Apr 29 2007
Prev/Next Posts: « Scotty (briefly) returns to space || Sass Pirillo »
Is global warming solar induced?
There is some news making the rounds that Earth is not the only planet experiencing global warming. Mars, for example, possibly appears to be getting a bit warmer, as are Jupiter, Neptune’s moon Triton, and even Pluto.
Could this mean that global warming is caused by the Sun and not man’s pollution?
I am certainly seeing global warming deniers and others taking this information and running with it (like here, for example, or here, and on Benny Peiser’s CCNet on March 7, 2007, though I don’t have a link for that). However, let’s take a skeptical approach shall we?
First off, I want to make a very big point here: the changes in the Earth due to global warming, while real, are somewhat subtle. Yet the Earth gets most of its heat from the Sun, so if the Sun were the cause, we’d expect the effects of warming to be much stronger on Earth than any outer planets. So any really strong signal of global warming on outer planets like Jupiter or especially Pluto, if real, are very unlikely to be due to the Sun.
Second, what I am seeing in these arguments is a very dangerous practice called "cherry picking"; selectively picking out data that support your argument and ignoring contrary evidence. It certainly looks interesting that Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Triton, and Pluto are warming, and if that’s all you heard then it seems logical to think maybe the Sun is the cause. But they aren’t the only objects in the solar system. What about Mercury, Venus, Saturn, Uranus… and if you include Triton to support your case, you’d better also take a good look at the nearly 100 other sizable moons in the solar system. Are they warming too?
I have heard nothing about them in these arguments, and I suspect it’s because there’s not much to say. If they are not warming, then deniers won’t mention them, and scientists won’t report it because there is nothing to report ("News flash: Phobos still the same temperature!" is unlikely to get into Planetary Science journals). However, I can’t say that with conviction, because the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Any planetary scientists reading this blog entry, please contact me. I’m interested in hearing more.
Third, if you actually read the articles about the specific cases of planetary warming to which I linked above, you see that they all have separate explanations:
- First off, is Mars even warming globally at all? Perhaps not — it might be a local effect. And if it is global, there already is an idea of why that might be happening: it would be due to periodic changes in its orbit, called Milankovitch cycles. The Earth has them too, and they do affect our climate. And the guy who is proposing that the Sun is warming Mars doesn’t think CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I think his science is a little suspect. His reasoning is certainly specious– he says if Mars and Earth are both warming, it must be due to the Sun. As I point out above, that is clearly not necessarily the case. Even if this martian warming turns out to be true, it may just be a natural effect of the shape of the orbit of Mars.
-
The evidence for Jupiter’s global warming is nothing of the sort. It is evidence that there are warm spots, with storms rising to the tops of the clouds. This may just be a local effect, and not global. Jupiter’s atmosphere is fiendishly complex, and not well understood. If you’ve ever looked at the planet through a telescope, you can clearly see thick horizontal bands across the disk; these are enormous wind patterns that dwarf the Earth. A few years ago, one of the dark bands disappeared completely. For reasons unknown to this day, it sank a bit in the atmosphere, and opaque clouds covered it up. I saw it many times through my ’scope, and it was bizarre. Then, after a while, it reappeared, just like that. My point: any claims about Jupiter’s atmosphere when it comes to global warming must be approached very carefully. We don’t understand the dynamics of that system.
Hubble image of Jupiter showing banding. Also, Jupiter’s atmospheric physics is dominated by the internal heat of the planet, and not by the heat from the Sun. So even if the Sun did heat up somehow, the effect on Jupiter would probably be a lot less dramatic than here on Earth.
- With Triton, Neptune’s moon, it says in the very article quoted that Triton is approaching an extreme summer season, due to the tilt of its orbit. This happens every few centuries. So the Sun can be constantly chugging away, and Triton would warm up anyhow. Mind you, Neptune’s orbit is 165 years long, so we haven’t even observed it for a full orbit since the invention of modern detectors capable of giving us good data. Therefore it’s very difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between factors like the Sun warming up Triton anomalously, or just the usual changes in the moon due to seasons.
-
As for tiny Pluto, its dynamics are very poorly understood. What we do see is that its atmosphere appears to be thicker than expected right now. Pluto doesn’t have much of an air blanket, and it changes over the course of Pluto’s orbit as the tiny iceball approaches and recedes from the Sun. Pluto reached perihelion, the closest point in its orbit to the Sun, in 1989, and is slowly drawing away again. You might think its atmosphere would start freezing out, getting thinner. But that’s not happening; it’s getting quite a bit thicker.
However, this is not totally unexpected. Changes are not instantaneous, and it may take a while for things to thaw. It’s possible that only now are gases frozen on Pluto’s surface starting to evaporate. It’s a weird planet, tipped way over (Earth is tilted 23 degrees, while Pluto is canted at 122), and the orbit is highly elliptical and tilted, too. You expect weird stuff from it, and a delay in the thawing is not all that surprising.
Plus, let’s think about this: Pluto is more than 30 times farther away from the Sun than the Earth is. If the Sun were warming up enough to affect Pluto at that vast distance, it would blowtorch the Earth. If the effects of Earth’s global warming are subtle enough to argue about at all, then it’s safe to assume the changes on Pluto are completely irrelevant to the argument.
So where does that leave us? When I look at all of this, I see a handful of the 100 large solar system bodies showing some evidence of local warming (Jupiter’s spot), some evidence of systemic warming with known causes that are a lot more likely than the Sun heating up (like well-understood orbital variations), and some evidence that any warming experienced by these bodies is possibly being exaggerated in the reporting.
I also see cherry-picking, with no mention of the other planets and moons in the solar system.
And what of the Sun? Is it possible that the Earth’s warming is caused by our nearest star?
Of course it’s possible. There are links to the Sun’s behavior and Earth’s climate (look up the Maunder minimum for some interesting reading), and it would be foolish to simply deny this. However, this is a vastly complex and difficult system to understand, and simply claiming "Yes it’s due to the Sun" or "No it’s not due to the Sun" is certainly naive.
But we do have some facts:
- The Earth is getting warmer.
- We are dumping more CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
- A little greenhouse effect is a good thing (otherwise the average temperature of the Earth would be below the freezing point of water). Too much, however, is Venus.
- Some of this global warming is due to human causes. This is fact. The question is, how much?
- There are political and ideological ramifications of global warming, and a lot of people — politicians, in fact — have a lot at stake and are known to twist science to meet their needs.
With all of these facts lined up, it’s clear that the one thing we need to do is be very, very careful when someone comes in and makes a broad, sweeping statement about global warming’s cause, especially when they have ulterior motives for saying what they do. This may sound like an ad hominem, but we have seen, over and over, how science gets abused these past few years by those in power. A jaundiced eye is critical in science, and a little skepticism — or in this case, a lot — is a good thing.
Fire image courtesy of home-and-garden.webshots.com. Mars and Jupiter images from Hubble.
Don’t know about you, but I think I’m getting ‘ear-lobal warming’ from all these deniers.
Their pattern seems to be a) GW doesn’t exist, then b) We now admit that it exists , but it’s not man-made, then c) OK, so it exists and it’s man-made, but it’s too late to do anything about it.
I’ve always been hesitant to judge temperature data from other planetary bodies. I certainly don’t think that we have enough data from Earth yet, so acting based on data from another planet seems a big risky.
Still, I completely agree with you BA. Scientific caution is always a good thing, and it ss especially needed in the discussion of global climate change.
People on both sides of the debate, (Sorry, wrong wording.) People of all wavelengths of the spectrum tend to appeal to emotions rather than good solid science. For examples, see “An Inconvenient Truth” and “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” No one seems to be able to tell a complete and honest story.
I also especially like your list of facts that you include whenever global warming comes up. They summarize the issue nicely, while still leaving plenty of room for new ideas and information.
And I always enjoy it when Global Warming is discussed on the BA forums. I know that it’s led to some of the most engaging discussion of Global Warming I have ever had online!
