Global warming is a contentious topic. Opinions on both sides can be loud and angry.
But in the past week, the loudness and anger climbed a few more notches. When a group of so-called "skeptics" expressed an opinion, a Huffington Post blog argued they were scared of science, saying, "the folks who deny scientific facts deserve to be laughed at and scorned." A New York Times blog took a more measured tone, saying that the skeptics "appear to flunk climate economics." Earth Times described their opinion as "a call to play with fire."
And who was this pack of jackals who fear science and deserve such scorn? They were members of the National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, the World Federation of Sciences, the Royal Dutch Meteorological Service, and distinguished universities around the world.
To understand what prompted the anger, it's best to look at the opinion that started it. On Jan. 28, the group of scientists published a signed editorial, titled "No Need to Panic About Global Warming," in The Wall Street Journal. The editorial expressed a strong opinion. It asserted that CO2 isn't ruining the Earth; it even contended that CO2 is a benefit. Moreover, the editorial was steadfast in its position that many high-level scientists don't believe in global warming, and are tired of the demonization of those who speak their opinions.
"The oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true," it said. "In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed."
Right now, the Internet is buzzing with anger over the editorial. Many blogs have said that The Wall Street Journal turned down a comparable editorial written by scientists who believe in global warming. It's not known if this is true; calls to The Wall Street Journal by Design News were not returned.
But forget for a minute whether you do or don't believe in global warming. Global warming -- or "climate change," as it's now called -- is an unbelievably complex subject that's deeply understood by only a handful of people. In truth, most of us rely on conclusions from various studies, done by people we trust, to determine where we stand on the subject. But, good grief, if an opinion of distinguished scientists doesn't match our own, does it deserve scorn?
Where is your evidence? Come on Charles, can't you do anything to support your unsubstantiated allegations? Anything? I don't see anything bu whining about being victimized by evil researchers.
Here's something to consider. The "skeptics" are wrong and so their papers don't get published for a variety of reasons. I suggest that you read "Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation" by João Magueijo. In it you'll read about the author not getting published.
Dissent with the research and work to back it up is one thing, dissent for dissent's sake is another. Until you post some valid research or rebuttal your position is nonsense.
I see a lot of links to data presented by AGW "proponents" meant to convince us their view is correct. This site has a lot of data stating just the opposite. I'm not a militant, so I won't use terms such as "misinformed Brit" or other stupid stereotypical terms I've seen in earlier responses. As someone who is concerned about AGW, but not convinced it's occurring, it would be great to have people explain their views in a professional manner.
@Charles: The "skeptics" like to portray themselves as victims, but I don't see any real evidence of this beyond their own statements. The claim that they are being shut out of the scientific establishment is hard to take seriously, since they are members of the scientific establishment. Their tale of woe provides them with a convenient explanation of why their numbers are so small, but it is based on unverifiable anecdotes. It also seems aimed at eliciting sympathy for them as "underdogs." But this discussion should be about facts, not sympathies. Clearly, it hasn't been. The idea that one side has been following the rules for scientific debate and the other hasn't is untrue. That's why it's so difficult to have a calm and rational discussion about this.
I think you will find it is the climate scientists who are being intimidated. Let's just take one example, Michael Mann.
He is one of the most most respected scientists in the field of paleoclimatology, yet has been the victim of a long-running harassment and intimidation campaign by right-wing ideologues and conspiracy theorists, including political and legal threats by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.
After hackers stole emails from a the CRU in the UK, climate deniers renewed their attacks on Mann, forcing several academic inquiries, all of which debunked the slanderous charges.
There are a number of ideas floating around for GeoEngineering answers. For example a research group in France is designing 'pipes' that can be lofted from the ground to the upper atmosphere to allow sulphates to be pumped up there. However there are issues with this strategy. One is just how much would be needed to counter the level of warming that burning all our fossil fuels would cause. The quantities are enormous and need to be maintained continuously because aerosols drop out relatively quickly. Then there are any health implications. This stuff as air pollution at low altitude is dangerous.
Next is the fact that even if it did produce the overall level of cooling needed, there would still be variable climate impacts around the world as local climates would still alter since the pattern of cooling the aerosols would produce wouldn't match the geographical pattern of warming. As an earlier example of this, the period of bad droughts in Sub-Saharan Africa during the 60's & 70's is believed to have been caused by pollution from the US & Europe altering the movement of the West African Monsoon, stopping it moving north. When we cleaned up our air, the monsoon returned to normal. So what happens if some nations unilaterally start doing this and it has adverse impacts on other nations. Military strikes to destroy the 'pipes'?
The final consequence of this course of action is called the 'termination problem'. If we stop doing this for whatever reason before CO2 levels have dropped low enough, we have gained nothing. The warming just returns. Since burning all the available fossil fuels would mean that natural processes would take 1000's of years at least to draw CO2 levels back down to something reasonable, we would have to keep doing this for millenia. As long as civilisation has existed already.
