Meeting recently in South Africa, representatives from 194 countries agreed to the Durban Platform, the latest effort to put the world on a path to cut greenhouse gas emissions that scientists say are driving climate change.
One crucial question is whether the Durban conference was even addressing a real issue. For many conservatives, the answer is no. Global warming, it’s said, is a (flawed) theory, not a fact. The idea that human activity is in any way responsible for higher temperatures is false. Advocates of global warming are relying on doctored data. Indeed, global warming is a manufactured crisis being used by environmentalists to impose their left-wing agenda on America. Or so the argument goes.
Having looked into this matter a bit, I’ve settled on several judgments which are open to refinement and amendment, including these: The world is getting warmer. The warming is almost certainly caused, at least in large part, by human activity. And rising temperatures could pose a future risk, though how significant of a risk is open to interpretation.
Here’s what we do know. According to a report by the National Academy of Sciences, the average temperature of Earth’s surface increased by about 0.8 degrees Celsius during the past 100 years, with more than half occurring during the past three decades. During one recent 12-year stretch (1995-2006), 11 of those years ranked among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature. Richard A. Muller, a professor of physics who once counted himself a skeptic about global warming, re-examined the data through the auspices of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project and came to this conclusion: “Global warming is real.” And the preponderance of the scientific evidence points to human activity as the most likely cause for most of the global warming that has occurred over the last half-century. Gregg Easterbrook, an environmental commentator who has a long record of opposing alarmism, put it this way: “All of the world’s major science academies have said they are convinced climate change is happen[ing] and that human action plays a role.”
The concentration in the atmosphere of carbon dioxide has increased markedly during the past 150 years, with fossil-fuel burning being one of the main contributors (deforestation is another). Estimates are that humans have been responsible for almost a 40 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the past two centuries. It is indisputable that atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased; it makes complete sense that the effects of this increase would lead to a warming of Earth’s surface. The reason is that greenhouse gases enhance the natural greenhouse effect by absorbing outgoing infrared radiation and re-radiating some of it back toward the surface, thereby warming it. This is not a liberal invention; it’s physics.
Where there’s a good deal more uncertainty is in future climate projections and what needs to be done – which I’ll address in my next post.
1) Global Warming is True. That's not really under contention. To paint the skeptic as denying this is largely misleading. (sure there are uninformed people who think this is crock, but most voting citizens and politicians understand the data here) n n2) Humans have an impact. That's a statement that can be debated. If I urinate in the mississippi during a flood, I am making an impact on the flood. So, there is a real concern over the degree of the impact of human beings. Are we 'pissing' in the river, or is it more significant? n n3) And of course, the "So What?" response. Suppose we accept global warming. So what? Whats the impact of global warming on human life? This is where science departs company from the debate. The accuracy of a scientific prediction goes to its credibility. I know F=ma is good science because it predicts results that have been measured. What of Global Warming? So far, the predictions are way off base, and that is certainly a good reason to be conservative (no pun intended) about the theory. If we do nothing, what will the temperature be in 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? If we cut carbon emissions by X, what will the temperature be? What if we do all that and the temperature doesn't rise or goes down? What if it rises despite cuts to emissions? n nThe resistance is because we are told nA) Global Warming will lead to Massive Disruptions to Human Ways of Life. nB) These disruptions are an "imminent" threat, despite being imminent for over a decade with no real disruptions besides the norm. nC) Governments must "do something" to avoid/minimize the Massive Disruptions to Human Ways of Life by implementing drastic measures that will create…Massive Disruptions to Human Ways of Life. n nSo yeah, given the choice between a possible natural disaster and a certain government one, I'll take my chances with nature.
Your argument seems akin "I hate shots. Therefore influenza isn't real." n nPeter's point seems to be that the conservative position should be to n na) consider the scientific evidence on its merits, and if the evidence supports the conclusions most scientists have reached. n nthen n nb) let's fight for conservative, market-based solutions, rather than government intervention. n nThat seems awful reasonable — and prudent — to me. The idea that to be conservative we have to reject science because we mistrust government is insulting..and leads to a dead end. n nAttempts to ignore science when it conflicts with a belief usually end badly. n nP.S. On your point #2: The evidence indicating a very large human impact is measurable, observable, and highly consistent — it's not some "table napkin" estimate. That's why all the world's scientific academies — the "Supreme Courts" of science that review and summarize all relevant research — have reached the same conclusion.
Missed the "From a REAL Climatologist". Another worrying comment reinforcing what Wehner is saying. Fred Singer (better known as scientist-for-hire promoting smoking doesnt cause cancer) is only "real" climatologist if your definition is "says what I want to hear". In the world of science, a real climatologist is one actively researching climate and publishing regularly on climate in peer-reviewed journals. Singer's "tobacco science" journal (E&E) doesnt count. n n
Brian. You're just making things up. Or you're just very gullible and uncritically repeat things. Mann did not say what you claim he said (where did you get this whopper?), and the CERN authors actually say the opposite (they've gone on record contradicting the claim you've repeated). Given the one lie and one misrepresentation you've uttered/repeated, there's no reason to listen to you. n nWehner's post about not denying reality applies directly to people like you (or the websites that you frequent to pick up this nonsense). n–dan n n n
The satellite data which is the most reliable way of measuring global temperature demonstrates it hasn't warmed since 1998
1998 had the strongest El Niño on record, and that made that years record high a BIG anomaly. Temps in 2005 and 2010 equaled that high WITHOUT strong El Niño. So the trend is still a definite increase. It is very true that temps have not increased as much as predicted if one ONY considers the increase in CO2. But Climate is more complicated. Solar radiation has decreased this decade and there are studies that show aerosols – pollutants form the coal burning in China, and other places (fires in india, Indonesia, etc) have a temporary impact, as does the energy absorbed from melting Arctic ice, and other short term effects from the oceans. If the temp had DECREASED this decade there would be some reason to question ACC. If it does not increase significantly in the next 10 years, there will also be reason to question the theory. Even the most skeptic climate scientists, Lindzen, Christie, Spencer. Michaels, acknowledge that the physics is correct. They each have unproven hypothesis for mitigating factors. None has a track record that suggests they are right, and none of their hypothesis has garnered sufficient evidence to consider it as a viable alternative at this point.
Satellite data detects upper atmosphere temps which would be expected to be lower since lower atmosphere greenhouse gases are slowing the release of radiated heat. n nBe informed … not lead.