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/06/20/does-al-gore-read-ba/
Here are articles that tend to quantify things a bit more. The variations in solar output have almost certainly affected earth’s temperature, but they cannot account for the majority of the recent global warming.
Space.com
Duke report
Phil, you’ve left out a vital piece of data:
Direct satellite observations of the sun’s luminosity.
Afterall, why bother with proxies like Pluto and Triton when we can directly measure the energy output of the sun?
Lab,
One issue there is that any solar effect on the Earth may be due to something very indirect - e.g. the claim that changes in the solar magnetic field lead to changes in the interplanetary magnetic field leading to changes in the flux of cosmic rays leading to changes in cloud nucleation leading to changes in climate.
However you are right in that such effects would not affect other planets in the same way as the Earth - e.g. I doubt cloud nucleation is an important factor in the martian climate.
You’ve now hurt my brain by reminding it of the utter freakiness of Jupiter’s cloud bands.
Thanks Phil, for another great post. I do want to add, though, that GW is not only denied by politicians and CEOs from big (oil) corporations. Lots of normal people buy into these lies because it is the position of the politicians they vote for, and rather than checking it out for themselves, they will go with th opinion of their “group”. This is also true for people who position themselves on the opposite (in this case liberal) side of the political spectrum, who are susceptible to the idea that GW is real and man-made. It just happens that the liberals have science on their side…
So the left is right, and the right is wrong. How’s that for newspeak!
Phil,
Proponents of anthropogenic global warming are just as guilty of “cherry picking.” Correlation to man-made carbon dioxide and warming is based on a small sample of temperature records. They have also “conveniently” discounted the medieval warm period (1000-1400 C.E.) in their analysis (see Mann’s Broken Hockey Stick http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba478/).
“This isn’t a scientific paper, it’s absolutely awful,” said Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3569604.stm )
Three comments, BA:
You didn’t point out that Earth has Milankovich cycles as well, and in our case they are presently trending toward a colder Earth. This indicates that whatever is warming the Earth’s climate is a strong enough effect to overcome the Earth’s orbital variations.
Another thing that’s been mentioned about Mars: its surface is currently darker than it has been in the recent past. This also changes its temperature due to more effective absorption of solar energy. (The change in albedo is thought to be due to differences in distribution of light-colored sand vs. darker underlying material.)
I take issue with your arguments about the way changes in solar output would affect the inner vs. outer planets. It seems to me that a given increase in solar output would result in a proportional increase in insolation, no matter where you are in the system. For Jupiter, of course, the effect would be less noticable since much of the energy driving its atmosphere comes from internal heat. But for Pluto there’s no such effect, which makes it respond more like the Earth to insolation changes. Even though Pluto gets a lot less solar energy, the delta would be the same so its forced temperature would change accordingly. Am I way off base here?
Donnie B said:
The BA said:
First,
Let me start of with I believe that the warming trend we are seeing is primarily a man made porblem. However, to believe that only the “right is wrong” one needs to read this interview by Al Gore,
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/
where,
Question
There’s a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What’s the right mix?
Answer (Gore)
I think the answer to that depends on where your audience’s head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the reality of the crisis, there’s going to be much more receptivity to a full-blown discussion of the solutions.
Specifically,
“Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis. ”
Basically lying about the facts and admitting it doesn’t help his cause.
I’m sure many of you have seen this, but for those of you who haven’t:
PZ and Randi both commented on this, but it seems like Al Gore might not be above pandering to creationists.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/what_are_you_doing_al.php
He put some new material into his slide show that talks about human population over time and mentions Adam and Eve’s ‘appearance’ 200,000 years ago. Obviously, this doesn’t say anything about the validity of his arguments, but it does say that he might be in the global warming debate for votes more then for science.
Even if one doesn’t drink the koolaid on global warming, there are plenty of “local” reasons one should favor and support pollution reduction. Smog, low-level ozone (ethanol, anyone?), acid rain, drinking water, etc. are all adversely affected by carbon-fuel-based energy transfer: if caring about the planet their kids and grandkids will have to live in is “too abstract” for someone, they should at least be able to get excited about breathing air and drinking water that doesn’t give them cancer or any number of other maladies.
Lemmings all. Mutual academic backslapping all round. Make you feel better does it? People like you shut down debate as soon as you refer to those who disagree with you as deniers. Flat earthers all I feel just swallowing recieved opinion unquestionally. What a great waste of intellectual talent.
Hmm. If science induced it, then science can fix it right?
I read about a project to feed certain ‘dead’ areas of the oceans with ‘Iron’ or ‘Urea’ this would cause a huge blooming of algae which would, in time, ’suck up’ a hell of a lot of the excess Carbon in the air.
To me, it seems like a simple un-destructive experiment.
Phil’s reminder that without the greenhouse gases, Earth would be below 0 C and hence potentially ice covered made me think of the newly discovered Glese 581c. It is estimated to lie between 0C and 40C. If it has an atmosphere with greenhouse gases could it not be closer to Venus than Earth and hence less likely to be a comfortable site for ‘life as we know it’?
John, what exactly are you trying to say?
A favourite quote of mine from Robert Heinlein:
“What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what ‘the stars foretell,’ avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable ‘verdict of history’ - what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your only clue. Get the facts!”
… And if I dare be so bold as to add a caveat to that: “Make sure said facts are totally free from any bias!”
“I read about a project to feed certain ‘dead’ areas of the oceans with ‘Iron’ or ‘Urea’ this would cause a huge blooming of algae which would, in time, ’suck up’ a hell of a lot of the excess Carbon in the air.”
There are no “dead areas” in the oceans. Iron fertilizing the oceans will not sequester as much carbon as people would like, but in fact would cause eutrophication in the pelagic zone. The algal blooms suck up oxygen as well as carbon, very adversely affecting the critters that live there. Check out what farm runoff from the Mississippi has done to the waters in the Gulf of Mexico.
MKJones was wondering about using iron to suck up carbon dioxide. Sadly, this approach doesn’t seem to work.
From “The Effects of Iron Fertilization on Carbon Sequestration in the Southern Ocean” by Ken O. Buesseler in
Science 16 April 2004
Vol. 304. no. 5669, pp. 414 - 417:
Also, with a Csequestered:Feadded ratio of 3.3 x 103 (molar ratio; export at 250 m; fluxes through day 28), it is difficult to see how ocean iron fertilization with such a low Csequestered:Feadded export efficiency would easily scale up to solve our larger global C imbalance problems.
If you are a subscriber to Science, you can pick up the entire article. If not, you can do a Google search for “Southern Ocean Iron Experiment”, which was the name of the experiment (AKA SOFeX)
[…] From the aptly named “Bad Astronomy” comes some truly non-scientific excuse making. First off, I want to make a very big point here: the changes in the Earth due to global warming, […]
Thanks for that summary about the planets atmospheres, this was really helpful for my understanding of these claims!
Regarding scaring people and Global Warming, see also
Global Warming
Answer (Gore)
I think the answer to that depends on where your audience’s head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
Instead of scaring people with a global warming apocalypse, how about he would start scaring them with energy scarcity. There’s no doubt we are facing a rapid change, and its going to be a tough one.
Best,
B.
Mankind is guilty of global warming, how much is not the question, we must do as much as we can everywhere to slow it down. We can’t turn it around any more. The only way to do that is to go “back to the roots” without any industry which is not possible any more.
I’m not sure if it is an effect of a climate change but the weather here in Germany is running riot: The Winter was no real winter at all and the whole country did not get any drops of rain for over a month. I cannot remember a year that I have seen something like that!
If this is going on in the future then we do have a clue!
This months Skeptical Inquirer features an article by a NASA scientist who specifically says that global warming is not due to changes in solar output.
BA, could you clarify something?
> First off, I want to make a very big point here: the changes in the Earth due to
> global warming, while real, are somewhat subtle. Yet the Earth gets most of its
> heat from the Sun, so if the Sun were the cause, we’d expect the effects of
> warming to be much stronger on Earth than any outer planets.
