Grantham: Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in 5 Minutes
Jeremy Grantham, who has long had investments in Timber and Natural Resources, puts a surprising smackdown on the Global Warming denialist crowd.
In the updated version of Bailout Nation, I specifically mention the same think tanks slavish devotion to ideology and disproven ideas (EMH, etc.). I find it encouraging Grantham calls them out as well.
>
Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in 5 Minutes
1) The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, after at least several hundred thousand years of remaining within a constant range, started to rise with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. It has increased by almost 40% and is rising each year. This is certain and straightforward.
2) One of the properties of CO2 is that it creates a greenhouse effect and, all other things being equal, an increase in its concentration in the atmosphere causes the Earth’s temperature to rise. This is just physics. (The amount of other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as methane, has also risen steeply since industrialization, which has added to the impact of higher CO2 levels.)
3) Several other factors, like changes in solar output, have major influences on climate over millennia, but these effects have been observed and measured. They alone cannot explain the rise in the global temperature over the past 50 years.
4) The uncertainties arise when it comes to the interaction between greenhouse gases and other factors in the complicated climate system. It is impossible to be sure exactly how quickly or how much the temperature will rise. But, the past can be measured. The temperature has indeed steadily risen over the past century while greenhouse gas levels have increased. But the forecasts still range very widely for what will happen in the future, ranging from a small but still potentially harmful rise of 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit to a potentially disastrous level of +6 to +10 degrees Fahrenheit within this century. A warmer atmosphere melts glaciers and ice sheets, and causes global sea levels to rise. A warmer atmosphere also contains more energy and holds more water, changing the global occurrences of storms, fl oods, and other extreme weather events.
5) Skeptics argue that this wide range of uncertainty about future temperature changes lowers the need to act: “Why spend money when you’re not certain?” But since the penalties can rise at an accelerating rate at the tail, a wider range implies a greater risk (and a greater expected value of the costs.) This is logically and mathematically rigorous and yet is still argued.
6) Pascal asks the question: What is the expected value of a very small chance of an infi nite loss? And, he answers, “Infinite.” In this example, what is the cost of lowering CO2 output and having the long-term effect of increasing CO2 turn out to be nominal? The cost appears to be equal to foregoing, once in your life, six months’ to one year’s global growth – 2% to 4% or less. The benefits, even with no warming, include: energy independence from the Middle East; more jobs, since wind and solar power and increased efficiency are more labor-intensive than another coal-fi red power plant; less pollution of streams and air; and an early leadership role for the U.S. in industries that will inevitably become important. Conversely, what are the costs of not acting on prevention when the results turn out to be serious: costs that may dwarf those for prevention; and probable political destabilization from droughts, famine, mass migrations, and even war. And, to Pascal’s real point, what might be the cost at the very extreme end of the distribution: Definitely life changing, possibly life threatening.
7) The biggest cost of all from global warming is likely to be the accumulated loss of biodiversity. This features nowhere in economic cost-benefit analysis because, not surprisingly, it is hard to put a price on that which is priceless.
8) A special word on the right-leaning think tanks: As libertarians, they abhor the need for government spending or even governmental leadership, which in their opinion is best left to private enterprise. In general, this may be an excellent idea. But global warming is a classic tragedy of the commons – seeking your own individual advantage, for once, does not lead to the common good, and the problem desperately needs government leadership and regulation. Sensing this, these think tanks have allowed their drive for desirable policy to trump science. Not a good idea.
9) Also, I should make a brief note to my own group – die hard contrarians. Dear fellow contrarians, I know the majority is usually wrong in the behavioral jungle of the stock market. And Heaven knows I have seen the soft scientists who lead finance theory attempt to bully their way to a uniform acceptance of the bankrupt theory of rational expectations and market efficiency. But climate warming involves hard science. The two most prestigious bastions of hard science are the National Academy in the U.S. and the Royal Society in the U.K., to which Isaac Newton and the rest of that huge 18th century cohort of brilliant scientists belonged. The presidents of both societies wrote a note recently, emphasizing the seriousness of the climate problem and that it was man-made. (See the attachment to last quarter’s Letter.) Both societies have also made full reports on behalf of their membership stating the same. Do we believe the whole elite of science is in a conspiracy? At some point in the development of a scientific truth, contrarians risk becoming flat earthers.
10) Conspiracy theorists claim to believe that global warming is a carefully constructed hoax driven by scientists desperate for … what? Being needled by nonscientific newspaper reports, by blogs, and by right-wing politicians and think tanks? Most hard scientists hate themselves or their colleagues for being in the news. Being a climate scientist spokesman has already become a hindrance to an academic career, including tenure. I have a much simpler but plausible “conspiracy theory”: that fossil energy companies, driven by the need to protect hundreds of billions of dollars of profi ts, encourage obfuscation of the inconvenient scientifi c results.
11) Why are we arguing the issue? Challenging vested interests as powerful as the oil and coal lobbies was never going to be easy. Scientists are not naturally aggressive defenders of arguments. In short, they are conservatives by training: never, ever risk overstating your ideas. The skeptics are far, far more determined and expert propagandists to boot. They are also well funded. That smoking caused cancer was obfuscated deliberately and effectively for 20 years at a cost of hundreds of thousands of extra deaths.
