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

[Paul Rumelhart]

Ted,

I'm not going to debate with you about the science of global warming.  
Like I said in my previous post, I'm not qualified to do so.  You are 
probably right, hell you probably have a 90% confidence level of being 
right.  So strike one up in the win column for yourself and move on.

However, you ask why I'm so skeptical about this.  I'm 41 years old.  
Just a youngster to many on this list, I'm sure.  Still, I've spent the 
last 20 years of my life relearning what I thought I knew from the 
previous 20.  Our knowledge about the world has grown that quickly.  I 
can't keep up any more.  The funny thing is, though, that every person 
who told me what they thought was true believed it to be true just as 
vehemently as those who tell me what they think they know do now.  Hence 
the skepticism.  I wouldn't be surprised if we find out 20 years from 
now that what we thought we knew about lots of different things 
(including Global Warming) is wrong.  I'm not saying it is wrong, I'm 
not saying it's going to be wrong, I'm just not going to be surprised if 
it goes the way of global cooling in the 70's.

Global warming has all the hallmarks of a subject that could turn out to 
be wrong.  Big money is behind one side of it, a "save the world" 
mentality is behind the other side.  Lots of interests to protect, lots 
of damage if we guess wrongly.  And still, too many variables that 
affect each other.

On a more practical front, we are not at odds.  I think we should reduce 
our consumption of fossil fuels or even eliminate it entirely as a fuel 
source.  We should work to make energy production as clean as possible.  
And, even if we lived in a world where the Middle East was a peaceful 
place and oil was non-polluting with respect to other dangerous toxins 
except for CO2, I would be advocating cleaner technologies because of 
the looming threat of global warming even if I don't have a 90% 
confidence level in it being true.  It's just a smart thing to do.

So, I have no interest in trying to defend my skepticism on this point.  
It's simply an effect of my upbringing.  Besides, I have other projects 
I wish to focus on right now.  I'll leave saving the world to somebody 
more qualified than me. 

Paul

Ted Moffett wrote:

>  
> 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 
> <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2006-August/034659.html>
>  
> My response:
>  
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2006-August/034778.html 
> <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 
> <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 <http://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 
> <http://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 
> <mailto: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
>     <http://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/be1e6a9d/attachment-0001.html