Global Warming Update

In doing some research in our ongoing discussion of global warming, I came across this very interesting article about the "non-consesus" that is actually the reality in the scientific community about this subject.

The key scientist that is the focus of this article is climate scientist Petr Chylek from the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Here is a sample of what we're really talking about:

Chylek stood before the attendees _ both supporters of the mainstream view and well-known skeptics _ and argued that the "data are inconclusive" on whether greenhouse gases are responsible for changes already seen in the Earth's climate.

"You really cannot say for certain what is causing current climate change," Chylek said in an interview.

In February, when a team of U.S. scientists produced new data suggesting Greenland's glaciers are melting more rapidly than previously thought, Chylek shot back with is own evidence.

He said Greenland temperature records show the North Atlantic island was cooler in the second half of the 20th century than it was in the first half.

I think the problem is that we really don't know what the problem really is. Are we concerned about temperatures or melting glaciers? And shouldn't the two be related in some scientific manner? If the the heat isn't melting the glaciers, what is? Sure isn't global warming, as the temperatures there have actually dropped.

Most climate scientists agree that the Earth is warming; that human exhaust, primarily carbon dioxide, is likely a big part of the reason; and the more exhaust we spew, the more temperatures will rise.

But Chylek questions the conclusions. Could changes in the sun be responsible for some of the warming? Are scientists missing other factors besides greenhouse gases that could be causing the warming? Are the thermometer records that show warming as accurate as scientists think they are?

Now we arrive at what I think the real culprit is: the sun. Impeach the sun.

"This is about one of the most diverse conferences there is," said University of Alabama climate scientist John Christy.

Christy has gained international attention for his argument that temperature data do not support predictions that greenhouse gases will dramatically warm the Earth's climate during the next century.

And now, let's get back to the "consensus" that I keep hearing about:

Roger Pielke Jr., a University of Colorado political scientist who studies the politics of climate science, said the range of views held by scientists does not show up in the public political debate.

The science becomes dichotomized into "skeptics versus alarmists ... even though it does not do justice to the complexities of the science debate."

Hmmm...someone with an agenda is controlling the debate? Shocking!

Pielke's father, Robert Pielke Sr., is one of those climate renegades.

Pielke Sr. said in an interview that he thinks greenhouse gases are not the whole story behind climate change. Massive human land-use changes _ for example, wholesale shifts from forest to agriculture _ are also important, he said.

And, global temperature data are fraught with uncertainties, he said. He also is skeptical of the computer climate simulations used to forecast future climate changes.

When have we ever been able to forecast the weather accurately? We're putting an awful lot of "faith" into the "magic" of "science" if you ask me.

My favorite part comes at the end of the article though:

Chick Keller, a retired Los Alamos lab climate modeler, said the scientists invited to the conference are honest scientists raising serious questions.

But, he said, while the questions are legitimate, they are not sufficient to undermine the vast evidence for greenhouse gas-caused global warming.

"The trouble with the Chyleks and the Pielkes and to some extent Christy is they're nitpickers," Keller said in an interview. "You can always find something wrong."

Now, science itself is built on the premise that scientific laws can't be broken and that the results of these laws can be replicated on demand without flaw.

Except for when they can't...I guess...

11:30AM UPDATE: This has been a rather interesting research session. Here is an article that really pins down the inconvenient truth to terms that make sense:

The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're helpless.

And unlike most articles on global warming, this one puts forth a proposal for a solution to the energy crisis that might warrant further investigation:

The practical conclusion is that if global warming is a potential calamity, the only salvation is new technology. I once received an e-mail from an engineer. Thorium, he said. I had never heard of thorium. It is, he argued, a nuclear fuel that is more plentiful and safer than uranium without waste disposal problems. It's an exit from the global warming trap. After reading many articles, I gave up trying to decide whether he is correct. But his larger point is correct: Only an aggressive research and development program might find ways of breaking our dependence on fossil fuels or dealing with it.

The problem, of course, is that liberals don't want to see nuclear energy take its rightful place as the successor to fossil fuels. Why? Well, I'm sure they all have flowery language to dress it up in, but I think it would detract from their real agenda: the desire to turn the entire world into a third world socialist "paradise."

11:40AM Update: A Libertarian perspective from 1999 is interesting and has some facts that I thought I'd share with the class:

Each year, there are about 150 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions from all sources. Only about 7 billion (or 5%) of this tonnage is the result of human activity. The remaining 95% are from natural, i.e. non-human, sources. Less than 3/10ths of a billion tons of CO2 are emitted by autos in the U.S. So, if every car in America were permanently parked, global carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced by less than 2/10ths of 1%. That is, 99.8% of the emissions would be untouched by this draconian strategy against American mobility. Lesser impacts like "no-drive days" or mass transit subsidies would have triflingly tiny impacts.

In general, then, an effort to prevent CO2 from getting into the atmosphere by restricting mobility and retarding industry does not appear very promising as a means of reducing the concentration of that particular gas. The cost would be huge and the results minuscule.

A better approach might be to focus on strategies aimed at absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Plants use it as an input to their growth. Consequently, a strategy that promotes plant growth would act to convert carbon dioxide into vegetative biomass. Growing more trees, harvesting mature wood and converting it into durable wooden products, and replanting new trees would promote a sustainable cycle that would remove CO2 from the air and reduce whatever contribution it is, in fact, making to global warming.

I like this for a couple of reasons...it makes sense, it wouldn't ruin our enonomy, and it promotes greenspace.

This proposed solution deserves some focus as well for the same reasons:

Another solution to the problem of greenhouse gas concentrations (and, again, one which is not wrenching to American lifestyles and industries) is the fertilization of the oceans with iron-based compounds, which would extract CO2 from the air by stimulating plant growth. After all, some of my readers probably put iron-based fertilizers on the ground in front of their homes to get a lusher lawn -- i.e., to stimulate plant growth. Spreading fertilizer in the oceans could also substantially increase food supplies for aquatic animals throughout the food chain -- possibly aiding in the preservation of some endangered species. Neither the increased planting and harvesting of trees for wood, nor the fertilization of the oceans, would require the kinds of sacrifice being demanded by environmentalists like Vice President Gore.