We know that for certain now, yet those who caused this fatal delay have never been held accountable. The profi ts of the oil and coal industry make tobacco’s resources look like a rounding error. In some notable cases, the obfuscators of global warming actually use the same “experts” as the tobacco industry did! The obfuscators’ simple and direct motivation – making money in the near term, which anyone can relate to – combined with their resources and, as it turns out, propaganda talents, have meant that we are arguing the science long after it has been nailed down. I, for one, admire them for their P.R. skills, while wondering, as always: “Have they no grandchildren?”
12) Almost no one wants to change. The long-established status quo is very comfortable, and we are used to its deficiencies. But for this problem we must change. This is never easy.
13) Almost everyone wants to hear good news. They want to believe that dangerous global warming is a hoax. They, therefore, desperately want to believe the skeptics. This is a problem for all of us.
Postscript
Global warming will be the most important investment issue for the foreseeable future. But how to make money around this issue in the next few years is not yet clear to me. In a fast-moving field rife with treacherous politics, there will be many failures. Marketing a “climate” fund would be much easier than outperforming with it.
De.li.cious
Digg this!
Technorati
Reddit
Newsvine
Stumble
Facebook
July 22nd, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Jeremy Grantham hits the nail squarely on the head. Excellent analysis.
July 22nd, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Well now. All this recession/depression porn finally gets too much, so we need end-of-the-world-as-we- know-it porn to keep us enthralled and credulous that indeed, if only we had the right policy prescriptions we could not only save our economies but the very planet itself?
There’s too much to refute in one post, so I’ll not bother with it here. In my Attic, I think I’ll rip it to shreds…
July 22nd, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Curmudgeon- “There’s too much to refute so I won’t bother” has the same effect as “I can’t refute it”. Any recommended reading you’d like to advocate instead of harrumphing off?
July 22nd, 2010 at 6:15 pm
My favorite intervention is a carbon tax. You don’t even have to accept global warming to accept that as a good idea. We would fight the deficit, reduce our funding of enemies like Iran, Venezuela and terrorist, reduce air pollution. Its already a win, win, win before we add the reduction in global warming.
July 22nd, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Tezzer, yeah, I can refute it. And will. I just won’t bother with it here, and I haven’t the time at the moment. Give me a day and I’ll give you a linkfest. In the meantime, the video posted by icm63 should hold you over. Pick the first one.
DeDude–you know what’s funny? I do not belong to the church of global warming alarmism, yet I believe that we need to drastically alter (at least in the US) the source and rate of our fuel consumption, if for no other reasons than it would alleviate the need for more dead soldiers in God-awful places that happen to have oil. I’m a global warming heretic, but I’d heartily support a massive gasoline tax, for just the reasons you offer, except global warming, which is nonsense.
July 22nd, 2010 at 6:29 pm
More convincing would be more discussion of the science & less discussion of the inferior psychology of the “deniers”. Some topics I would like discussed:
1. Why is Mars getting warmer too? Sun activity is a huge factor & needs more than Grantham’s glancing blow.
2. The NASA graft needs to be over a longer period; furthermore, description of the measurement methodology is needed to dispel the stories about weather stations located in what were once rural but are now heat islands, etc.
3. Tho’ CO2 has increased tremendously, it is still a tiny portion of the atmosphere. It’s effect & the counter reaction to whatever effect is has is a complicated issue that is not likely perfectly understood.
4. Why do we never see a good coherent concise presentation of the evidence from the scientists, but instead condemnations of the ‘deniers’ as stupid people who have missed out on the debate that is already over?
July 22nd, 2010 at 6:29 pm
This “smackdown” is sadly very poor from a scientific perspective. I think it could be as effective at proving the opposite of its premise. First hint: when someone says “This is certain and straightforward.” You can safely conclude that they do not really understand science.
If you want to put forth an argument for global warming to someone who will evaluate it with scientific honesty, it does not take all of those easily rebuffed words. Simply ask what is more likely: that Mankind is adding energy to the system, or removing it.
Here is an interesting thought: It is actually politicians that determine what scientists believe in the modern world. How can that be? Scientists have to make a living too. Guess where their funding comes from.
P.S. I have no opinion on global warming itself, not my field.
July 22nd, 2010 at 6:38 pm
The arrogance and conceit of the global warmsters is awesome to behold.
We have been on this rock and rolling, tilited, dynamic ball of earth and water for what amounts to .01 cent vs the existence of the earth in quadrillions of Euros.
To think that we are any more than a pimple on the ass of a gnat is light years beyond hubris.
When the planet has had enough of our mistreatment, she will just get rid of us and go on her merry way
bubbling, spinning, and doing her own thing until her light naturally goes out and she turns into a frigid cinder.
All treatises from the global warmsters should begin with a cautionary statement that it is for the ongoing relative comfort of humans that is at stake, and not the preservation of our climate thru various taxing schema, conservation, which is nothing more than a delaying tactic, and austerity.
They would gain a hell of a lot more credibility than they and their disciples and imitators now have.
I want to see at least one of these Cassandras refute the blinding light of truthiness about the REAL motives of the Warmsters.
And what Curmudgeon says….. in spades.
July 22nd, 2010 at 6:50 pm
And who decides that it is “man made” global warming? The solid sheet of ice that covered North America disappeared rather quicky. What were the dynamics then?
