This is post 1 of a 12-part “summer series” on Global Warming/Climate Change.
Part 1: Why I Write: How I became interested in the climate issue
Part 2: “Global Warming” or “Climate Change”? What do these mean, and what’s the diff?
Part 3: A Brief Guide to the Climate Debate: a look at the “Climate War” and who is saying what
Part 5: On Our Watch: Science tells us that climate change is happening now
Part 6: Yep, We Did It: Science tells us that this climate change is from OUR activities
Part 7: What It Means to Missouri: How climate change will likely impact our region
Part 8: Save Money, Save the Climate!: Simple ideas that will save you money while reducing CO2 emissions
Part 9: It’s Our Choice: What we can do to limit further harm while adapting to the changes to come
Part 10: Leading the Charge!: Climate Change is happening. The United States can lead, or get left behind
Part 11: What if we don’t?: Geo-engineering the climate. What is it and why we don’t want to go there
Part 12: Final Thoughts. Ethical considerations
Post No. 1 in this 12 part series on climate change is my own story of how I became interested, and involved, in the climate change issue, ultimately leading me to me write this series of blog posts.
I remember when James Hansen from NASA testified to the U.S. Senate about the idea of "Man Caused Global Warming" back in the late 80s. It was a pretty big media topic back in the day.
The first thought that came to my mind was: "How could man possibly change the climate?" and I pretty much dismissed it. However, as I looked around at the vast and apparently endless blue skies, I heard a little voice in my head saying very quietly, “Why would James Hansen, the leading climatologist in the world, make this claim if he hadn’t studied it very carefully?”
Well, it didn’t seem like a big deal, so I put that thought out of mind for the next 15-plus years or so.
The idea came back into my thinking on a visit to Alaska 10 years ago to see my brother who is a wildlife biologist in Alaska. We toured a few of the glaciers on the Kenai Peninsula and saw how far they had receded from their positions many years ago. We also looked at the incredible "before/after” pics of the receding glaciers (see above pic and this link for more images of receding glaciers). I remember talking to the park rangers about this and they were sure convinced that the climate was changing—and fast! I recall one of the rangers telling me had noticed the glaciers recede even during his short 10-year career at the park.
When I asked the park rangers about the cause of the melting glaciers, they said something to the effect of: "Well, if you ask the climate experts, like the scientists at NOAA and NASA, they'll tell you that man's activities are causing this warming."
NOAA and NASA both accept the climate is changing and that man is causing it? These are the two of the top scientific organizations in the world and they both agree!
Hmmm. This is NOT what I had been hearing on the news.
The obviously receding glaciers in Alaska, the statements by the park rangers, and the NOAA/NASA statements really peaked my interest in the topic, so I started to look into it a lot more.
I read Dr. James Hansen’s "Storms of My Grandchildren" and “The Discovery of Global Warming” (the more than 100 year history of studying climate change) and about a dozen or so other books or reports on climate change, including Dr. Michael Mann’s recent book “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars." I also read a bunch of articles from National Geographic, Discover and Science (and watched movies from the same sources). I've always been a science nut, so I enjoy reading those magazines anyways.
I even read some of the IPCC summary reports (IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
What I realized is that from a scientific perspective, the idea that man’s activities is causing the earth to warm and the climate to change, is extremely well established science—similar to the theory of gravity.
In fact, I could not find a single reputable scientific source that disputed this claim; nearly all of the sources I checked were in full agreement. From a scientific perspective, it's unanimous (among accredited scientific organizations).
Even the National Academies of Science, America’s highest authority on matters of science, agreed, issuing this statement in May 2010:
“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades.”
But if the scientific community, including the U.S. National Academies of Science, was in such clear agreement, why the apparent “debate” on TV and other media sources? And why isn’t the government acting on this clear and obvious danger? Why aren’t we doing something?
And then there is the weather. Crazy isn't it?
I don’t know about you, but this is not the climate I grew up with. Yes, there were warm winters and springs, bad storms, floods, heat waves and droughts when I grew up, but not like we are experiencing today. Yes, this is an anecdotal claim based on personal experience, but unfortunately, it is supported with overwhelming evidence for increasing extreme weather events worldwide.
