Climate Change Uncertainty??

We all are aware of the well-funded campaigns to discredit the science of global warming, and I’m the last one who wants to add more uncertainty to the mix. However, as someone who is not a climatologist, every time I read things like this and this I wonder if there really is as much certainty as some of the major environmental groups claim. So here’s a few questions for everyone:

1. Do you think the evidence points to humans being a LARGE cause of increased global temperatures?

2. Do you think that reducing emissions from human activities will SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the effects of global warming?

All you scientists and avid readers please help us better understand this crucial issue.

J.S.

Comments

[joshua corning]

We all are aware of the well-funded campaigns to discredit the science of global warming, and I’m the last one who wants to add more uncertainty to the mix.

Hmm makes me wonder when Steve McIntyre is going to get paid.

http://www.climateaudit.org/

[odograph]

Seen this?

Getting accurate information: Public or private responsibility?

[joshua corning]

the info on the clearlight link is kind of iffy...and i am saying that as a climate change skeptic.

One thing it does is peek my interest into the physics of the green house effect (natural or unnatural)...i mean i have never seen a good represntation as to what gases do what...isn't oxygen a green house gas? why isn't it shown in a side by side comaprison whith co2 and water vaper and nitrogen...that both sides don't show such comparisons hint to me that it might actaully be intersting.

[Dano]

1. Do you think the evidence points to humans being a LARGE cause of increased global temperatures?

2. Do you think that reducing emissions from human activities will SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the effects of global warming?

----------

1. The IPCC's new FAR states that humans are a large (leaving your term undefined) cause of increased global temps.

2. As this is a question that can only be answered in the future, the proper framing is about risk and Cost/Benefit.

Keeping this in mind, using emissions as a tool may or may not be a good policy option, but in my view when you try to take away something from someone, it usually doesn't work. I may be having a grumpy-pants day today, but neither society nor decision-makers (note I don't say 'leaders') have the will to change societal trajectories to lessen our destructive footprint on the planet.

This, then, leaves us back to the risk thing, where we ask: is it better for societies to have a hard or a soft landing.

----------

So I guess I have issues with how you framed your question, JS. But the framing thing is a big component in how I eat and keep the lights on...

Best,

D

[Dano]

Now, addressing your linky, JS, about the forests and global warming, the scientist himself held a talk to explain how the media misconstrued his findings.

Trees do not cause global warming.

And Clearlight? Come on.

Best,

D

[odograph]

Side-by-side comparions would be more important if there were not feedback loops between all of the greenhouse gases. Really, I'm pretty sure we've covered this before, that water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas, but that *if* higher co2 produces higher water vapor concentrations you've got a double-whammy.

That's why it always comes back to models, and anyone who tries to understand global warming without modeling is doomed.

[codeburner]

I don't think the evidence points to AGW at this time. As pointed out, anthropic CO2 contributions are small.

CO2 concentration lags temperature increases.

CO2 increased greatly from 1940 to 1980 but temperatures did not.

And finally the uncertainity in global CO2 atmosperic content is ten times the claimed anthropic contribution. IIRC total atmospheric CO2 content is something like 700 Gigatons, anthropic contributions are 12 GT and uncertainty is 80 GT

BK

[James Hamilton]

I recommend this site:

http://www.realclimate.org/

[J.S.]

interesting points all- thanks- so let me put out another one that perhaps should be the subject of an entire new post:

Instead of focusing on emissions for prevention of CC would it be more sensible (from a cost-benefit standpoint) to focus on climate change mitigations and adapations instead? For example, wildlife corridors up and down and across the globe, disaster relief, new engineering to prevent storm damage, etc.

J.S.

[odograph]

Well J.S., you've found the traditional sliding defense: from "there is no problem" to "well, even if there is a problem maybe we still don't have to do anything about emissions."

As we have covered in many previous env-econ threads, you can only define a mitigation/adaptation if you can define a GW result. Have you done that?

[joshua corning]

The delivery of accurate information to the citizenry should be an obligation of public institutions.

That must be why the Clinton administration fired its energy secretary for being an AGW skeptic.