Are we taking it on faith that man causes the warming and not the earth itself? If tempertures have risen since the industrial revolution does that equate to causation?
Kind of silly really to think we can keep the earth from doing what it does all on its very own.
July 22nd, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Would one of the commenters who disagree with Grantham comment on why the scientific community, especially those referenced in the article, would take such a strong pro-global warming stance? What’s their motivation?
July 22nd, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Oh god here we go again. A money manager telling us about the “facts” of global warming. Jerry should stick to trying to beat the S&P. He reminds me of Al “take care of this” Gore’s 2500 scientists who backed his inconvenient half truths. As it turns out most them could not read a thermometer.
There may or may not be global warming. I certainly hope there is warming because cooling kills by the 100′s of millions. But that said the idea that Jerry and crew have the sligthest idea how to slow it down is laughable. That’s the real tragedy–the hubris of the people who first failed with global cooling in the 70′s now put gauges at airports and tell us that it is warming.
LOL, then cry.
July 22nd, 2010 at 7:00 pm
This site, http://motls.blogspot.com/, is hosted by a Czech physicist and is much like the TBP – heavy on the primary purpose (string theory and physics), related passions (anti-global warming), and personal interests (local community, etc.) He’s as passionate about the mathematics of climate modeling as BH is about Fusion IQ and market data analysis. If you want to see well documented and thoroughly explained counter-arguments for a well balanced picture, check him out.
July 22nd, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Hey Barry,
I’m very curious to hear what you think about this guy’s blog: http://motls.blogspot.com/.
He’s a string theorist who is also a skeptic of anthropogenic global warming . He makes some strong arguments that current estimates of the climate sensitivity parameter are much too large, but I don’t know enough physics to really critique. You need to sort through his many posts to find the meat of his arguments, but I found it to be worth the time.
One caveat: like many theoretical physicists, he can be extremely arrogant. He thinks climate science is the armpit of physics and loves to attack the intelligence of climate scientists (and pretty much anyone who disagrees with him). He’s basically a jerk, but some of his arguments are very interesting. To be fair, he is very generous with his time and will respond to your questions swiftly.
Peter
July 22nd, 2010 at 7:02 pm
oops, didn’t see above post!
July 22nd, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Barry,
I am passionate reader of this blog and find it entertaining and informtative. That being said, I find it highly illogical that during your post about the SEC v Goldman you say; “I’m not a lawyer, but . . . Then you should not be ignorantly commenting on securities litigation. Why don’t you pour yourself a tall glass of STF up and go sit quietly in the corner.”
Yet you back up Jeremy Grantham as the oracle of specious science? Grantham is a great investor but quite frankly he can STF up when it comes to climate science. His points are ridiculous and full of errors.
~~~
BR: Grantham is a terrific Macro Investor, and points out that this is the trade of the decade.
I’ll take JG over the anti-science loons.
July 22nd, 2010 at 7:17 pm
The Precautionary Principle: “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.”; e.g., http://www.sehn.org/precaution.html
The burden of proof is already far too great for global climate change skeptics to overcome and the scientific debate was essentially finished in broad outline several years ago (e.g., Scientific American) leaving details, models, level and scope of change for further scientific investigation.
The political debate, largely fueled by economic interests, continues to rage of course but comparing the list of institutions who support global climate change denial in contrast with those who consider climate change a real and a valid concern is instructive; e.g., Think Progress.
Speaking as an investor rather than a citizen I have to say that while Grantham’s summary is highly accurate and supplies direction what remains unclear (as he also points out) is the approach one might take to profit from the trend(s). Not surprising since this is a non-linear, complex system we are talking about and, as with so many other things, clarity will doubtless emerge when it pleases but it would be nice if that didn’t happen too late to take constructive action.
And, as others have noted, such action could yield significant benefits even if global climate change turns out to be a tempest in a teapot.
July 22nd, 2010 at 7:20 pm
One of the regular commenters here is a climate scientist . . .I can’t remember who you are off the top of my head, but I know you’re out there. Chime in.
Fascinating how so many people have to have an opinion (and such strong one’s at that) about absolutely every topic under the sun.
July 22nd, 2010 at 7:22 pm
His arguments die in both points 1 and 2. A couple of hundred thousand years is but a moment in geologic time and there are many eras where CO2 has been many times more concentrated than the last coupla hundred thousand years. Furthermore, in point 2 “all things being equal” is fatal. All things, especially in climate, are never equal.
Hard Science? Skip over the think tanks and go directly to an MIT climate physicist. You don’t get much harder science than that:
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/100210Lindzen/f.htm#
Soundbites:
The theory of intelligent design sounds rigorous by comparison to the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
Three pro-CAGW publications have already acknowledged that temperature data has contradicted the man-made attribution assumption (primarily CO2), which is the inherent assumption of the IPCC models.
The fundamental assumption of CAGW that there is positive feedback by water vapor due to CO2 is “likely wrong”.
July 22nd, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Well, didn’t that post shake the tree rather successfully. ;-)
July 22nd, 2010 at 7:23 pm
True science must offer reliable predictive value and it should be falsifiable. Otherwise it’s not science.
The current state of climatology offers neither. And it’s you who suffers from biased thinking if you say otherwise.
At this point in time, climatology is not a science. And the concept of Anthropomorphic Global Warming…it is merely a belief system.