That doesn’t seem obvious to me. Say the sun increased its output of whatever
form of radiation helps heat us by 1-2%. Would that 1-2% increase not translate
a similarly proportioned linear effect, no matter whether it’s Pluto or Earth?
In other words, 1-2% extra sun juice transmitted would translate to 1-2% extra
sun juice received, either on Mercury or on Pluto, no?
I would say that those of us who have seen no solid evidence the current warming is human activity driven (yes, it is getting warmer that has never been an issue to me) I find it heartening to see all the calls for an end to wild speculation and to take time to find out what is going on. Too bad those calling for Kyoto do not heed that advice. And I appreciate the fact that these are compex systems and no concusions can be drawn from the data.
Again, those who lambast us who do not buy into the human-driven global warming hype have the same points - this is not like our understanding of gravity. The mechanism for the warming is completely theoretical and faces a broad spectrum of conflicting and opposing data.
I especially took heart with the acknowledgement that solar warming cannot be determined to exist or not exist! Finally someone is admitting what we do not know - and doing it honestly. We don’t know if CO2 is the driving force or not. It could be because it is a greenhouse gas. But it may not be since it appears from the geological record to be a product of warming, not a precursor.
But I and many others welcome the admission we don’t know the source(s) of the warming and the driving force. So we therefore don’t know the best answer to adapt. If the driving mechansim is CO2 production Kyoto might help. If it is not CO2 production Kyoto won’t do a thing. Humanity deserves solid, hard scientific information to make our strategic plans - not Hollywood-Political hype.
The fact is there are scientists on all sides with conflicting views and reasonable data and theories to back them up. But they are conjecture. Well educated conjecture - but still only conjecture. Good post and comments though - very refreshing.
I think we spend entirely to much time trying to pin everything on one source. I read right here on this very website that the earth has warmed up roughly 2 degrees in the last 100 years. Correspondingly, the sun has gotten roughly 2% brighter. We have recorded Mars to have gotten roughly 1.8% warmer if I remember the artical properly. The sun more then likely is part of the cause of global warming. You also cannot discount the fact that humans are dumping green house gases into the atmosphere like there is no tomorrow. We are a huge part of the problem. I really don’t see how there is any doubt of that. I remember reading an artical a long time ago that said if you look back throught he fossil record you could see where the earth’s temperature veritions wen’t off from where they should be and it falls right about the same time period where humans started clearing fields for farming. We have been effecting the earths climate for much longer then just since we’ve been driving cars. There are enough paved roads just in the continental US to completely pave the state of Ohio. All of that concrete even has a small part if warming the earth. I am far from being an environmentalist but even I can admit that we have a serious problem that needs to be adressed. I just don’t agree with the way most groups address it by assigning the blame to one thing…
Incidentally, here’s RealClimate on Global warming on Mars?
The NPR show Intelligence Squared U.S. recently did a debate. Proposition: GLobal Warming is Not a Crisis. You can listen to the whole show at
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9082151
I heard the broadcast version last week, but haven’t listened to the unedited debate.
I note that I am supposed to be skeptical only of the ‘deniers’. Do you seriously think Al Gore and the politicians of the IPCC have no agenda but the truth?
NOYB says:
“Proponents of anthropogenic global warming are just as guilty of “cherry picking.†Correlation to man-made carbon dioxide and warming is based on a small sample of temperature records. They have also “conveniently†discounted the medieval warm period (1000-1400 C.E.) in their analysis (see Mann’s Broken Hockey Stick http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba478/).”
Good point. How do people explain this warming centuries before the Industrial Revolution?
Also, what about the “Little Ice Age” that created temperatures so cold that People skated on the River Thames as it froze completely over? Again centuries before the Industrial Revolution.
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1974489,00.html
Michael,
I’ve not seen anyone tell anyone else what to be skeptical of around here.
Do note however that skepticism usually ceases in the face of overwhelming evidence.
The evidence supports, overwhelmingly as the BA has pointed out time and again, that global warming IS happening. It also supports that human activity is a part of it. The questions that remain are many and varied but chief among them would have to be : How much of global warminng is caused by humans (and therefore controllable by humans)? the jury is out on this one and will be for quite some time… right now the evidence that is being gathered points toward an answer of “a lot” but that could change tomorrow. That’s the great thing about science… it doesn’t claim to have an answer before it really does have an answer! Unlike politicians and talking heads.
As for Gore and the IPCC having an agenda…absolutely. Gore most definitely overhyped things in his movie - he intended to do so. He drew some conclusion that are shakey with the current state of evidence. So what? The idea of his movie was to get the average person thionking about things - talking about the issue. Yes, we know which side of the issue he stands on and he has a bias - no doubt about it. None of that changes the fact that the basic science he relied on was sound and accurate. Yes, he overstated things (sometime by a large margin) but the basic info was there and correct. I pesronally disagree with his choice in going over the top with his presentation but you have to admit - it got results: people are talking about the issue more than ever.
Skepticism in all things is healthy… skepticism in spite of overwhelming evidence is just willfull ignorance.
@AJStrata:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that you want to wait until we have a proof. But climate changes slow compared to our fast moving and rapidly changing world. If we just go on and do what we do now, we will see “a proof” in (let’s say) 20 yrs, because then we are able to recognize that the fast increase in the average temperature must have been man-made. But the effects in 20yrs are made today and what we do in the next 20yrs will effect the climate AND us in maybe 30 or 40yrs.
I am not a climatologist and I don’t have a “proof”, of course. But I thank the possibility is worrying enaugh, isn’t it? And this possibility that we can harm ourselves is a big reason for me to do something that the worst-case-szenario will not occure.
And doing something for our environment is something we can do all the time, it doesn’t matter if it is necessary or not!
This biggest issue is the definition of temperature:
A 2C rise on earth may or may not mean the same thing as a 2C rise on mars simply due to differences in atmospheric heat capacity, differences in cosine-corrected surface area and finally differences in solar orbital distance. I’ haven’t seen any of these calculations or discussion. Without them it’s meaningless to conclude anything.
Saying “See, they’re both 2C increase so global warning is all solar” is exactly the same as saying “See, both those women are wearing yellow dresses so that proves they bought them from the same store”. No it doesn’t prove anything. It’s possibly true but more likely a coincidence!
Temperature is a statistical mean of an energy distribution. It depends on the material composition of the measured media and the amount of energy in the media. Temperature is very easily misleading - the same temperature pasta sauce and ceramic pizza stone have radically different abilities to burn your skin because of the differences in heat capacity (and by physical implication, radically different amounts of energy actually stored in the material).
You need to compare the total incident solar energy (corrected for orbital distance, different incident area and cosine rule) and throw in a heat capacity to even begin to know if having the same 2C on both planets means anything at all. Strictly it’s stupid to compare by temperature anyway - energy and energy distribution across the globe (earth or martian) is better and more accurate.
I do I think someone should calculation but without it, the entire supposition about temperature and global warming is the worst type of analysis - random, irrational cherry picking which doesn’t even have the appearance of rational cause-and-effect.
JC on stick: this is basic high school physics folks!
From AJStrata at this blog
Speaking of the BA’s blog article:
From AJStrata in a post on this site:
eewolf, thanks for the link. While I’m flattered that the writer of the strata-sphere blog thinks I am “young”, I find his other remarks fairly unsurprising. His claim that water is a thermal conductor is precisely wrong; it’s an insulator. It takes a long time to heat up or cool; it’s a thermal heat sink.
Like a lot of the GW deniers on Digg who have been commenting on my post, he hasn’t read it clearly. He is also making quite a few excuses, like Mercury not having an atmosphere. Whaaaa? The point here is that if the Sun is causing GW, then all the other planets should be heating up. That makes Mercury fair game (and I’ll note that the atmosphere of Mars is far too thin to support a greenhouse effect that would have similar effect on Mars as it does on Earth).
Also, he says that other planets make great controls (which is not true at all– we cannot control them, and they are incredibly complicated system on their own– they are good comparison cases, but not controls) but then ignores all the other planets and moons. His claims about the outer planets is just wrong.