What is going on? What does this all mean? Why the controversy? Why the denial? What is going to happen? What can we do?
Here is what my own research of this issue has led me to: It’s real. It’s caused by man. Science agrees. It’s bad. We can fix it (and we have to).
I write because I hope to explore all of these questions, and more, over the hot summer to come (to be one of the hottest on record, I’ll bet).
I look forward to our online conversations about it.
Note to commenters: This is sure to be a controversial and highly debated topic, and I’m OK with that. I only ask that you keep your comments civil, respectful, informed and related to the particular subject matter discussed. As you can see from the topic list at the beginning of this post, there are plenty to topics to be talked about over the summer.
I also ask that if you dispute a claim, that you provide a link to a reputable source supporting your claim.
I do work for a living, so my responses to comments will be based on my availability.
Disclaimer: I am not a climate scientist, nor do I claim to have scientific expertise in this subject. Scientific claims made in these posts will be sourced only from highly respected and accredited scientific organizations.
You do not see the inherit flaw in plotting average temperature anomalies based on data beginning in 1850, and realistically in 1880? The planet is (estimated..by these same scientists) to be 4,500,000,000 years old. Using 162 years of data is 0.0000036% of the total data set. If the Earth's temperatures were graphed over a football field, goal line to goal line...we have 3 micrometers of the graph. Using ice cores, which are by definition extrapolated and less accurate, we have a whopping 15 millimeters of the graph. Does that sound like a solid basis for a theory? Apply this model to human growth. If a human male lives an average of 87 years, could you plot his growth based on 5 days? That's with ice core ratios! How, Larry, is challenging global warming assumptions and models not the VERY DEFINITION of critical thinking?
re: my claims about 2005 and 2010 being the hottest years on record, including 1998, those are correct claims as evidenced by the data set that you provided: Temperature anomalies: 1998: 0.6205 2005: 0.6393 2010: 0.6387 This would make 2005 and 2010 in a statistical tie for the warmest years (so far, this year in on track to exceed 2005/10), ahead of 2008 Re: 49 former NASA scientists none of the 49 former NASA scientists are practicing climatologists. While their comments are interesting, they are not qualified to make claims on topics in which they have no training or expertist Re: NASA article from 2000 (2000??) Note this sentence: “Most scientists agree that no single piece of data will likely resolve the global warming debate. In the end, the best we can expect is a scientific consensus based on a preponderance of evidence.” The scientific consensus is in. It’s Real, It’s Us, Science Agrees and We can Fix it, as described in the original post Re: NOAA FAQ page Larry, the NOAA does not seem to be representing a position here...Am I missing something? Yes you are. Please read the response to FAQ #2: “Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point.
The application of critical thinking tells me that neither you, or I, are in any position to challenge 97% of practicing climate scientists, NOAA, NASA, the NAS and every climate/atmosphere related scientific organization in the world on a topic in which we have no relevant expertise or experience.
"We are all confronted with new information daily. It comes to us via newspapers, radio, television, websites, conversation, advertising and so on. Sometimes it seems like a deluge. Not all information is created equal. Some of it is correct. Some of it is incorrect. Some of it is carefully balanced. Some of it is heavily biased. Some of it is just plain crazy. It is vital in the midst of this deluge that each of us be able to sort through all of this, keeping the useful information and discarding the rest. This requires the skill of critical thinking. Unfortunately, this is a skill that is often neglected in schools."
re: "you completely ignored my statement regarding trend. Yes, 2 years were hot...but the ten year trend shows a decline using simple linear regression. Do you agree? " I believe I responded to your claim that I was wrong about 2005 and 2010 were the hottest years, after 1998. There were indeed hotter than 1998. The ten year trends from one cherry picked year is an irrelevent and intentionally dishonest argument and I suspect that you know it. It is the long term trends, generally considered to be 30 years, that are relevant to climate change. Those trends show undeniable warming - at an increasing rate. In fact, the decade of 1980 was the hottest decade of the last 150 years, until 1990, until 2000. Each of the last 3 decades are the hottest in the historical record. Let me know if you have any other questions or disputes.
