Thursday, March 5, 2009
Debate: Global Warming and the Environment
Originally this was all attached as comments to the post "Why I'm voting Democrat". Unfortunately, it became 20+ pages long. For the three people who read iit (Kendall, myself, and Fluffy my imaginary monkey) this is a bit much. So, I'm moving the comments into appropriate categories so Fluffy can reach them easily. So they don't clog up the main page, the text of the debate is recorded as a comment itself. Enjoy, Fluffy, enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 10:53am on October 4th, 2008
Global Warming... to say it doesn't exist and wasn't caused by man at this point in time, simply means you don't know what you're talking about. The science is out there that proves it. It's like saying that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer.
Drilling - It has been proven that allowing new drilling to start right now, would take 10 years to produce anything. Gas is still 3.70 in Northern Virginia, it will never get below 3.00 again, no matter how much we drill.
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 11:57am on October 6th, 2008
Global Warming: ” to say it doesn't exist and wasn't caused by man at this point in time, simply means you don't know what you're talking about. The science is out there that proves it.” Really? I suppose I don’t know what I’m talking about. Then again, neither do the 31,072 American scientists (including over 9,000 with PhD’s) who signed this petition: http://www.oism.org/pproject/ . They don’t know what they’re talking about either.
The petition states that “…There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. ”
You can also read their peer reviewed research paper on the topic. I won’t go into the gritty details here. I trust you will get informed yourself, and the paper is very long. But here are some highlights that occur early on:
Fig. 2 shows that glacial shortening occurring BEFORE and is unaffected by hydrocarbon use (Coal, Oil, and Gas). Fig. 3 shows that Arctic Air Temperature follows Solar Activity very closely, but doesn’t appear to correlate with hydrocarbon use. (Imagine that. The SUN affecting the earth’s temperature…)
Perhaps the most telling example, however, occurs in the first page, Figure 1: This graph shows the Earth’s temperature from 1000 B.C. to 2,000 A.D. It shows that during the Middle Ages the Earth was quite warm. (As a side note, you could once grow wine grapes in Scotland. It’s too cold there today for this to be done.) It shows the mini-Ice Age. Then it shows the 3,000 year average temperature. Guess where we are? 2006 was very slightly BELOW the 3,000 year average temperature! We aren’t even at average, much less catastrophically heated! We are still on the upward trend from the end of the mini-Ice Age.
If nothing else this data shows that the debate is by no means finished. It is far too early to relegate those who disagree with you to the position of misinformed and lump them in with the flat-Earthers. Rather than blindly following the sensationalist media, we ought to leave the scientific community to research this for a bit longer.
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 11:36am on October 7th, 2008
Since out differences are a matter of opinion, other than global warming that is all I will respond too. I'm just glad to see someone who is voting republican because of the issues and not the typical "democrats cut the military" crap which I always hear; which is why I started with the Veterans votes.
A lot has changed in the last 11 years since 1997. The year of kyoto. Here is a quote from the EPA:
What's Known
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
* Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
* The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
* An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
* The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
* Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.
You can find the link here:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html
And by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#intro
1. What is the greenhouse effect, and is it affecting our climate?
The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet. It is essential for life on Earth and is one of Earth's natural processes. It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they effectively 'trap' heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-radiation downward of some of that heat. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace gases. Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C). So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect by the emission of greenhouse gases through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation.
to top 2. Are greenhouse gases increasing?
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. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).
This is from their 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as well as NCDC's own data resources. It was prepared by David Easterling and Tom Karl, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, N.C. 28801.
So yes, I absolutely can with out a doubt call people who don't "believe" in global warming being caused by man as uninformed because it is no longer a matter of believing, it is a matter of knowing.
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 1:13pm on October 7th, 2008
There is no question the Earth is warming. Anyone with a thermometer can tell you that. The question is whether we are causing it.
The first source you quoted was the EPA. The EPA is a federal agency. Above all else, it depends completely and absolutely on funding from the federal government. This funding must pass through Congress. If the EPA does something Congress doesn’t like (because it won’t get them elected, runs contrary to public opinion, whatever) and there is a difference in opinion, who will win?
A quick search on “EPA Bias” turns up a plethora of instances where the EPA’s motives have been questioned, many times by their own employees. This article written in Oct 2006: http://www.amlibpub.com/liberty_blog/2006/10/more-fraud-misconduct-at-epa.html
“A recent report issued by the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) found ‘hundreds of weaknesses—missing data, no log books, falsified measurements—not noted by EPA. The office had found many of the same problems in 1999, and they were identified again by EPA in 2002,’ according to Kate Raiford of Raw Story.