Sigh. This sort of thing is the precise reason I wrote this article in the first place. Remember to read these essays with a grain of salt folk. You don’t know what agenda the writer has. Mine is clear enough- a scientific and unbiased assessment of the actual facts, with no hysteria, no histrionics, and a very skeptical but not dismissive attitude. I suspect you’ll find that to be a rare commodity in this arguments.
“… and a very skeptical but not dismissive attitude.”
Not dismissive? Unless you clarify who you mean by ‘deniers’ - which it appears to me to be anyone who is skeptical of AGW - I think you are showing a very dismissive attitude. Calling people who disagree with you names (and PLEASE don’t pretend the term ‘global warmer denier’ doesn’t have a very intended negative connotation) is pretty dismissive in my book.
Of course it’s dismissive. Global warming is a fact. People who deny it are wrong. Many people who were denying it until recently have switched bandwagons and now admit it’s real, but are downplaying or manipulating the facts to downplay human involvement. This is just such a case. From what i have read, what we see happening on the other planets has little or nothing to do with what’s going with the Earth, but many people are using this data to cast doubt on anthropocentric GW. They are not being skeptical, they are playing into their own agenda. This is clear form the reaction I am getting, which is not thoughtful and skeptical, but tinged with vitriol.
My point, once again, is to look at the actual data, the actual facts, and not try to spin it. This includes calling spin when I see it. Well, I see it, and I’m calling it.
Dr Flimmer,
Interesting question. Do I want proof or rock solid evidence? Let’s get the stipulations out of the way so as to not be distracted. The temperature is rising and has been centuries. The earth has seen these temps before millions of times in our 4 billion year history. Man’s capacity to influence temps are limited to the last 200 years or so…
OK. Yes, I want solid proof on the amount of impact humanity has on the warming. If it is 50% of the effect and CO2 driven then Kyoto may help. If it is 10% of the effect (which is more plausible, but but not proven) then Kyoto will do nothing. I liken it to bleeding a patient in the Middle Ages because it was thought to release the poisons. In fact it weakened the patient’s ability to fibght back against infections. You have to know what you are fighting. That is why surgeons don’t just start slicing away at patients in emergency rooms until vitals and tests and labs and images are ready so they know WHAT to do.
Panicking is not the answer. BTW, CO2 is keeping the planet from its natural state of being much colder. So one does not want to screw up on the verge of a cooling trend and then push the climate into a deep ice age.
Eewolf,
yes, the discussion in the threads was a lot better than the ridiculous post above. BA should have stuck with “we don’t know” instead of assuming only those of us who want solid proof are “deniers”. If you read my posts I never once said GW was not happening - just the opposite. Finally, maybe you should put he entire “3rd grade” in context since it was aimed at only one of BA’s assumptions. Or is it beyond your graps to be complete and open? I see a master Cherry Picker at work in your selection…..
Too funny.
AJStrata,
You did say it was a good “post and comments”, not just comments.
I posted a link to your article so that people could read it themselves. I just (cherry) picked out two lines that I thought were strikingly different from your post here. I encourage everyone to read your complete blog post.
There is also a striking difference in both delivery and content between the BA’s article and yours.
BA, Check your science again. Water conducts heat very rapidly - especially compare to rock, atmospheres and the vacuum of space (which was my point). Conduction and retention are two different mechanisms. And I did say water was a heat sink - which is why it moderates the energy effect hitting us. It can soak up a lot of solar energy and it does. Can you claim otherwise?
Also, I am not a GWE denier -which if you read my site you would know, and thus is why I thought you young. To be so ignorant of the obvious I was hoping I could lay down to youth. Saldy not.
I am laughing at your confusion over Mercury! Is it not true the earth’s ground temperature has not moved a bit? Is it not true the Martian Ice Cap issue is due to the atmoshpere and not the ground temperature? I thought you might find that a bit uncomfortable. It only takes small energy changes to adjust the greenhouse effects on Earth, but it would be indistinguishable in the ground temperatures.
You mixed two different things (atmospheric temps and ground temps) and now are back pedaling. OK, fine. But your denier charge is lame. The other systems DO make great controls, otherwise NASA should defund every single dime being spent on planetary and deep space science which CLAIMS to be unlocking the creation of Earth and processes here on Earth. You know damn well all NASA Space Science is geared to understanding the processes here.
So don’t tell me we cannot look at the Moon, without its atmosphere, and then use it as a control example to understand how an atmosphere and oceans and an active core changed the evolution of Earth. Or how we can look at Mars and its lack of a Magnetic Field to understand how our magnetic field effects us. We use these planets as control examples in everything NASA does.
What is amazing is your situational excuses. I bet you have a least a dozen articles where you claimed we could look at something in space and extrapolate some new understanding to things here on Earth. And the minute someone else does it, but ends up disagreeing with you, you avoid the debate and use names like “Denier”. I answered your questions. Which is a lot more than you can muster.
EEWolf.
Fair enough. I wrote my post first, then read the discussion and saw rays of hope. So I moderated my comments and tried to inject some peace making. Oh well, sue me for trying!
And yes, BA and I are different people with different NASA and Science experiences. BA is a theoretician, I am a technically savvy, science addicted business man. What is not in dispute is BA will not get any bye’s from me on this issue. Since he posted me as a “denier” when I wasn’t I thought I was being quite reasonable. “Denier” is a quite a charge - almost like being called a scientific plagerists! BA should have known better and he probably would have if he was a bit older and wiser.
Still, we are at the same place. Those claiming warming is driven buy human activity have no scientific proof that withstands scrutiny or predictions. In fact, the only thing they have demonstrated since the late 1980’s is their climate models suck. If they had generated those kinds of results on medical treatments or human safety issues they would have been sued for malpractice. Their accuracy is worse than the targetting of Mars Observer on its final Orbital Insertion (MO was lost at Mars).
You need to put things in context with other science. The Man-Made GW claims have had to continously cut back their Warming predictions over the last 20 years as all their dire warnings never came to fruition. In Science these are called failures. Only in the media would someone call these facts (from experts no doubt). When a GW warming model accurately predicts the climate over the next 3-5 years I will be the first to jump on the bandwagon and call to support their results and conclusions. But don’t call me a “denier” when all I have seen is two decades of hype and an unbroken string of failed predictions.
Geez, you simply pulling some numbers out of a hat would have had better predictive value!
My goodness, so much anger! I take issue with a person’s integrity, if they make a statement of “you avoid the debate and use names like ‘Denier’”, trying to make an argument that the BA has resorted to namecalling.
This very shortly after describing a Science Professor with words like:
3rd Grade in Science Depth…
…ignorant…
I am laughing at your confusion…
These kinds of comments make you appear like someone backed into a logical corner, or someone that’s been kicked around too often verbally, and cannot handle the dialog. It reads like you easily lose your temper and speak only with emotion, not any real appreciation of the earth or environment.
Ed in PA,
What’s even better is AJ’s self-title of technically savvy, science addicted business man. Of course we should listen to him, rather than listen to the blatherings of a lowly theoretician.
Using the term ‘denier’ IS name calling. Please don’t pretend to be so naive as to not understand the intentional link to ‘Holocaust Deniers’. Especially considering the other rhetoric from the extreme believers (calling for ‘Nuremburg trials’ for disbelievers). I find it extremely patronizing and insulting that I am not allowed to be an AGW skeptic; oh, no, I’m a denier. Doesn’t matter a bit how much I know about the subject, how closely I have followed the science, or, least of all, WHY I’m not a believer. It’s just an article of faith that a non-believer is a denier.
And please don’t tell me how I can’t be a skeptic because the ‘facts’ are so overwhelming. Just tell me I’m too ignorant to understand, because that’s essentially what you’re saying.
I don’t get the use of the word “summer” wrt to Triton and global warming. “Summer” is not a global phenomenon. Could someone elaborate and explain to me what I’m not getting?
Michael,
Perhpas you need to invest a bit more time in reading the information available before you decide to be a GW skeptic - the scientific consensus is that it is real. The sicientific question left is exactly how much of GW is AGW.