It seems that anytime your original premise is questioned, your response is focused on a poll taken in 2009 and the skepticalscience.com blog on dealing with skeptics. Critical thinking includes opening your mind and examining the issue from all angles. It most certainly does not include discounting dissenting opinions because they do not fit your conclusions.
I have also stated above that I do NOT believe that to mean global temperatures are in long term decline. Please see above before assuming intentional dishonesty. I am simply stating that in the last decade, temperatures have NOT increased as the models suggest, and the climate goes up and down. Do you agree with those statements? Now...you must know that I do NOT believe 10 years makes a trend...as I went to great lengths above to show that 162 YEARS of data is not a good trend.
"NASA scientists" are not necessarily climate scientists. yes, I discount their "plea" unless they have relevant expertise in climate science, as should you.
My 3rd post on "The Climate Debate" was sent for publication this evening and is pending editorial review. It will be followed with a post on "the arguments". I'll address your comments and questions in those posts. Please feel free to comment on the new blog posts as those issues are addressed. Thanks again for your comments - which I am are sure will create more readership interest in this blog. I really appreciate your attention and the extra publicity that I'm sure the commentary will garner. Good night and I'll catch up with you on future posts.
I suggest moving on. You have been very patient with Jeff but it is clear that Jeff is unwilling to read what the experts have to say. It is also clear that he does not understand how to determine climate trends or that the climate models do in fact project decreasing trends during short ten year periods embedded within the long term *real* warming trend. I give Jeff credit for avoiding rhetoric, but you will keep spinning your wheels with him until he studies up much more. Jeff, show us how record values of CO2 are not causing the warming that perfectly matches GHG heat trapping: nights, winters, and poles warming faster than days, summers, and tropics. Also show us how increased heat content and record ice melt somehow do not equate to warming since 1998. Global air T is but one small metric. I sense that you are hesitant to accept the settled science because you question the proposed solutions. It is in the solutions arena where there is real debate. Larry will get to that and then you can fully engage.
re: "My question should be, do you have evidence that the 49 NASA scientists do not have relevant expertise, or did you make that assertion yourself? If you could, provide a link that I may read." These "49 former "NASA scientists" seem to think they have greater knowledge on atmospheric science then every climate or atmospheric related science organization in the world, including CURRENT NASA scientists, NOAA, the NAS and the AAAS. That is quite a claim - especially by "FORMER NASA scientists". I'm sure you will agree that "Extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and that the onus is on the former NASA scientists to substantiate their claims.
As a summary for the readers, the short answer is, "Yes, Larry Lazar has determined these 49 former NASA scientists are not qualified to make the following statement": ---- We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled. The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements. As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. ---- These claims are not extraordinary...in fact, they closely mimic my own... :)
Um, that's not climate, that's weather.
Still not climate, but weather. You are confusing the noise of year to year (even decadal) weather with the longer term trend of climate. And there is more to climate than avg temp.
Why is Jeff even pointing these facts out to us since he is also 100% correct when he states: "you must know that I do NOT believe 10 years makes a trend."? Well he answers that question: "I am simply stating that in the last decade, temperatures have NOT increased as the models suggest, and the climate goes up and down." So the climate models are all wrong. Except they aren't. The models do NOT show a straight line of always increasing temps. They actually look a lot like the real temp records, i.e. showing ups and downs and even decades-long trends of cooling. But that year-to-year up and down is WEATHER NOISE. The SIGNAL of CLIMATE change is seen when you look at longer time frames, typically 30 years. But apparently even 30 years isn't enough of a trend for Jeff who states that even, "162 YEARS of data is not a good trend." So how much data do we need? Apparently Jeff will not be satisfied until we know the exact temp record for the entire length of the earth's existence, approx. 4.5 billion years, give or take.* So basically, If we don't know everything, then we don't know anything. *See Jeff's comment above: http://eureka-wildwood.patch.com/blog_posts/global-warmingclimate-change-series-post-1-of-12#comment_3640288 Continued...
So basically, If we don't know everything, then we don't know anything. Except Jeff uses 10 years of data to show "climate goes up and down." Why can't I use 20 or 30 or 162 years to glean some more information? I'm sorry I don't know the temp of the earth 1.289415714 billion years ago. But that doesn't really matter to me. If I were a farmer I would want to know what the climate of my area was in the recent past and what the best scientists are saying the climate will be in the recent future. That information would be interesting to me. And luckily that is information that the best scientists in the field can glean from the available data, even without 4.5 billion years of thermometer readings.