[joshua corning]

Instead of focusing on emissions for prevention of CC would it be more sensible (from a cost-benefit standpoint) to focus on climate change mitigations and adapations instead?

YES...

I like this reasoning:

lets say you know tepmratures are rising...you don't know if it is becosue of humans or if it is just happeneing naturally.

What is the best way to spend your money to get a garanteed result?

If you sepnd it on stopping human causes then it might still happen naturally and you still have to pay to adjust.
if you pay only to adjust you are garanteed to do work that will be benifitial no matter if it is human casued or natural.

[Dano]

Instead of focusing on emissions for prevention of CC would it be more sensible (from a cost-benefit standpoint) to focus on climate change mitigations and adapations instead?

Why either-or? No decent plan puts all its eggs in one basket.

We have .5 deg C in the pipeline already, so some mitigation for crops and water vapor flow changes is likely needed anyway. Prevention would be for the 3 deg C that some say alters ecosystems.

Best,

D

[Dano]

Instead of focusing on emissions for prevention of CC would it be more sensible (from a cost-benefit standpoint) to focus on climate change mitigations and adapations instead?

Why either-or? No decent plan puts all its eggs in one basket.

We have .5 deg C in the pipeline already, so some mitigation for crops and water vapor flow changes is likely needed anyway. Prevention would be for the 3 deg C that some say alters ecosystems.

Best,

D

[Dano]

hmmm...apologies for 2x post.

[tom]

J.S.

The debate about the Green House Effect is closed. No more facts will be allow to enter now. The case for global warming is shut! DO NOT BRING ANY ARGUMENTS TO THIS WEBSITE TO THE CONTRARY!!!

[odograph]

This is amusing:

That must be why the Clinton administration fired its energy secretary for being an AGW skeptic.

What business does an "energy secretary" have in analyzing climatic data?

Don't tell me he did a career in climate modeling before moving to energy ...

[AB]

This argument about trees creating air pollution reminds me of the argument hunters made to fight waterfowl protections along the Chesapeake Bay. They tried to argue that all the waterfowl were polluting the Bay with nutrients via their excrement. It's a ridiculous argument. Trees have been around a lot longer than factories and cars without causing global warming.

[joshua corning]

What business does an "energy secretary" have in analyzing climatic data?

Don't tell me he did a career in climate modeling before moving to energy ...

Odo,

what buissness does the guy who replaced the one who was fired have in analysing climatic data?

Inder your same metric what does Al Gore get off making movies about it?

But this is the best one:

What Buissness is it of climatologists to set international energy policy?

[odograph]

Did we establish that his replacement was analysing climatic data? Maybe he's just doing his energy job, and dealing with the science presented to him.

As to Gore, he is now an activist, but scientific experts are reviewing his advocacy, and giving him a clean bill of health

[odograph]

By the way, if you think your last line was your best, it's time to toddle off to bed ;-)

[Megan]

Your questions are moot. Whether we think we have or can have an effect on climate change doesn't matter because we don't really know. A speaker I once saw (and I apologize for not remembering his name) pointed out that we are doing the experiment. We have through our actions decided to do the whole climate change experiment. Now we can decide to pull back on the experiment or let it go. But the real question is, even if you think we haven't or can't have an effect on climate change, are you willing to bet the human race on that opinion?

[Chris]

Bet the human race? Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration?

What Buissness is it of climatologists to set international energy policy?

I was refering to the IPCC...that would be the international part.

and these guys don't agree with that bill of health:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

[joshua corning]

but here is just on example of gore's "Science"

Gore's credibility is damaged early in the film when he tells the audience that, by simply looking at Antarctic ice cores with the naked eye, one can see when the American Clean Air Act was passed. Dr. Ian Clark, professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa (U of O) responds, "This is pure fantasy unless the reporter is able to detect parts per billion changes to chemicals in ice." Air over the United States doesn't even circulate to the Antarctic before mixing with most of the northern, then the southern, hemisphere air, and this process takes decades. Clark explains that even far more significant events, such as the settling of dust arising from the scouring of continental shelves at the end of ice ages, are undetectable in ice cores by an untrained eye.