You seem to be an intelligent person and I have no doubt that you are capable of grasping the science involved - but if you are denying the existance of GW you are clearly not well versed in the science pertaining to the issue.
As for getting so offended at the word denier… well, I’m not sure where that comes from. In this case it is the word that fits. Denier : A person who refuses to recognize or aknowledge factual information. The folks who qualify as deniers in this debate are those who insist, against all of the evidence, that GW is happening at all. There are many. Do you have another word that fits? Skeptic doesn’t as a skeptic will accept a factually supported statement (ie. GW is occuring.).
Feel free to be skeptical of AGW - after all the jury is still out on how much impact we have on GW. It’s possible, though admittedly unlikely, the answer could be zero.
crtl+F: “stratosphere” not found
This is incredible. The most solid piece of evidence that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases is stratospheric trends coupled with tropospheric trends, and yet out of 40+ posts of discussing evidence about global warming, this is not mentioned. Okay, here we go:
A sun-induced global warming trend would cause a temperature rise in the stratosphere. This occurs because the stratosphere is warmed largely by absorption of UV radiation from O2 and O3. If the sun’s temperature increased, this would a) shift the sun’s spectrum further into the shorter wavelengths, and b) raise the intensity of all wavelengths. So there would be more UV for the stratosphere to absorb. This would create a net imbalance in the stratosphere’s energy budget: more energy would be coming in than going out. The natural response would be for the stratosphere to warm until it radiates enough to match the increased solar input. Thus, the stratosphere would warm if the sun was increasing its output significantly.
A greenhouse gas-induced warming would cool the stratosphere. Greenhouse gases operate by reducing the surface’s ability to cool radiatively, and so increasing greenhouse gas concentrations would reduce outgoing IR from the troposphere. In turn, there would be less IR from below for the stratosphere to absorb, and this would create a net imbalance in the stratosphere’s energy budget. The stratosphere would have to cool to restore equilibrium. So for a greenhouse gas-induced cooling, the stratosphere would get colder.
These are theoretical predictions. What do observations show? The stratosphere is cooling, something around 0.5K/decade. It should not be doing this if the sun was significantly driving global warming. Three other possible causes would be aerosol concentration changes, an extremely strong water vapor feedback signal, or cloud cover changes. There is no evidence that aerosol concentrations are changing any more than volcanic activity is. The latter two are highly debated in current atmospheric science, but there is no strong signal either way to be found, at least not nearly as strong as the carbon dioxide signal. And we know where that carbon is coming from…
So if you want strong observational evidence that carbon dioxide is having a significant effect, here it is. If someone tells you there is no observational evidence that global warming is anthropogenic, now you know why they are wrong. I guarantee you’ll never hear this on CNN. You won’t hear global warming deniers mention it, either, because they can’t answer to this. The most I’ve seen is some nitpicking about statistical analysis methods, but they never came close to debasing the foundation.
“Global mean temperature” is a single number. A single number can only contain so much information. There are other ways to measure climate change. Don’t forget that.
phonon,
I would surmise that the “summer” they are refering to on Triton is a natrual cycle where the temperature of the moon rises slightly due to the amount of sunlight one hemisphere (the “southern” one) receives at a point in it’s orbit. The use of the word “summer” here is just to relate the fact that the global tempurature of the moon is warmer in this period than usual.
The Earth may experience a similar type of “summer”, since it’s orbit is not circular around the sun. I’ve never heard it referenced, but I would assume that at perihelion, the global tempurature of the Earth is higher than at aphelion, thus creating a “global summer” season. Sure doesn’t feel that way up here in New England!
I fully support BA, good posts.
What is “rock solid evidence”? If we wait until the symptoms of warming are visible everywhere it will be too late to act. There is consensus among the climate science community that global warming occurs and the primary cause is CO2 released by humans. That is evidence solid enough for me. The amount of warming and the effects it cause are under discussion, but that is irrelevant. The question is, “how much it hurts”?
BTW, global warming caused by Sun warms all atmospheric layers. Greenhouse effect warms only the lowest layer (troposphere) and cools the upper layers. Guess what is happening in the stratosphere?
I find it incredibly stupid not to do anything. Why? Hundreds of millions if not billions of people live in areas that may become unhabitable. Imagine that they will lose their livelihood, homes, even lives because of we the rich culprits decided to do nothing. It is our responsibility to left a livable planet for future generations. “Let them sort out the problem” is definitely not the answer.
OK, let’s imagine the utopistic possibility that all this talk of global warming has been only unnecessary alarmism. We still have to act! Oil consumption is skyrocketing but at the same time oil production is staggering. Oil-based economy will soon become unprofitable. Coal is out of question because it is so polluting. The longer we wait the harder the end will come. It is too late to start to develop alternative energy when oil is running out (or becomes economically infeasible).
So, we are given no choice but to curb greenhouse gases.
crtl+F: “stratosphere†not found
You typed too fast…
What comes to the climate change at Triton, we know practically nothing about it. Prior to Voyager 2 flyby, the only thing we knew that Triton has some sort of atmosphere. If I recall correctly (probably not), the global warming claim is based on a stellar occultation where Triton’s atmosphere was observed to have expanded. The point is that our understanding of that moon is extremely limited.
Perihelion and aphelion DO have an effect on temperature - a very minute one but it’s there nonetheless. Axial tilt plays a much greater role in the whole winter summer cycle though. While the earth’s orbit is not round it’s not particaluarly elliptical either - with a mean eccentricity of, if memory serves, around .028. In practical terms it means the earth is about 147.5 million kilometers from the sun at perihelion and 152.6 and aphelion - which doesn’t actually amount to very much difference in the scheme of things.
The whole relation of orbital cycles (axial tilt, precession, orbital path, etc.) to climate are called Milankovitch cycles. Wikipedia has a pretty decent primer on the topic at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Being an extremely skeptical person who is still following the gw debate and looking at the evidence, I figured I would follow the link to ajstrata’s post and see what evidence or argument he presented.
Wow. If that is what passes for science, logic or debate in right wing circles, no wonder they crave patriarchal religion and murderous authoritarianism so desparately. Big scary world and all.
My summary:
Three paragraphs of nutjob “Liberal Media” rant sprinkled with misuse of statistics and gross ignorance of our Solar System. Conclusion: Kyoto supporters are fanatics, and it won’t help a bit anyway!!!
Update: personal shot at someone who disagrees!(How very republican of you, ajstrata!)
Five more paragraphs of name-calling, back-pedaling, and disputing some of his own evidence without even realizing it. Second conclusion: Bad Astronomer Suxxhaha!!!
Great stuff, really. You really opened my eyes, Ajstrata! I’m so glad my country’s future is in the hands of brilliant critical thinkers like yourself!
Now go home and take your fleas with you!
Ah, the Nazis have entered the discussion. Hurray!
Unfortunately, this discussion ceased to be about science roughly halfway through, despite the liberal (!) use of jargon. It is about political group think, where convictions supersede reality. I cannot believe that the emotional response of AJStrata is induced by differing over scientific facts. It rather seems to me that it is caused by the suppressed realization that his world view needs a serious adjustment.
Just snoop around on his blog to find out what his agenda is. It will not be a surprise.
Michael, it was never my intention to link GW deniers with Holocaust deniers. Wow, that’s quite an accusation! It’s a good term, in that they are people who deny GW. I am specifically calling out people who deny it outright, not those who doubt it, or are skeptical. Hence the term.
Now, if other people infer that’s what I mean, and this looks to distract from the actual debate of facts, I’ll be happy to call them something else as a group. But I won’t let any noise swamp the signal here.
Associating GW deniers with Holocaust deniers never crossed my mind. Just for the record. The debate is far too emotional. I wonder why that is?
First off BA, I would like to point out that I added a J to my post name to differentiate myself from the other Michael on here. Second I would like to say that I know it’s difficult to make a science post about GW without having some people try to give AD HOMINEM attacks.