July 22nd, 2010 at 7:25 pm
It is amusing to see all the selection bias among the denier crowd on an investment blog.
That means ya’ll probably suck at stock picking, too. What’s that Czech string theorist buying, eh?
July 22nd, 2010 at 7:30 pm
“The burden of proof is already far too great for global climate change skeptics to overcome and the scientific debate was essentially finished in broad outline several years ago ”
That depends on what government teat you are on….
July 22nd, 2010 at 7:33 pm
Wow, and you people like to think you’re the cream of the crop. This bodes well for my dream of escaping the ghetto.
Very long Vestas.
July 22nd, 2010 at 7:44 pm
@stevesliva ,
What are your thoughts on Lumo’s estimate of the climate sensitivity parameter?
July 22nd, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Not to toot my own horn too much, but I can’t help thinking that Jeremy Grantham read my December 2009 blog piece while composing his thoughts for this letter… …some of the talking points and even the specific turns of phrase are just awfully similar…
http://www.chadwickresearch.com/blog/?p=34
If that’s what happened, I’m not upset about it, and there’s clearly a lot of other stuff in Grantham’s letter that are his own and from other sources, but I find it kind of thrilling to to think that a big guy like him might have stopped by for a read and maybe a bit of prose rubbed off on him.
July 22nd, 2010 at 7:50 pm
==> stevesliva
Free beer when you come to visit :)
July 22nd, 2010 at 7:51 pm
@RW,
I would recommend spending a few hours with “that Czeck string theorist’s” blog. He’s annoying and sometimes offensive, but it is well worth the slog through old posts. He is also pretty good at replying to your comments/questions. If it matters, I consider myself an environmentalist and an AGW sympathizer (I want to believe), but the scientist in me is forced to pay attention. He’s also not the first physicist I’ve heard say that climate scientists are largely physics flunkies, the chiropractors of the the physics world…
July 22nd, 2010 at 7:56 pm
*cross-post*
Compiled and Written by Norman W. Edmund
Dear Knowledge Seeker,
Scientific Method Activities
This website contains today’s most up-to-date, complete, clear, concise, and reliable information about the scientific method and scientific method activities that has ever been offered.
It covers history of the scientific method, development of the scientific method, definition of scientific method, and scientific method activities. It explains about the steps of the scientific method and gives an assortment of formulas containing from 4 to 10 steps for the scientific method. But best of all, well researched detailed descriptions of the eleven steps or stages of the scientific method are included.
This model formula is suitable for lesson plans on the scientific method, and study and teaching of the scientific method. Scientific method worksheets are included and greatly aid using the scientific method of inquiry.
In addition to the 48-page booklet on The Scientific Method Today, there are research reports on vital topics concerning the scientific method.
Scientific Method Worksheets – PDF format
Don’t fail to download these! They are one of the greatest aids to the use of the scientific method ever developed. There is a one-page (8½ x 11 inches) short form and an easier to use two-page form.
…
You should take advantage of all the free reliable knowledge presented here, especially since the scientific method has not been adequately taught in our schools. I explain why in my other reports.
Scientific Method for Kids, Children, and Students
Scientific method for elementary, middle, and high school students is covered. It explains most questions students might have about the scientific method. It is written in non-technical language that is easy to understand. The many questions students have about the steps in the scientific method are clearly answered.
Free – no copyright claimed on material on this site
http://www.scientificmethod.com/
*****
If only the GW absolutists were as open..
~~
DD123 Says: July 22nd, 2010 at 7:23 pm
True science must offer reliable predictive value and it should be falsifiable. Otherwise it’s not science.
The current state of climatology offers neither. And it’s you who suffers from biased thinking if you say otherwise.
At this point in time, climatology is not a science. And the concept of Anthropomorphic Global Warming…it is merely a belief system.
~~
DD123, Well Said.
July 22nd, 2010 at 7:59 pm
tranchefoot – what kind of scientist are you if you don’t mind me asking?
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says
Here is a summary of what the science says on each skeptic argument. You can also view the arguments sorted by taxonomy or a print-friendly version.
Skeptic Argument vs What the Science Says
1 “It’s the sun”
The sun’s output has barely changed since 1970 and is irrelevant to recent global warming.
2 “Climate’s changed before”
The climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time, which now is dominated by humans.
3 “There is no consensus”
Around 95% of climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming.
4 “It’s cooling”
The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.
5 “Models are unreliable”
Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.
6 “Temp record is unreliable”
The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites.
7 “It hasn’t warmed since 1998″
2005 was the hottest year globally, and 2009 the second hottest.
8 “Ice age predicted in the 70s”
The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.
9 “We’re heading into an ice age”
Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.
10 “Antarctica is gaining ice”
Satellites measure Antarctica losing land ice at an accelerating rate.
11 “CO2 lags temperature”
Recent CO2 increase has caused recent warming without any time lag.
12 “It’s not bad”
Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
13 “Al Gore got it wrong”
Al Gore’s book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books.
14 “It’s cosmic rays”
Cosmic rays show no trend over the last 30 years & have had little impact on recent global warming.
15 “It’s freaking cold!”
A local cold day has nothing to do with the long-term trend of increasing global temperatures.
16 “Hurricanes aren’t linked to global warming”
There is increasing evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming.
