing misleading uncertainties on
global warming is a serious problem insofar as it impedes the scientific
education of the public about a very serious environmental threat, and gives
cover for politicians and business interests to put off taking action to
address human greenhouse gas emissions.

Gaining credible science based answers to the questions you pose on global
warming does not require that you or I be a multidisciplinary genius.  I
fully admit much of the work of climatologists is way "over my head."  But
surveying the scientific work that climate scientists have presented on this
issue can inform anyone wishing to discover if there is or is not a
scientific consensus on the probability of the threats posed by human
greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

It goes without saying that dependence on Middle East oil, fossil fuel
depletion, and pollution from fossil fuel burning, such as from coal fired
plants, are serious problems that would need to be addressed even without
global warming.

However, fossil fuels will likely continue to be a dominant source of
energy, given reserves known and more to be discovered or developed with
improved technology, for many decades before depletion will become a serious
threat.  And the Middle East is not the only major source of fossil fuel.
The USA's huge coal reserves are expected to last 200 years.  Canada now has
the second largest reserves of oil, behind Saudi Arabia, in the tar sands,
extracted at increasing rates as I write.  These oil reserves were only a
decade ago not listed as practical to recover.  The oil shale reserves in
Colorado and Wyoming are gigantic.  The advocates of a fossil fuel depletion
crisis coming in a few decades are exaggerating that threat, assuming
development of all global fossil fuel reserves can go forward:

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/publications/Pubs-NPR/40010-373.pdf

The point is, given the threat posed by climate change, it is even more
imperative that we should radically reduce fossil fuel use well before
reaching the point where we have burned most of the cheap and accessible
fossil fuels, thus facing the fossil fuel depletion crisis.  If we face the
serious threat from greenhouse gases inducing climate change, and reduce our
fossil fuel use, a benefit will be to also reduce the other problems with
dependence on fossil fuels.  It is easy to dismiss the warnings about fossil
fuel depletion and the dangers of dependence on Middle East oil, while cheap
fossil fuels continue to power a lifestyle that most will
not given up easily, placing tremendous pressures to keep the fossil fuels
flowing.

Some of the world's most knowledgeable climate scientists are warning that
if we do not reduce CO2 output within a few decades, irreversible and
destructive climate change will be induced.  Of course there are
uncertainties.  But these uncertainties have been addressed by numerous
climate scientists who have concluded the probabilities are very high (the
recent IPCC report gave a 90% certainty) that human factors, primarily CO2
emissions, are the cause of the current global warming, which if atmospheric
CO2 levels double or more above pre-industrial levels, is likely to induce a
climate not seen for millions of years:

News articles below about "Climate Change: Our Global Experiment," involving
the work of Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences Daniel Schrag,
discussing CO2 levels back 60 million years into the Eocene:

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/10.06/09-climate.html

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/12.09/07-climate.html

While Vision2020 has a minimal impact, we participate on this list in the
hope, I trust, that accurate information on important topics is of value to
at least a few readers.

Given this assumption, perhaps you can explain why the overall conclusion
presented in the article below from Science magazine is incorrect, as it
appears you believe, given your statements on the large uncertainties as to
whether human factors are inducing significant climate change.  Please
explain why, with its references to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological
Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for
the Advancement of Science, organizations that all have stated that human
induced global warming is occurring, I should not trust that these
organizations represent the best scientific knowledge currently available
about human impacts on global warming?

I am puzzled as to why you are so sure that you are unsure about a consensus
on the dangers of global warming related to human impacts, given you admit
you do not possess the expertise to fully understand the science of climate
change?  I place what I regard as a reasonable level of trust in the
scientific consensus, that I think it is fair to state now exists, on the
issue of human impacts on climate change, impacts serious enough to require
immediate action to mitigate the dangers.

Note article in pdf format from Scientific American, by William F. Ruddiman,
Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia, that is attached to
another Vision2020 post today.  It offers answers to some of your climate
change questions.  I hope the attachment will work.

I could present more references to the work of climate scientists to answer
your questions, but the numerous references to scientific work on
climate change in the Science magazine article below are more than enough to
provide a good starting point for becoming informed on these questions:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

*BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:*
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Naomi Oreskes*<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#affiliation>
*
P*olicy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently
assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an
argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA
administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through
review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate
change" ( 1 <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref1>) .
Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on
carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the
science ( 2 <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref2>).
Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the
scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This
is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the
World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental
Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a
basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed
and published scientific literature (
3<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref3>
) . In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the
consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by
human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of
atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ...
[M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been
due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (
4<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref4>
) ].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific
bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the
matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of
Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions,
begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result
of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (
5<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref5>
) ]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair
summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's
conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely
to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately
reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p.
3 in ( 5 <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref5>) ].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society
(6<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref6>
) , the American Geophysical Union
(7<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref7>
) , and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all
have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for
human modification of climate is compelling (
8<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref8>
).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for
comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would
diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless,
they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was
tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals
between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords
"climate change" ( 9<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref9>
) .

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the
consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods,
paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the
papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or
implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or
paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change.
Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying
paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural.
However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed
literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public
statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists,
journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement,
or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of
science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for
failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame
us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate
change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there
are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for
understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate
change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the
reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly
tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

*References and Notes*

1. A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.

2. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate
Policy *2*(1), 3 (2003).

3. See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.

4. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).

5. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change,
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy
Press, Washington, DC, 2001).

6. American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. *84*, 508
(2003).

7. American Geophysical Union, Eos *84 *(51), 574 (2003).

8. See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.

9. The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts
was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although
the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not
about climate change.

10. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture,
"Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the
AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of
Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research
assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming,
M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.

10.1126/science.1103618
-------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett


On 4/1/07, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Ted Moffett wrote:
>
> > Paul and Roger have both not responded to credible scientific sources
> > I have presented to this list that questioned some of their claims on
> > scientific issues regarding global warming.  Paul once indicated he
> > would respond to my exposure of the junk science on global warming he
> > presented to this list, yet he never responded.
> >
>
> Ok, here is my take on global warming.  I'm not sure why you care about
> it so much, since I'm not a trained climatologist, my two degrees in
> math and computer science have done little if anything to help me in
> this, and the few web pages I've read on the net without the help of a
> strong factual basis in this subject to help me critically evaluate them
> have probably not covered the subject completely nor evenly.  But here
> goes.
>
> Is global warming happening right now?  My answer is yes.  The melting
> of the glaciers and a few other disparate facts that I've heard about
> here and there do seem to indicate to me that it is in fact happening.
> I could be wrong, I wouldn't be surprised, but that's the way it goes I
> guess.
>
> Is this trend localized with respect to time or is it the start of a
> more permanent change (whatever the cause)?  I have no idea.  The amount
> of change of the climate over small timescales (< ~50000 years) seem to
> me to be chaotic at best.  If it were well understood, I wouldn't be
> running work units for climateprediction.net and we wouldn't have
> varying models that conflict.  Too many variables, in my uneducated
> opinion, to be very certain about this at all.  It could be that "small"
> perturbations in climate have happened many many times over the past
> half a million years or so since single celled life has learned how to
> make use of oxygen and multicellular life became prevalent.  Aren't we
> coming out of the last Ice Age and in a general warming trend, anyway?
>
> Is the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the air now massively more
> than has been there in the relatively recent past (~50000 years)?  I
> don't know the science behind the Antarctic ice cores.  I don't know how
> much weight to give them, because I don't know if there could be other
> causes for the amounts of carbon dioxide at the various depths.  What
> happens if the climate changes enough to melt the Antarctic ice a bit?
> Obviously, those years won't be laid down in the ice core record.  I
> don't know if it's possible for the amounts to change over time, and I
> don't know the methodology behind the extraction and measuring of that
> gas and wouldn't have the necessary background to be able to evaluate it
> if I did know it.  Have these levels been checked against cores spread
> over a large area?  Have they been compared with other ice cores from
> other continents?  I don't know.  However, I'm tending to trust the
> scientists on this one and to believe, for what it's worth, that carbon
> dioxide levels are unusually high right now.
>
> How does the relative spike of carbon dioxide that is occuring right now
> affect the greenhouse effect exactly?  I know it affects it, but by how
> much?  Isn't the percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere really small?  Is
> the current amount past the point of no return now, or does it have to
> double or triple before it's really a problem?  How much does it
> correlate with the local rise in temperatures?  Is it the only cause?
> Would temperatures be a little lower right now without Man or a lot?  I
> have no idea.
>
> Are there mitigating factors that will reduce this carbon surplus?  Such
> as increase in plant growth or other natural processes that may scrub
> CO2 from the atmosphere?  I don't know.  It seems to me that this should
> play some part, but I'm not a geophysicist or a biologist, or an expert
> in agriculture.
>
> How variable is our nearest star?  Obviously, solar input is the
> greatest factor affecting temperature.  How stable is this source?  Does
> it fluctuate?  Is the amount of solar radiation hitting the planet now
> the same amount that hit it ~50000 years ago?  Again, I don't know.  I'm
> not an astronomer.
>
> Anyway, there is my much-needed evaluation of the science of global
> warming.  Hope this helps.
>
> I would like to reiterate my "political" stance on this, which is that
> there are many other reasons to cut back on fossile fuels that aren't
> being so heavily debated right now that are just as important as global
> warming if not more so.  One big one being the fractious status of the
> Middle East and our dependence upon this region for our oil.  Notice the
> large hike in gas prices that has just occured.  Pollution, which causes
> health conditions right now, is also another very good reason to switch
> from gas and coal and other "dirty" technologies and to look for
> "cleaner" ones.  Finite energy supplies running out is another excellent
> reason.  When the oil is gone or is too hard to get to, our economy will
> probably collapse if we aren't forward-thinking enough.
>
> It also seems to me that the topic of global warming has been
> politicized.  Of course, I'm not a political scientist, either.  I'm
> having a hard time sorting out what is general scientific consensus about
> the subject and what is politically motivated cruft. That's not
> to say that current scientific consensus on one theory or set of
> theories necessarily means anything if the subject is wide-ranging and
> full of so many variables as this one is.  Even in "cleaner" sciences,
> such as astrophysics, you see that scientific opinion over the years
> sways from one theory to the next as more data trickles in.  And we
> aren't even affecting the universe in any significant way ourselves to
> muddy the waters.  I have no reason to believe that if we just stepped
> back and let the climatologists do their thing we would eventually get
> to all the answers.  I don't believe that we have all the answers right
> now.  You, apparently disagree.  I wish I was educated enough in the
> various disciplines involved to be able to give a definitive answer.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070401/c1923a4a/attachment-0001.html