I have some questions to AJStrata. Can you bring up exact numbers and give a step by step calculation of exactly how much cloud nucleation, vegetation, liquid water, etc. decrease any warming from the sun? Do you realize that the energy density drop by the square of the distance and absorbtion depends on surface area illuminated? That means that the suns intensity at Mars is less than half the intesity here. It also means that since Mars has a quarter of the surface area of Earths, Earth gets 8 times the total solar energy that Mars gets. Anything farther out would get less and less.
The global warming “debate”? I think the reason why so many people become so passionate about global warming is at least partly quite intuitive: global warming has huge implications for human civilization. It raises some serious and uncomfortable questions about who we are and how we treat our planet. And unlike previous environmental issues, global warming is worldwide in nature, so “out of sight, out of mind” won’t work this time around. And unlike other global problems, like ozone depletion, there is no apparent technological quick-fix for making it go away. Fossil fuels are currently the heart of the world’s great economies, so we can’t simply dump them like we could, say, an insignificant industrial cleanser. So because of these issues, some people seem to think they can just wish the problem away and move on with it. That’s the best reason I can think of why people with no immediate invested interest in the debate would jump into it with such emotion.
Phil, I will give the benefit of the doubt that you don’t use ‘denier’ to try to equate your opponents to the David Irvings of the world, but it’s pretty obvious that some people do (the same folks who talk about ‘Nuremburg trials’ for ‘deniers).
I am not a GW Denier, not even a GW skeptic. But I do have very serious doubts about AGW. And let’s face it; that’s what the debate is about. For proponents of AGW to constantly refer to it as ‘global warming’ only and then turn around and call anyone with a question a ‘GW denier’ is disingenous at best. It’s a great way to make your opponent look ignorant, but it doesn’t advance the debate. I think to have any sort of civil and scientific debate we need to be exact in our terminology. That’s why I always use AGW. Before we can agree to disagree we at least have to agree what it is we disagree about!
Wow, this is fascinating. This has to be the most emotional exchange I have yet seen on this blog. I’ll tell you what I think. If the proponents of GW are right and we change our lifestyles to slow it down, we have helped save our planet. If wrong however, there is still no harm done. Americans in particular are excessive enery hogs and I can say that because I am one. It wouldn’t hurt the average overweight American to walk to the store once in a while or bike to work. Personally, Im making a change this year. I own a Chevy Trailblazer and I own a 3/4 ton van that has been converted into a capmer/mobile observatory. Neither of these vehicles do very well on gasoline conservation. So, since I am old and chubby, Im going to buy a 49cc scooter soon to commute to work on. I’ll probably be killed in the first week by some crazed immigrant from California but what the hell, Im doing my part. :o)
By the way, I have heard numerous times that the vast majority of the scientific community now supports that GW is happening and that mankind is the most significant contributor to this effect. I think the people who are the most ardent nay-sayers are simply resistant to change. They dont want to drive a Honda instead of their humongous Dodge Ram. That is a very American thing, dont you all agree? Europeans are a much older and perhaps wiser culture than Americans. Might it not be a good idea to listen to our elders? :o)
I know, Im ignorant and uneducated. Im also an athiest liberal. So shoot me…
DenverAstro, have you ever tried to put an 11 inch telescope, tripod, mount, lenses, battery packs, observing chair, laptop and all the other junk I take with me when I go observing into the back of a honda. Add in the girl I’m taking out stargazing and a cooler full of drinks then consider that the best dark sky site around here is on top of a ridge overlooking the pacific ocean where you need 4 wheel drive to get there (above SLC-6 on Vandenberg AFB if you’re familier with the area) and you’ll see that us stargazers NEED trucks that get ten miles to the dinosaur… LOL However, in 2009 Toyota is supposed to have a hybrid version of every vehicle they make. I’ll be trading in my Tacoma for a new Hybrid Tacoma as soon as they hit the streets:)
SharkByte - duely noted need for a big vehicle! I think Denver makes a good point about the benefits of reducing/eliminating combustion - which are expansive even without regard to AGW. Most Americans, however, don’t need to lug anything more intense than groceries and a few passengers (on occasion). For you Shark, a vehicle to match your needs. Unfortunately, those who purchase very large vehicles without need endarger others by both pollutive means, and by inertial means (more massive vehicles usually ‘win’ in an accident
)
PhysTeacher - I agree with you completely. I’m an Air Force member and work on the ICBM test launch program at Vandenberg AFB. Quite often when we’re prepping for a launch the enviro-nuts will set up camp at the main gate to protest ICBM’s, rocket launches in general or any of a number of other environmental causes. Martin Sheen was even arrested at our main gate a few years ago while protesting!
It never ceases to amaze me how many Hummers, Expedition’s and Navigator’s these armchair environmentalists drive and not a one of them looks like it has ever been off pavement. I drive a truck because I haul massive amounts of gear around and I have to be able to pull my classic project car on a trailer. The greater majority of the SUV’s on the road are there because they are status symbols. Like I said before, I’m no environmentalist. However I’ve driven through L.A. in the heat of summer and if L.A. traffic jams aren’t proof that we need to do something about Polution in general then proof does not exist… lol
DenverAstro - Sorry to disappoint you, but I drive a Sentra.
As for ‘no harm done’, how do you know that? In a world where millions go to bed hungry (or so I’ve been told for years and years), we are rushing to turn our food supply into ‘green’ fuel. The price of corn futures is skyrocketing, which will make all food more costly. Not just for me and you, but for people all over the world that can’t afford it. If we devote trillions of dollars to fighting AGW, how many of those dollars won’t be available for improving infrastructure, providing clean water, fighting disease? When we start limiting power plant emissions - a major source of CO2 - how many people will die in summer heat waves with not enough power to run air conditioners?
My point is nothing is without cost. To blithely declare ‘no harm done’ is naive at best.
I agree with your five facts, but using terms such as “global warming deniers” calls into question someone’s scientific objectivity.
There’s plenty of room for debate on this question or questions. The less passion (and certainty) on either side, the better.
I’m taking my own steps to decrease carbon, and I think that society’s getting away from fossil fuels is a great idea, but I don’t buy anyone’s propaganda.
Unfortunately, it’s hard to take self-proclaimed global warming “skeptics” seriously when they pull out such vapid “arguments” like citing warming on distant moons while dodging much harder evidence like that stratosphere thing I mentioned. If they were actually skeptical, they would actually confront the core of the science itself instead of continually redressing discredited hypotheses or appealing to the general public’s inexperience to create a false sense of controversy. That’s denialism in a nutshell. I hate to put them on par with creationists or various conspiracy theorists, but many of their tactics come really close to the ones used by the world’s nutjobs. If it sounds like a duck…
But you have to understand that “denialist” is a label usually applied to those people who should know better. People like Lindzen and Singer and even politicians like Inhofe. It doesn’t refer to the general public, a large part of which has fallen victim to a systematic and vile misinformation machine.
As for debate, just make sure you know what needs debating. Attribution of global warming is a questioned already answered with high certainty. The debate is over a) the magnitude and rate of future warming, b) relationships between global warming and regional climate changes, and c) how to best address global warming (with only the latter involving politics). Unless you have new evidence, debating over global warming’s cause is beating a dead horse.
To deny is not necessarily to be in denial. In fact, look it up in Webster’s and you’ll see the first definition is “to declare untrue.”
I would speculate, though I don’t know, that the reason only select planets have been discussed is that we only have data from a select few places based on the satellites we’ve been able to whiz by. I think this whole discussion serves to show that we don’t know everything. In fact, we don’t know a lot.
Why has this debate declared over? Even evolution, the most controversial and debated scientific theory ever didn’t just come out and declare a winner. Over several decades more and more evidence came about leaving virtually no question that evolution is the way life came about and changed on this planet. Even then, no side came out and declared victory. And evidence still pours in to support the theory. In science, most theories aren’t declared true or untrue, they are supported or unsupported. So why have a bunch of scientist now banded together to claim that the debate is over? When the field of study is still relatively new? Why can’t we (they) continue to seek out evidence?