17 “1934 – hottest year on record”
1934 was one of the hottest years in the US, not globally.
18 “Hockey stick is broken”
Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years.
19 “Mars is warming”
Mars is not warming globally.
20 “It’s Urban Heat Island effect”
Urban and rural regions show the same warming trend.
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:00 pm
here’s the best piece of information from Grantham- climate genius that he is (along w/ BR- of course)-
Global warming will be the most important investment issue for the foreseeable future. But how to make money around this issue in the next few years is not yet clear to me.
that’s incredibly sage advice- I’ve noted it and saved in multiple locations- so I can refer to it when I am need of inspiration- LOL
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:17 pm
. . .and to be clear- I made fun of that stupid Grantham comment when BR posted the Grantham newsletter a day or two ago-
this little global warming snippet is just a part of the whole newsletter- and I commented about it then-
if this is part of an investment newsletter- then where is the “red meat” on the “most important investment issue for the foreseeable future”-
how about there isn’t any- and he has zero clue on what to make of “global warming” as an investment opportunity- because he just wants put his global warming thesis out there-
fucking ridiculous-
ahab
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Thor,
Biologist. Don’t know enough physics to critique the Lumo’s arguments.
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Its become such a political issue. Even the name “deniers” is derogatory. Skeptic is more accurate. Skepticism used to be a virtue in this country. The tactic of saying that “most all” of the climate scientists are convinced and the matter has already been solved (boy that was quick) is even more fishy. I guess we should have been fully invested in stocks at the end of 2007 when virtually all of the “economic experts” said there would be no recession too. For someone who prides themselves in being a contrarian, I don’t get why this blog has swallowed this so easily.
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:25 pm
ahab,
file under: sad, but *True , if one must, but Grantham’s observation: “Global warming will be the most important investment issue for the foreseeable future.”, from a Financial POV, if not from an Economic one, is, too tragically, spot on..
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tragic def. #1, 1.
as well, for those interested in getting a jump on coming *Trends, I’ll submit:
http://search.yippy.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&v%3Aproject=clusty&query=History+of+Lysenkoism
for your contemplation..
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contemplation def. #1, 2.
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:26 pm
I gotta say, I am a little disappointed that Grantham failed to mention the enormous interests the financial services industry has in the global warming debate. The market for carbon offsets and various products based on carbon derivatives is supposed to huge… Considering Grantham works in financial services, he has got to be aware of this and should disclose.
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:30 pm
How do we know it’s “man made” global warming?
_______
This is where the fact-challenged always pull out the “correlation is not causation” canard. Over a long enough timeline, correlation can imply causation to the point where denying the dependent relationship between the two or more measurements being compared becomes a lesson in intellectual denial of fact.
We’re talking 50 years. a drop in the bucket in geologic/environmental terms. The research into past levels of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere is what all of these scientists drilling core samples in the polar regions has been about, and it is from this data that the sudden rise over the past century have been determined.
BR’s post has a chart. Look at the chart and compare it to this one:
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/World%20Population%20and%20Oil%201900.JPG
If you think this phenomena is not man-made, these charts will do little to alter your belief.
Arguing over “facts” can quickly lead to the intellectual fuckery of semantics, faux credibility/equivalency of opinion over the core science being presented (a PhD in pharmacology’s opinion being equal to that of an equally degreed climatologist, on the issue of GW, for example), and as a final bastion against reason, the idea that all science is mumbo jumbo because our very existence is unprovable (or some such horse shit). It’s best to counter bad science with ground rules. The best ground rule is to accept data collected and analyzed using the Scientific Method, and only after rigorous peer review.
As for the experts linked to in this thread, is there an on line source for their peer reviewed science? Did they collect the data from which to support their contrarian opinions?
_____________________
algernon Says:
July 22nd, 2010 at 6:29 pm
More convincing would be more discussion of the science & less discussion of the inferior psychology of the “deniers”. Some topics I would like discussed:
1. Why is Mars getting warmer too? Sun activity is a huge factor & needs more than Grantham’s glancing blow.
Got a link? to that data, or to how it correlates to the earth’s situation? Is there any way to measure the temp variations on mars past the last fer decades, as there is on earth?
2. The NASA graft needs to be over a longer period; furthermore, description of the measurement methodology is needed to dispel the stories about weather stations located in what were once rural but are now heat islands, etc.
Agreed. Methodology is important. OTOH, would that say anything at all about the other confirming measured (ice cores/tree rings, for example) and/or anecdotal evidence for warming (glaciers/ocean acidification)?
3. Tho’ CO2 has increased tremendously, it is still a tiny portion of the atmosphere. It’s effect & the counter reaction to whatever effect is has is a complicated issue that is not likely perfectly understood.
Take a spackle bucket half full of water. Put a thermometer inside the bucket. Stretch a piece of saran wrap over the bucket. What do you think happens to the temp in the bucket? All of that heat trapped by a miniscule (by comparison to the air in the bucket) layer of saran wrap.
4. Why do we never see a good coherent concise presentation of the evidence from the scientists, but instead condemnations of the ‘deniers’ as stupid people who have missed out on the debate that is already over?
There’s plenty of data, and plenty of arguments presented, based on that data. if you want to confirm your position either way, you’ll have to study up on it and assess it for yourself. Otherwise, the scientific consensus (by those who HAVE studied the data and methodology), has been accepted by the vast majority of the scientist community.