EPA has violated its own risk assessment guidelines and debased scientific standards regarding secondhand smoke. It was found guilty of violating six federal statutes for using harassment and intimidation to try to compel employee support for its policy on secondhand smoke. It has fraudulently misrepresented the findings of other scientists in order to make it appear they supported conclusions EPA favored. A dozen career employees of EPA wrote a letter to the Washington Times “risking our careers rather than choosing to remain silent” about “egregious misconduct” at EPA. Internal documents… show that EPA exaggerated claims and promulgated unwarranted policies. EPA has gone against the advice of it own Science Advisory Board…EPA fraudulently manufactured fake “scientific” studies in order to support its views on sulfur dioxide (see my book MAKERS AND TAKERS for fuller explanation of this.) EPA has funneled taxpayer money to lobby groups that support political action on policies—even unscientific ones—that EPA wants to promote.”
Even if only a quarter, of the claims made by a cursory search are substantiated, it is enough to draw their judgement as an objective observer into question.
The source that the EPA quotes is the IPCC. On this subject, here’s David E. Wojick, Ph.D. President, Climatechangedebate.org . He states that “The UN IPCC WG1 Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the Third Assessment Report is not an assessment of climate change science, even though it claims to be. Rather, it is an artfully constructed presentation of just the science that supports the fear of human induced climate change. It is as one sided as a legal brief, which it resembles.
Line by line analysis of the SPM reveals that all of the science that cuts against the theory of human interference with climate has been systematically omitted…Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts, so the "policymakers" -- including the press and the public -- who read the SPM will not realize they are being told only one side of a story…the UN IPCC is part of an advocacy process, organized by the United Nations Environment Program and supporting the Kyoto Protocol.”
The same cannot be said of the NCDC, the last source you quoted. They are also a federal entity, but so far as I can tell their scientific integrity has not been questioned. We can, therefore, assume that they are honest in their opinions. I’m not a scientist, and I don’t claim to know any more than the next guy, but I am a thinker. My observations: They make many observations of current trends, match them next to trends in CO2 emissions (though by their own admission these gases are dwarfed by natural water vapor. When they refer to CO2 originally, they say “…by carbon dioxide and other trace gases”, implying that the difference between levels of water vapor and important gases is large.) in an attempt to say that there is a drastic and severe causal relationship. The rest of their projections are based on this conclusion. If this conclusion is wrong, then the rest falls apart.
They also admit, in many places, the limits of human knowledge. For example, when speaking of the solar affect on our atmosphere: “However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.” They go on to say that “Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate…” but that “they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale”. Of course this last statement is also based on the conclusions highlighted above.
So, does anyone disagree with their conclusion? After all, “A lot has changed in the last 11 years since 1997. The year of kyoto. “
Not so much has changed from October 2007, when this petition was re-released. From their website: “The majority of the current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after October 2007. The original review article that accompanied the petition effort in 1998-1999 was replaced in October 2007 with a new review incorporating the research literature up to that date.” Once again, this shows that there is no consensus on man-made global warming.
Skim through their paper. Within the first few minutes you’ll see that: 1) Temperatures are trending upwards. 2) They are trending upwards because they were down significantly in the 1700s. 3) It’s a good thing they are trending up, because if they weren’t, we’d be headed for some really, REALLY cold times. 4) We are not even back CLOSE to the temperatures of 1000 AD, much less headed for a blazing inferno.
This information is not out of date. It is not the work of some crackpot fringe who is using old information. This is an honest, open, and upfront dissent in the scientific community. No one has questioned their scientific objectivity. Their livelihoods don't depend on them picking one answer or another. Rather, their reputations (and salaries) depend on them being right. If anything, they are risking much by taking this position. There are many outside the scientific community who would instantly dismiss them. Some people might even go so far as to say that these learned men are “uninformed”, and that man-made global warming is not a matter of opinion, but instead “a matter of knowing”. I would say to these persons that perhaps, since there is widespread and current questioning, we should at the very least agree that disagreement does not instantly equate with ignorance.
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 4:12pm on October 7th, 2008
You can definely question their motives as well as you do those of the EPA.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 4:39pm on October 7th, 2008
Agreed, then. I hereby call this conflict of the minds adjourned. Long live Reagan!
Post a Comment