Well some people are. And they are ridiculed for doing it because it goes against “the consensus”. The simple fact that there is a consensus, in my opinion, points to the possibility of ulterior motives. Especially when their expressed main purpose is to guide policy makers into action. Think about it, its the International Panel on Climate Change, their conclusions were a foregone conclusion from the word go.
I think what many deniers are denying is the crisis status of GW. There are still serious debates out there on AGW. They also deny its a crisis because the term crisis lends itself to panic, which often leads hasty action. And hasty action can have serious detrimental effects on individual life, liberty, property and the environment. And as long as there are people out there, who know more about science than most of the world, are saying “Hey wait…., ” and “What about….,” and “I have different conclusions….,” I’m going to be more than skeptical.
OK, I’ve finally had a chance to read through these comments. They are… interesting.
First off, to those of you who are asking about Al Gore: I never mentioned him in my post. Not once. This post was not about people who are promoting anthropocentric GW, it is about people who argue against it. Well, about people who dismiss it. I’m fine with arguing either way, as long as it’s factually based. As it happens, I agree with Gore on many things, and strongly disagree with him on others (his creationist pandering is galling). But he’s irrelevant to this argument, except where I talk about agenda-driven dismissal. That goes either way, though I assert that in recent times, the far right dominates.
AJStrata: in this comment you say water is a good conductor. Compared to air and vacuum it is, of course (to some degree, conductivity is a function of density), but it looks to me (cite) that it is worse than many solids you might find lying around. Given that land masses give up their heat so easily at night, while water is much slower, this indicates to me that water is a worse conductor. If I am wrong, then please show me where and how, because I do find this sort of thing interesting (don’t even get me started on chrome and infrared emissivity).
I don’t see where I am backpedaling anywhere, either. I say that the martian atmosphere is much thinner than Earth’s, so the greenhouse effect is much smaller. Also, it’s understood that the martian albedo is decreasing (I discovered this after I posted, unfortunately) so we have other sources for any warming on Mars. Honestly, I don’t understand your point about Mars in that comment. Can you clarify it please?
I also think you very much misunderstood one of my points. I never said studying other planets was a waste of time. What an odd interpretation! I said clearly that they are not controls, they are comparisons. Those are very different things. Studying them is incredibly useful, and I wish we had a hundred times as much money to do so. But a control is a subject over which you control the variables, and for Mars that simply is not true. If Mars warms up, cools off, or spins away and does a jig, we cannot simply say “The Earth does the same thing and therefore it’s the same cause.” If we had a planet exactly like Earth, but at Mars’s distance from the Sun, that would be a control. But Mars is very different, and therefore any comparisons must be done very carefully.
I’ll note that I should have been more careful in my phrasing about deniers. I said “… deniers and others…” and then had a link to your site. I was not trying to say you were a GWD, but I can see the inference there. My apologies.
Frank: yes, if the Sun increased its output by 1%, then every planet would receive 1% more energy.
But we’re starting with the amount of temperature increase on Pluto and working it backward to the Sun. So if Pluto warms up a little, then the percent increase is very large (because it’s already so cold). Working backwards, that means a big increase in the Sun’s output, and a corresponding increase here on Earth.
I asked Alan Stern, head of the New Horizons mission to Pluto, about this specifically, and he told me that the amount of increase in Pluto’s atmosphere is orders of magnitude (one OofM is a factor of 10x) too big to be accounted for by the Sun. So using Pluto to say that the Sun is warming is silly. Any warming on Pluto must be due to something local.
My whole point is that I am hearing deniers (email, mostly) who are using this “evidence”, and I wanted people to know that in these cases, using other planets as evidence that GW here on Earth is not manmade is fallacious. These cases are not evidence of that.
Please, let’s not conflate thermal conductivity and heat capacity. Water has high values of both compared to gases and loose-packed solids. It has lowish thermal conductivity but still pretty high heat capacity by mass compared to metals. Water is a fabulously good conductor, in the sense that if you surrounded your electronics in distilled water, they would probably be pretty happy until they rusted. It’s also a fabulous heat sink, in the sense that it takes a huge quantity of energy to increase its temperature.
AJStrata is trying to catch you on your language- water is a great conductor compared to soil, not so much compared to rock. Fluids transmit heat extra-specially well because they can also use convection, which isn’t reflected in a chart of still properties, so a mass of water might have heat-transfer properties in excess of rock if it’s circulating well.
Water in large bodies heats and cools slowly from the combined powers of a high thermal conductivity and a high heat capacity: you have to expend a ton of energy to heat it, and you have to heat all of it because it’s going to keep circulating and conducting that energy. Soil has low values of each, so it undergoes pretty big fluctuations that are very shallow.
On topic- even if I thought there was much uncertainty on human factors in global warming, 1) we’re going to run out of oil some day, and I don’t want me or my great-great-great-great grandchildren to get stuck in a world facing famine at the end of oil-based fertilizers or a sudden failure of the extensive plastics and transportation industries. 2) I’m pretty sure we’ve figured out how to make the earth hotter, but we’re in some trouble if we have to figure out how to make it colder, so let’s try to err on the side of the one we can fix?
Of course, these social policy notions are moving the goalposts in a thread debating whether or not the planets make a good metric for global warming.
I bet a model for warming on Mars is easier to build than one for Earth.
Olive - No oceans! Mars has got to be much easier to model than Earth!
Perhaps “dismisser” should have replaced “denier”, but it’s too late.
The denialism blog is up.
crster:
My opinion on a cosmic ray talk given as a scientific seminar last year is here:
http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/2006/11/jan-veizens-cosmic-ray-climatology.html
Note that my post refers exclusively to the content of his talk, and not all the meta-babble surrounding personalities, inferred agendas or anything like that.
jrkeller wrote:
>Specifically,
>“Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to >have an over-representation of factual presentations >on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up
>the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and >how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis. â€
>Basically lying about the facts and admitting it doesn’t >help his cause.
You’re either quite deliberately misrepresenting what Gore said, or you have difficulty parsing English sentences.
He’s clearly saying that in the US he devotes more time in his slide show to “factual presentations on how dangerous [global warming] is” versus proposed solutions to the problem.
He’s not lying about the facts. He’s presenting more of them, because in his audience are people like you, who are being bombarded by deniers of the facts on almost a daily basis.
The more I see from global warming deniers, the more apropos it seems to compare them to Holocaust deniers and evolution deniers. Which is a shame, because a somewhat significant minority of them have other views that show they should definitely know better.
Obviously we should take into consideration all the probes we’ve sent to these other bodies. We may be causing warming there, too!
The debate is too complex to unequivocally say whether our global warming is man made. But that’s sure the way to bet.
jbs
I think this is a great article. If nothing else, it discusses the science of what is going on rather than the politics. I wrote about this article on my site http://www.globalwarming-factorfiction.com. We need to have more scientific discussions and few political conversations.
Michael said: As for ‘no harm done’, how do you know that? In a world where millions go to bed hungry (or so I’ve been told for years and years), we are rushing to turn our food supply into ‘green’ fuel. The price of corn futures is skyrocketing, which will make all food more costly. Not just for me and you, but for people all over the world that can’t afford it.
The fact of the matter is, in most places that really need it, they can’t afford it at this time anyway, not from us. We have an extremely high cost-to-produce factor, as well as shipping, so it is far more economical to produce locally than it is for us to supply it.
Then there’s part two: Corn is only one food crop, of which there are many, most of which remain unaffected by ethanol production or demands.
Then part three: Ethanol demand actually produces more research into more efficient methods and practices, which generally results in lower costs all around. It also can be handled in far more areas, and with far more competition and far less monopolizing, than petroleum.
And yes, part four: Global Warming will kill a lot more people than any efforts to prevent it. Food shortages will be worldwide and unpreventable, and no amount of infrastructure will curtail the eradication of production areas. Food shortages lead to warfare and power struggles, malnutrition, health issues, disease, and on and on. We see this quite clearly right now, and should need no further threats or consequences to want to address it with our vast resources in this country (and any other that offers so many leisure time options).
