Global Warming: Science and Politics do Battle

Beryllium Sphere(r)

Wed Apr 12 21:32:28 -0700 2006

manage

Dr. Lindzen talks about cirrus clouds as a feedback mechanism and sees unfairness in the delay of publication for his paper about it.

I went to a talk by Stephen Schneider in 1998 in which he pointed out high altitude clouds as one of many feedback mechanism, positive and negative, which affect how climate varies over time. So it's hardly an idea that the scientific community is refusing to consider.

When papers on climate change get rewritten by an American Petroleum Institute lobbyist, when government scientists are gagged, when other researchers are hit with a Congressional investigation for publishing about manmade global warming, saying that the skeptics are being censored is damn close to Orwellian.

Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

Google says they're still publishing about climatology, with papers in 2002 and 2004.

The value in his opinion piece is that he points out highly publicized ideas that are (overpolite)not firmly supported by known science(/overpolite), for example Katrina. Near as I can tell the jury is still out on what will happen to storm formation (it's even more complicated than Lindzen had room to explain) and it is absolute nonsense (literally nonsense, meaning so bad it's not even false) to blame one hurricane of a season on a longterm statistical trend.

Global Warming: Science and Politics do Battle

Martin Blank

Thu Apr 13 14:22:22 -0700 2006

manage

Part of the problem -- on both sides -- is that it's very hard for the common person to understand what's going on, which is compounded by the fact that even climatologists disagree on what's happening, even when they're on the same side of the debate.  The term "global warming" is misleading to people because it's not really clear enough for many people to grasp.  When I try to explain the debate and mention that Antarctica is getting colder, there's often confusion, and I have to backtrack and cover some of the points where parts of the planet seem to be warming and some parts seem to be cooling, but that the average temperature seems to have increased over the last 30 years or so.  Explaining the interactions of ocean currents, cloud formation, and alterations to the atmospheric composition both natural and man-made can get too complex for people to follow, and they often give up.

I do respect names on both sides of the debate.  Michael Mann seems to be a smart guy, but the fact that he had to be strongly pushed to release all of his information and source code just doesn't come across right.  On the other side is another well-respected climate researcher, William Gray, who until last year led the hurricane forecasting group, and who believes that global warming is a result of natural alterations to ocean currents, but so far this seems to be merely a hypothesis.

Left and right have agenda to push.  Eco-freaks (the fringe groups) want to see things like the complete removal of all energy technologies except wind, solar, and perhaps tidal.  Complete laissez-faire economists (which can also be on the fringe) want to leave it alone on the basis that it will work itself out, or that the fears of environmentalists are overblown.  As usual, the truth probably lies somewhere in between.  Absent some catastrophe that results in a massive loss of human population, energy requirements are going to remain very high around the world, and there needs to be attention paid to it.  Aside from the possible issues surrounding the release of carbon dioxide, there are also the issues of the release of everything else that comes along with it -- carbon monoxide, nitrogen and sulfer oxides, and various organic molecules that aren't so pleasant for the human body.  How do we deal with them?  Solar and wind are possible solutions, but are unlikely to ever work out as the only solution.  New technologies that make far more efficient use of power in static situation (LED lightbulbs, for example) are other directions that could work, especially since, according to an article I read last night, the US uses 22% of the electricity generated for lighting alone, and other developed countries are likely using similarly high levels.

There is a role for the fringe groups on both sides, but sometimes they get too much attention and subject their entire half to ridicule.  It's important to cut emissions and use less power, but there's not much point in doing that if the immediate effect is to destroy the entire economy.

Global Warming: Science and Politics do Battle

Spider

Thu Apr 13 23:06:02 -0700 2006

manage

"when I try to explain the debate and mention Antarctica is getting colder"

I would like you to explain how you know Antartica is getting colder ? All the information I have read and talking to people who have been to Antarctica over many years maintain that Antarctic temperatures are on the increase. The British have released information from many years of radiosonde soundings that also confirm a marked warming trend in Antarctica..

Global Warming: Science and Politics do Battle

Martin Blank

Fri Apr 14 06:31:52 -0700 2006

manage

The waters around Antarctica have shown a slight warming trend due to ocean currents coming from areas of warmer waters, which has been attributed as a cause of some of the glacial breakups at the fringes, but most data on the core of the continent have shown a decrease in temperatures.  A quick Google search on this will turn up plenty of information on it.

Exercise for the reader

Beryllium Sphere(r)

Wed Apr 12 22:03:40 -0700 2006

manage

Skim the list of NSF grants which mention climate change

Draw your own conclusions about two of Lindzen's contentions, first that nobody's interested in understanding the atmosphere, second that only alarmist studies are getting funded.

Global Warming: Science and Politics do Battle

AB3A

Thu Apr 13 06:43:23 -0700 2006

manage

The problem with studies of climate is that controlled studies are nearly impossible to conduct.  The best we can do is attempt approximations on a super-computer and hope that we haven't left out any significant causes and effects.. 

Thus, in this area of uncertainty there exists an opportunity for someone with political motives to push these results around and confuse others.  There have been many misfires of this sort, both to the right and to the left.  The Right Wing nuts would like us to believe there is nothing wrong.  The Left Wing nuts would like us all to beleive the climate will spiral out of control unless we adopt their heavy handed government policies. 

Somewhere in the middle of this morass is a solution which will require minimal government intervention.  We haven't found that happy medium yet.  In fact, we're just beginning to understand the fundamental issues involved.  The shrill arguments are the political process in action.  It's not pretty to listen to.  It's not pretty to watch.  However, I know of no other way to find this happy medium. 

If it were possible to isolate the research from political views, I'd be happy to adopt it.  Keep in mind however, that universities tend to cultivate some very left leaning professors, while Private Industry tends to select among the very hardest Right wing thinkers to be their leaders.  Common ground is awfully hard to find in this issue.  It will take the very best politicians (sorely lacking these days) to forge a common ground upon which we can make effective climate policy. Until then, this issue will remain shrill and subject to all sorts of short term political goals.