All the research to date, and much of this isn't climate models but studies into past climates (paleoclimatology), is that a doubling of CO2 will produce around 3 DegC warming, possibly higher. However burning all the fossil fuels would probably quadrupal or more CO2 levels so 6 DegC warming or so. And thats the global average. Land warms more than that, high latitudes more again. At these temps, Amazonia at least converts to savannah instead of rainforest, releasing more CO2, Progressively the world permafrost all melts releasing Methane & CO2. All the main ice sheets melt over the course of centuries - 600 ppm has been identified from past climates as the rough level at which Antarctica started freezing over. So 60-70 m sea level rise over future centuries.
The most basic problem we face is 2-fold. Firstly most people react to a problem when we see it happening. However, due to the huge thermal mass of the oceans the CO2 we release today doesn't produce its full warming until decades into the future. So our normal wait-and-see attitude means that by the time we start to react seriously to the problem because we are seeing the effects, we are already decades too late. This is a problem where only prevention works.
Second issue is that the actions required means we need a huge transformation in our energy systems and economies rapidly, now. Because of this lag time. But we can't see the urgency so we might act but still only slowly. So we keep building FF power plants that have economic lives of 40-80 years.
A recent International Energy Agency report highlighted that within 6 years, expected investment in new FF plant would lock in place CO2 emission levels to take us past the first CO2 doubling, even though it would take decades of operation of these plants to bring that about. To then reduce emissions fast enough to try and keep below a reasonably safe threshold, these plants would become 'stranded assets'. We would have to shut them down before the end of there economic lives. Costing Trillions. Right now there are resource companies that are carrying on there balance sheets FF resources vallued at trillions. If we can't extract them because we can't affoird the carbon, their balance sheets get trashed, their stock prices everything. But if we don't and use all those FF's, our grandchildren's future is absolutely screwed.
So this is the core issue. People can't see the threat yet. By the time they do see it directly, its too late.
Perhaps this might explain to you the stridency with which those who are convinced of the science advocate for action. And why they tend to be less than polite to skeptics who seem to simply want to endlessly talk and delay action.
The nature of the question is such that someone who is skeptical really needs to throw themselves totally into resolving their skepticism one way or the other through in depth inquiry into the science. Just going along with our lives and treating this question as something that will be resolved eventually isn't really good enough. It is no good saying 40 years from now that your doubts have been resolved because you can now see it happening. 40 years from now will be too late to start acting.
We all value our rights in society. But along with rights come responsibilities. And I would argue that every single one of has a fundamental responsibility today. Whatever our view, we need to become active in reaching a resolution of the 'debate' rapidly. And if that means we need to drive ourselves to be deeply informed quickly. Doubt as a justification for avoidance is not a valid position.
Rather doubt on a question such as this requires we resolve the doubts rapidly since it is such a huge question and at least one of the possible answers to the question requires huge change to avoid bad outcomes. I personally have no doubts that when people engage deeply with the science their doubts will diminish hugely. And in a forum such as this, most people here are, in some form, of technical backgrounds making you all suitable enquirers into this subject in a way that many people aren't.
Make no mistake, this isn't just another 'policy question'. We are living in extraordinary times, perhaps unprecedented in human history. It is easy to think that we don't face exceptional questions because no previous generation has. The exceptional does happen occasionally. And it happens to be falling on our watch.
I wouldn't want to be telling my grandchildren 40 years from now that "I had doubts about this so I didn't enquire into it too much. I'm convinced now but its too late."
"frankly the fact is the only thing that will convince me is a steady rise of global temps in lock step with CO2 levels"
This is an unreasonable thing to expect. What is reasonable is that the total heat content of the whole climate system should rise somewhat in line with CO2. It may not rise in complete lockstep because CO2 is causing an imbalance in energy flows into & out of the Earth. But total heat content doesn't follow this excatly because other factors affect where the heat goes and some parts of the system, notably the oceans take a long time to accumulate enough heat to increase their temperature enough to restore the radiative balance.
This graph however does show a steady rise in total heat for decades. Note that what you are probably thinking of as temperatures, air temperatures, is just one small part of the lower section of the graph. The oceans are the main game.
The dip around 2000 is associated with the big El Nino of 1998. The ripples at 1992 and 1982 are the eruptions of Mt Pinatubo & Mt Agung. Is that consistent enough agreement for you?
And just as a comparison, this rate of warming works out to over 2 1/2 Hiroshima Bombs per second since 1970. So more warmth than could have come from anything other than a change in the Earth's radiative balance with space.