If those who deny global warming appear ignorant in the eyes and opinions of the scientists who spend their lives doing this (in the search for knowledge — not riches), it is because they ignore the science aspect of the argument.
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:34 pm
Of course, the “Flat Earthers” were actually the majority and more akin to Grantham’s side of this argument than the reverse, but let’s not get in the way of a clever turn of phrase….
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:37 pm
the bohemian Says:
July 22nd, 2010 at 6:50 pm
And who decides that it is “man made” global warming? The solid sheet of ice that covered North America disappeared rather quicky. What were the dynamics then?
how much of a change in temperature would be required to do that? how much of a change in precipitation would be required to do that? were there any volcanos active? what originally caused the glacier to form to begin with? were there any meteorites that impacted the earth that could have changed it? could there have been a large explosion from methane hydrates that release a huge CO cloud into the atmosphere.
but in the end
it won’t matter
we will just have to deal with it
but i do think that changing our sources for energy, pharmaceuticals and materials would be good, if for no other reason than we could ignore the middle east and others. let them fight there own wars. we can save our money by avoiding those wars
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:41 pm
@Tranchfoot, thanks for the invite but I’m afraid I’ll have to pass. String theory is more math than physics and pretty far divorced from any observable reality and having to wade through arrogance or ad hominem in search of occasional brilliant gems significantly reduces the chance of pleasure in any discovery. The fellow is certainly entitled to his opinions regarding the low intellectual attainment of climatologists but, FWIW, the atmospheric physicists and chemists I met at N.C.A.R. would have to be included among the smartest and most disciplined scientists I’ve known (in one capacity or another I’ve known a fair number albeit mostly in the biological sciences).
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:45 pm
MEH @ 8:25-
no doubt-
investment opportunities for those dealing in the carbon tax world-
all by predetermined conclusions supported by the best science has to offer-
reality- we don’t know that much- the solar system is a big place- but we think we got it all down
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:46 pm
flipspiceland Says:
“When the planet has had enough of our mistreatment, she will just get rid of us and go on her merry way
bubbling, spinning, and doing her own thing until her light naturally goes out and she turns into a frigid cinder.”
__________
Yeah, so let’s poke that behemoth bitch with a sharp stick.
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:46 pm
For the record, Grantham is someone I respect, his asset allocation record is as good as anyone who practices that discipline, and I read him religously, however that’s his competency, not climate science or science in general. In this case, he’s much like Barry–a guy who has a forum and a microphone for being good at one thing, who’s now using it for another (though in this case, the passion that this subject arises probably has the side effect of a nice boost in traffic).
Grantham’s asset allocation is something that everyone should pay attention to, like Soros on currencies, whereas the value of relying on their brilliance for science (or social policy in Soros’ case) is debatable at best.
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:49 pm
bitjockey:
Please provide a new link as soon as he’s published and peer reviewed on the subject.
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:49 pm
By the way, #3 in his set of essays is the one you want to read. It’s his area of actual expertise, and something that you can actually use! That’s the one an economics/investor blogger should be posting!
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:52 pm
but i do think that changing our sources for energy, pharmaceuticals and materials would be good, if for no other reason than we could ignore the middle east and others. let them fight there own wars. we can save our money by avoiding those wars
no doubt willid-
it appears empires need to stretch to their maximum before they realize its all over
ahab
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:54 pm
DD123 Says:
True science must offer reliable predictive value and it should be falsifiable. Otherwise it’s not science.
The current state of climatology offers neither.
_________
Bullshit. There are forecasts out the wazoo for both the increase in c02 emissions and continued temp rise. As for the falsifiability of the theory, I’m sure that some have tried. if successful, they would be published and their methodology and conclusions would be challenged and either accepted or rejected by their peers. THAT is what has not happened, but it ain’t for trying.
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Petey – you’re on a roll tonight!
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Grantham should stick investing money. He knows nothing about the science global warming yet he acts like he is an expert. Only a fool would believe that the US Gov’t, which could screw up a one man parade, will be able to control the earth’s temperature. In reality, there are many scientists who don’t believe that human activity causes global warming. Former Chicago weatherman and Weather Channel founder John Coleman recently said he has over 30,000 scientists who want to join with him to sue Al Gore for fraud, and a 2009 Senate minority report cited over 700 dissenting international scientists who challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations IPCC. With those kinds of numbers opposing the conventional wisdom, it is simply not fair to say that the science behind global warming theories has been proven.
Common sense dictates that other questions should be asked regarding the theory that humans cause global warming. For instance, why did global temperatures rise and fall in the early history of the planet, long before there was human activity? Why have global temperatures declined over the past 10 years despite rising human activity? The answer is that climate change is a natural occurrence, with temperatures going through cycles over time that have little to do with activities by humans. According to Wikipedia, interpretation of ice core data suggests that between 800 and 1300 AD the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a mild climate, with trees and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being raised. Only two centuries later, Icelandic settlements that had thrived in southern Greenland for centuries disappeared, perhaps at the onset of the Little Ice Age. Today, Greenland’s ice sheet covers 81% of its territory. Howard Bloom, the founder of The Space Development Steering Committee, said it best in his recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece: “Weather changes and the occasional meteor have tossed this planet through roughly 142 mass extinctions since life began 3.85 billion years ago. That’s an average of one mass extinction every 26.5 million years. Where did these mass die-offs come from? Nature. There were no human capitalists, industrialists, or cultures of consumerism to blame.”