And yes, there is more to climate than average temperature. But, the comment section of a local blogger is a difficult space with which to provide said argument. However...ALL climate alarmist sites focus primarily on temperature.
See below from the critical thinking website "What's the Harm?" "We are all confronted with new information daily. It comes to us via newspapers, radio, television, websites, conversation, advertising and so on. Sometimes it seems like a deluge. Not all information is created equal. Some of it is correct. Some of it is incorrect. Some of it is carefully balanced. Some of it is heavily biased. Some of it is just plain crazy. It is vital in the midst of this deluge that each of us be able to sort through all of this, keeping the useful information and discarding the rest. This requires the skill of critical thinking. Unfortunately, this is a skill that is often neglected in schools." Application of this skill tells us that we should NOT give "49" non practicing "former" NASA Scientists equal credibility to the views of every National Academy of Science in the World and every accredited science organization that is involved in climate science or atmospheric physics. In fact, critical thinking tells us we should be highly skeptical of their claims. This is a series of 12 posts and we are on post #1. Let's move on, shall we? there is a long way to go. Post #3 is posted and open for comments. http://eureka-wildwood.patch.com/blog_posts/global-warming-the-debate-that-isnt
Regarding the climate models...I am very interested to see the models to which you refer. Please post a link. I have reviewed James Hansen's model, the IPCC model, and the Argo model...none of which show decade long decreases in global mean temperature. Now, I'm not familiar with your expertise in the area of climate, but a reference to the rules regarding "weather noise" and the 30-year rule would be appreciated. I will absolutely read and consider. And no...I do not need 4.5 billion years of data. The medieval warming period lasted ~300 years. The current interglacial period, the Holcene epoch, has lasted 15,000 years. Having created mathematical models myself, I know that more data is required to accurately predict trends. And last...can you please provide a link to a climate model that has accurately, or even semi-accurately predicted long term climate changes to date? It would have to be 10 years old or so, to get a full understanding of the model's effectiveness...but an accurate prediction of temperature, CO2, precip, any will do.
http://bit.ly/i8EGOL http://bit.ly/LZzPCd And here is a paper that shows how models can show flat/cooling for decadal timescales embedded within the long term CO2-driven warming: http://bit.ly/rUK6lU And here is what the real trend looks look like when the natural ups and downs are factored out: http://bit.ly/LvSgRD
No necessarily a denier, but surely a skeptic, given the rampant falsification perpetrated by the climate scientists in recent years.
Glaciers do not recede or advance based on the season. Whoever it was that "debunked" that for you is either ignorant, intenionally misleading you, or both. The "rampant falsification" that you referenced is also wrong - which I elaborate on in post #3. The "rampant falsification" is really by whoever it was that you told you about the glaciers. http://eureka-wildwood.patch.com/blog_posts/global-warming-the-debate-that-isnt Here are photos of a number of glaciers, taken on the same month, over time. http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/index.html
re: "climate models...which show decade long decreases in global mean temperature." See: http://tinyurl.com/6elvsel and http://tinyurl.com/ckqjnr and http://tinyurl.com/clkpqjj re: "the 30-year rule" See: http://tinyurl.com/79pznl7 "Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the 'average weather,' or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)."
I haven't forgot to respond to this thread...It takes time to review 4 links...especially to articles written by Scott A "Super"Mandia! This is like replying directly to Michael Mann! What an opportunity. Of course, I realize by definition, you will not be swayed with any reasoning I can generate...but it's still fun!
I am hesitant to accept AGW as settled science because, well, it's not. As I told Larry...simply repeating that a consensus exists does not make the science any more real. And I look forward to the solutions discussions. This thread has been extremely time consuming (because I try and post only verifiable fact, not opinion or consensus), but rewarding. I hope people reading this thread come away with an honest understanding of the real debate...and truth.
http://eureka-wildwood.patch.com/blog_posts/global-warmingclimate-change-post-4-of-12-conversation-with-dr-michael-mann