Just to change the debate slightly, before I have to get to my work, even if CO2 is a problem, it is unlikely that any efforts will reduce the emissions in the near term. The global economics dictate that the world will utilize every bit of hydrocarbon fuel that can be obtained at a profit.
Given that assumption, what would be the best course of action?
One answer is Climate Modification. Several schemes have been put forward to try to control the global temperature, such as putting millions of tons of Sulphur Dioxide I think it wasinto the air. This is a similar mechanism that occurs when a volcano emits the same gas and has an immediate although not long lasting effect on the atmospheric temperatures.
So is anyone willing to pony up money for some Terraforming experiments? Be sure to take out some insurance against the lawsuits that might follow.
One can find arguments for and against anything on the net.
I am a software engineer and I know that software models of physical processes have limitations that are not necessarily apparent to their creators. Just look at the stock market. One can find any number of systems designed to predict the rise and fall, some even work. Some work for some time periods and then there are others that just get lucky.
Sorry, Dave, but I respectfully disagree. The "skeptics" are in a vast minority. They're the dissenters. They're the ones being told the the science is settled. They're the ones having their papers rejected and having their jobs threatened, even at major universities. They're the ones being told they are "scared of science," despite their lives having been spent in science. If you want to say that the preponderance of science is on the side of the majority, I'll agree with you. But if you want to say that dissent should be treated this way, I don't agree. And while I don't like some of their latest rhetoric, I don't expect them to lay down when they're being barraged like this.
Unfortunately you appear to be repeating opinions from others that are wrong.
A few basic facts. Water vapour is 25-100 times the level of CO2 at sea level. But its relative concentration drops of rapidly with altitude. By the time you reach the stratosphere CO2 is still the same percentage of the atmosphere - 390 parts per million - but H2O has dropped to 5-10 parts per million. Averaged over the entire atmosphere H2O is around 10 times the level of CO2. But the 'radiative forcing', the effect that a GH gas has on the planets energy balance is roughly logarithmic - for each doubling in the concentration of a GH gas it increases by around the same amount. So on that basis a back-of-the-envelope calculation says that H2O is maybe 3 and a bit times the impact of CO2.
A more detailed recent study looking at this, Schmidt et al 2011, puts the % contribution at H2O 50%, Clouds 25%, CO2 20%, other GH Gases 5%
Or you could look at this site at the University of Chicago. http://forecast.uchicago.edu/Projects/modtran.html
This uses the commercially available program ModTran to allow you to calculate the outgoing Infr-Red Spectrum of the Earth for differing conditions. And the area under the curve is the total flux of IR in Watts/M^2. Run it with the default settings - the site is a bit old so it uses CO2 at 375 ppm. Notice the large notch in the center of the spectrum between wavenumbers of 600 & 800 due to CO2. Then run it again setting CO2 to 0 and look at the difference.Not really just a few percent is it?
ModTran is developed under licence to the US DoD, The Air Force GeoPhysical Laboratory to be exact, who own many of the patents for it. And the results from this and many other academic versions of these 'radiative transfer' calculation codes give an incredibly good fit to what is actually observed from space. The incredible match between calculation and observation of this is the principal evidence that we understand the GH Effect.
People often think that the GH Effect is just about the absorption of IR by the GH gases near the surface. But an even more important aspect is how eventual radiation to space at high altitude is modulated by GH gas levels.
The bottom line is that you have presented nothing to refute the current science. This is typical of the denier position.
I do thank the denier community for illustrating how they work, making claims without providing any evidence. This is THE problem with the US, even those that should know better, engineers, reject the scientific process in preference for ideology and inuendo.
So, the question isn't whether the "skeptics" are right, but what good can come of a nation that operates like this?
From Dell / Intel® New Paradigms in Design Work Scott Hamilton, vertical market strategist for Dell Precision workstations, 5/2/2013 3
Early in my career, I worked as a draftsman and remember the days of drawing on vellum with numbered pencils and Mylar with plastic lead. This was a fun experience in the sense that I ...
I've been using workstations for more than 10 years and love finding ways to get more performance from my system. With demanding professional applications that require more power each ...
A lasting memory from my first job as an engineer in an auto assembly plant is standing on hard concrete at six in the morning, vending-machine coffee clutched in hand, listening to ...
A quick look into the merger of two powerhouse 3D printing OEMs and the new leader in rapid prototyping solutions, Stratasys. The industrial revolution is now led by 3D printing and engineers are given the opportunity to fully maximize their design capabilities, reduce their time-to-market and functionally test prototypes cheaper, faster and easier. Bruce Bradshaw, Director of Marketing in North America, will explore the large product offering and variety of materials that will help CAD designers articulate their product design with actual, physical prototypes. This broadcast will dive deep into technical information including application specific stories from real world customers and their experiences with 3D printing. 3D Printing is
To save this item to your list of favorite Design News content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
Updated graphic of total heat content from 
20 