Michael: If we devote trillions of dollars to fighting AGW, how many of those dollars won’t be available for improving infrastructure, providing clean water, fighting disease?
The same amount that is unavailable now because it’s lining the pockets of oil execs. In case you missed it, petroleum is one of those highly lucrative fields, you know? A couple of quick Google searches will confirm that for you if you actually need it (you know, that “facts” part). My suggestion would be that US government stop bailing out big businesses with greedy infrastructures and simply make them responsible for their own wastes. Sure, go ahead, raise prices, and spur even more research into alternative energy. Free market works both ways.
The key to this part, of course, is to stop swallowing empty political rhetoric that ultimately comes from PAC contributions out of Big Oil, and start holding the politicians to the fire. And that requires knowing your stuff and calling them on it. Politicians like the contributions to push oil-friendly legislature, but they only get those while they’re in office. That makes it our responsibility.
And then, of course, we may stop spending trillions of dollars trying to maintain a destabilized region around our biggest oil revenue competitors, out there in the mideast. Think how much useful money would become available then.
Michael: When we start limiting power plant emissions - a major source of CO2 - how many people will die in summer heat waves with not enough power to run air conditioners?
You’re supposed to say, “Think of the children! Won’t somebody think of the children?”
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants has very little affect on energy production - it mostly changes costs. Right at the moment, I have very little sympathy for Big Oil, which posts record profits even in times of national crisis (remember Katrina?) and has the highest paid employees, virtually the world over. A bachelor’s degree in petroleum geology can net you $80K straight out of school, with signing bonuses. You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone more capable of affording clean up efforts.
And again, alternative energy means more available energy, not less, and more competitive prices as well. That means fewer people dying in heat waves.
Reducing greenhouse emissions isn’t just up to the big companies, either - the individual consumer also plays a part. And this part should also include more demand for energy-efficient consumer goods. It should include pressure to make your own city “green” - biodiesel city service vehicles, efficient buildings, public transportation access, and proper planning. And again, that stretches the available energy. Yes, lots of these options cost more, which is the primary wail of both consumers and city planners. Done properly, this is more than recouped in lower operating costs over the life of the project or item. What that takes is the ability to look past the end of one’s nose, do a little math, and moreover, be motivated to do so.
So, um, yes, there is a vast benefit to reducing greenhouse emissions, regardless of whether AGW actually exists or not. And yes, there’s harm as well, primarily to the fat cats - which is a species that can go extinct without anyone fretting about it, I suspect.
SeanO,
You are right on with,
We need to have more scientific discussions and few political conversations.
If I were President, one of the first things I’d do would be to convience some sort of scientific conference of climatologists to discuss GW and try to determine what we know, what we don’t know and possible solutions.
Thanny,
Nice ad hominem. I know exactly what Al Gore is saying. It’s OK to exaggerate the facts to get a discussion going and I in my book that’s a lie.
Exaggeration of the potential outcomes has been a huge problem for anything related to the climate which in turn limits our government’s political will to act on it. For example, in the 1970’s the next ice age was around the corner, in the late 1980s, we had the coming global doom of global warming in the next twenty years and it didn’t happen and now one of the leading advocates of AGW stating,
“Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis. ”
Look at this from the point of view of the average person. They wrong 35 years ago, they were wrong 20 years ago, and they are probably wrong again, especially since Al Gore admits to over-representation of factual presentations.
One thing for certain: If you want a Federal grant insert Humans Cause Global Warming in the header and the politicians will drown you with money.
On the subject of denial:
“Mankind is guilty of global warming, how much is not the question, we must do as much as we can everywhere to slow it down. We can’t turn it around any more. The only way to do that is to go “back to the roots†without any industry which is not possible any more.”–DrFlimmer
Only one example, but the sentiment is nearly universal. Why is the end of industry not possible? Just because you wish it were so? Industrial civilization is inherently unsustainable, based as it is on depleting resources in the name of economic growth. Its collapse is not merely possible, but inevitable. Hybrid vehicles? Alternative fuels? Reduced power plant emissions? Denial, denial, and denial. Clever humans aren’t inventing their way out of this mess. Have a nice die-off
Please not the old “ice age” story. That was a very tentative prediction by a small minority of climatologist. AGW is the strong consensus of pretty much the entire climatology community. Equating the two is ludicrous.
Second, Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist. Please do not take exaggeration by one politician and use that to dismiss the scientific consensus and the scientific community. What Gore does or what Gore thinks is appropriate has absolutely nothing to do with the conclusions drawn by the scientific community.
Bringing him up in the first place is nothing more than an ad hominem. If you have a problem with AGW, then show us how the evidence people have cited here, like stratospheric cooling, is wrong. Al Gore is not global warming. Even if he completely and totally fabricated his movie, which he didn’t, it wouldn’t affect whether AGW is right or wrong in the slightest. So please don’t mention him again, some random politician is totally irrelevant to an evidence-based discussion. Criticize the evidence, if you can, that is all that matters.
Anonymous, the vast majority of the population of industrialized nations are happy with their standard of living, or want a better one. Most people would not be happy being Amish, living on kerosene lamps and horse-drawn buggies. If you’re using the internet (like to post on this blog), then you can’t possibly be serious about giving up industrial civilization. Industry also does such fun things and pharmaceuticals, health care equipment, and the like. A modern hospital would be non-existent without modern industry.
Thanny, I don’t think it is jrkeller’s inability to parse English sentences, I think it is Al Gore’s inability to construct a clear one. Your interpretation is certainly one interpretation of what he meant. It may even be the one he meant. But jrkeller’s interpretation is equally supportable. What does “overreppresentation” mean? In context to what?
See, denial so bad that Irishman cannot–or will not–grasp the plain meaning of the words in front of his face. What part of “Industrial civilization is inherently unsustainable” does Irishman not understand? The collapse will happen, regardless of what anyone wants.
Anonymous, I would like to see the evidence supporting this conclusion. It is true that many resources we currently depend on are non-renewable right now. But that is at least partly due to economic constraints. We do not currently recycle as much as we should because the economic benefit from doing so is not currently that major. If we start running out of certain resources prices of those resources will rise. In some cases that could lead to increased emphasis on recycling of previously used resources. That might include, if necessary, raiding garbage dumps and such. In other cases it may lead to a shift towards more renewable resources or to other resources that are not depleted. It may even lead to the exploitation of unconventional sources of these materials. They may not be as easy and inexpensive to produce as non-renewable resources, but that will change as it becomes more expensive and more difficult to obtain depleted non-renewable resources. All these strategies have been used in the past when resources essential to a society have been depleted. In fact these sorts of moments often lead to major growth in a society as they are forced out of a period of stasis into a period of exploration and/or technological and scientific innovation. For instance the mass death of naturally-growing cereals during a local climate change after the last ice age is thought to have prompted the invention of agriculture. The depletion of tin necessary to make bronze lead to a massive period of exploration in the bronze age in search of new resources and, ultimately, the use of iron. Lack of conventional building materials routinely leads to innovative use of local materials for construction.
What you are basically asserting is that there are certain resources that are absolutely essential to our society and will never be replaced by alternatives and will never be able to be recycled in sufficient amounts to sustain our society. I would like you to tell us specifically what these resources are and why you are convinced no way around their depletion will be found despite the fact that it will become economically beneficial to do so.
From jrkeller:
>Thanny,
>
>Nice ad hominem. I know exactly what Al Gore is saying.
>It’s OK to exaggerate the facts to get a discussion
>going and I in my book that’s a lie.
Ad hominem? This from a guy who’s attacking Al Gore, as if it’s an argument against the reality of global warming.
It’s not an attack on you by me to point out the fact that you’re either intentionally lying about what Gore said, or simply can’t understand it.
He’s not saying that he exaggerates facts about the impact of global warming.
What he’s saying is that he devotes more time
to expounding these facts in his US slide show,
rather than devoting that time to discussion
about possible solutions.
That is, the facts of global warming’s impact are over-represented (not distorted or altered) in his show, compared with possible solutions to the