I encourage everyone to watch John Coleman’s interview on youtube in which he explains how Al Gore got the idea for cap and trade from Enron when he was Clinton’s VP. It’s all about the money, not the environment. Grantham is clueless.
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Just Google “Antarctic cooling” and you will get a snootful of data on that continent’s ice getting thicker on the 10,000 foot thick Eastern ice sheet.
We can also slow down global warming if we kill off about 4 billion people…..any volunteers to die?? I thought not.
If you READ the UN report, it says sea level rise in the last 100 years was about 14 inches (several estimates are given, they have the most confidence on that number). Their best guess on sea level rise in the next 100 years? (drum roll, please), about 14-18 inches. Somehow I don’t see this flooding all of Florida (besides, Barry, that would take out a lot of the excess housing inventory we have now).
As always, life is about POWER AND CONTROL. A crisis is always a great way to get people to give up money and freedom to those who would take it from them in a phony “crisis”. The last time I checked all the talking heads on the 24 hour ‘news’ channels, everything is now a crisis, so just give all your money and freedoms over to the government/university/business “experts” and you will sleep soundly from now on (naked, on the floor of your cave, be careful the bear doesn’t eat you).
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:08 pm
Bullshit. There are forecasts out the wazoo
that doesn’t sound too scientific Petey- LOL
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:09 pm
I thought this was an excellent and insightful write-up.
I think it would have been better though, if a virtual java-based Grantham applet would have come on screen wearing a futuristic all-black star trek suit. You know, channeling Al Gore , but more serious is kinda of what i had in mind.
Then for each of the points he made, it would have been nice to have a related investment theme, or like an ETF or just anything… (paypal, Kindle,swine-flu vaccines, even some itunes links to Beyonce’ albums or Sean Penn movies -)
Then I could read his platitudes, click the nearest link, and just buy stuff.
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:13 pm
From Grantham’s #6:
“…what is the cost of lowering CO2 output and having the long-term effect of increasing CO2 turn out to be nominal? The cost appears to be equal to foregoing, once in your life, six months’ to one year’s global growth – 2% to 4% or less. The benefits, even with no warming, include: energy independence from the Middle East; more jobs, since wind and solar power and increased efficiency are more labor-intensive than another coal-fired power plant; less pollution of streams and air…”
On that note, I’ve often thought of the unintended consequences of Alan Greenspan’s ridiculously-prolonged low-rate policy. Think about it for a minute. Unheard-of residential and commercial real-estate booms –> durable-goods consumption boom –> China industrialization (and consquently pollution) boom. And speaking of durable-goods, how many new SUVs, muscle cars, RVs, and boats were purchased due to refis and those ultra-low rates?
If we believe CO2 levels to be significant in global warming, then how much did those booms contribute to it? Food for thought.
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:25 pm
I recently read Jim Hansen’s book – Storms of My Grandchildren.
Hansen is one of the world’s top climate scientists. There is no way that he is any sort of unreasoned hysteric or has any sort of ulterior motive. This is required reading, especially for all of you who are expressing sceptical sentiments. You can find the book at http://www.amazon.com/Storms-My-Grandchildren-Catastrophe-Humanity/dp/1608192008.
Essentially, we are truly facing the possibility of an apocalypse. In the near term (the next 50 to 100 years), if we stay on our present carbon burning course, we will face increasing intensity and frequency of storms and concomitant social and economic disruption. But what is even more frightening is that in the longer run – within 500 years or so, essentially all the ice on the planet will melt leading to a runaway greenhouse effect, as the melting of methane hydrates currently locked up in permafrost is dumped into the atmosphere, more than doubling its current CO2 content. Sea level will rise 75 meters and there will be essentially nothing left except ocean and desert. The great majority of species now extant, possibly including humans, will not survive.
All of this is essentially inevitable if we do not very soon begin to stop increasing, and then start decreasing the amount of CO2 in the atomsphere, because we will soon reach tipping points at which other amplifying effects will come into play.
Have a great day, and stay out of the heat.
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:30 pm
along TerryC’s point (@ 21:06 ) We’ll see a greater exposition of the sentiment, here:
“CRISIS AND LEVIATHAN”
Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government
By Robert Higgs
Foreword by Arthur A. Ekirch, Jr.
Everyone knows that government has continually grown in size and scope during this past century, but how and why has it done so? Is this growth inherent in the nature of government or because of some greater social needs, or are there other causes?
In Crisis and Leviathan, Robert Higgs shows that the main reason lies in government’s responses to national “crises” (real or imagined), including economic upheavals (e.g., the Great Depression) and especially war (e.g., World Wars I and II, Cold War, etc.). The result is ever increasing government power which endures long after each crisis has passed, impinging on both civil and economic liberties and fostering extensive corporate welfare and pork. As government power grows, writes Higgs, it achieves a form of autonomy, making it ever more difficult to decrease its size and scope, and to resist its further efforts to increase its reach, so long as the citizenry remain uninformed of its true effects.
One of the most important books ever written on the nature of government power, Crisis and Leviathan is a potent book whose message becomes more trenchant with every passing day…”
http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=15
in view of these ‘never-ending’ “Threats”, We shood be circumspect, and remember, at least, that We’ve seen these Acts, in play, before..
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/circumspect
http://search.yippy.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&v%3Aproject=clusty&query=the+Anti-Federalist+Papers
“if only our ‘meta-cognition’ functioned as well as our (CGI-fueled)Imaginations..”
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:33 pm
@Tezzer, as I promised:
http://thecurmudgeonsattic.wordpress.com/
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:34 pm
I don’t think much was accomplished about AGW, but you sure as hell fortified Darwinian Theory with these comments.
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Suppose CO2 does cause global warming? Would a reduction in the increase of CO2 matter? Not likely IMHO. (Personally, I think we have a problem of too many people eating up finite and limited resources.) Wouldn’t it a strato shield be worth considering?
The most controversial of these solutions – a “stratoshield” — involves the controlled injection of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to cool ground temperatures, which mimics the natural cooling effects of a big volcanic eruption like Mount Pinatubo. This sort of “geoengineering” solution is intensely disliked within environmental circles, (deleted) it might still be a good idea to consider further research on the stratoshield. I.V.(Intellectual V entures from Seattle ) has suggested several methods that might reflect the sun, and cool the earth. These ideas brought forth in SuperFreakecom cs seem to provide more effective approaches if CO2 is indeed a culprit in warming. we could then discuss running out of resources as a separate issue.
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:56 pm
“Global warming will be the most important investment issue for the foreseeable future. But how to make money around this issue in the next few years is not yet clear to me.”
The guy could care less whether there is/is not global warming. It’s simply another opportunity to get something for nothing.
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:59 pm
I find it quite amazing how otherwise apparently intelligent beings throw out YouTube clips and nonsensical blogs to refute the massed opinion of the various national academies of science.
I suppose in a financial blog this should not surprise me, as there is little of science in the world of finance.
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Constant – from the other thread – you are indeed a scientist yes? :-)
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:03 pm
My feeble little pea brain is searching for the next bubble.
And I found it: green energy.
Woohoo! Crank up the presses and the IPO machines.
Thanks BR.
Oh, BR, How deep were you into the Internet bubble? I know you’re a NASDAQ kind of guy.
Transparency? Full disclosure? Interesting how much it depends on your perspective. And where you are in the market, and where your bread gets buttered, as they like to say.
No one wants to address the single most fundamental issue except China ( and maybe they’re backing off): there are too many energy consuming people in the world.
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:05 pm
@eddems — you are correct that the injection of sulfur dust into the upper atmosphere would block a large enough percentage of the incoming solar energy to drop the temperature, but that only buys time on the temperature front, as it does not decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which gets absorbed into the oceans and alters the PH of the oceans to the point of significantly altering the aquatic ecosystems, the net of which is to make it a lot more difficult to feed the planet’s teeming billions, while providing the false comfort of livable temperatures.
It only buys us a very few years to resolve the ultimate problem of Too Many People. Of course, that issue can be resolved in only a few days, with modern weaponry.
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:05 pm
MEH;
C. Northcote Parkinson had some brilliant observations on the growth of bureaucracies. Although he’s most known for the adage, ‘work expands to fill the time allotted,’ his observations in the book, Parkinson’s Law, or The Pursuit of Progress, go far beyond that observation.
He’s a worthwhile read.
A sample:
http://www.heretical.com/miscella/parkinsl.html
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:13 pm
You HAVE to follow the money. No atmospheric scientist will continue to get federal grant money if they publish articles proving AGW to be bunk. It is completely politicized now.
The major investment banks are salivating at the opportunity to make billions trading carbon derivatives. And they completely control congress, which in turn control grant money and distributions. Befriend a publish-or-perish professor and ask them how to get a grant.
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Couple of points:
a) So what? So what if the earth is warming? What are we going to do about? What can we do about it? Would it be better to dust trillions of dollars of economic wealth to drop the temperature a 1/2 degree or would be better to spend 50-100 billion in ways to just deal with affects of a warmer globe? i.e.: fortified sea wall structures, etc.
b) It’s interesting that Barry SLAMMED all the ne’er do wells without law degrees who had the temerity to criticize the SEC case against GS BECAUSE they had no law degrees or expertise on the subject matter. Alas, he gives a full article and nod of approval to Jeremy Grantham and his “expertise” on global warming.
Funny stuff that!
From BR’s point of view: If you don’t agree with me and don’t have the parchment, then you’re a dumbass and have no right to challenge me. If you do agree with me and don’t have the parchment, then that’s probably “ok” because you’re just a really smart guy in other ways.
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Btianla – really? Why? It would seem to me that it would be in the governments interest to play down climate change. After all, massive changes in energy laws are not going to be very profitable for many of the most powerful energy interests in this country.
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:18 pm
My bad…
Mr. Grantham gave a bunch of money to establish a school named after himself on the matter:
“Jeremy, together with Hannelore Grantham established the Grantham Foundation for the protection of the environment in 1997. Substantial commitments have been made to both Imperial College and London School of Economics, to establish the Grantham Institutes for Climate Change and the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, which will enable both institutions to build on their extensive expertise in climate change research.”
So, that must make an expert…..
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:30 pm
I have no interest in learning of someone’s views on global warming unless they are willing to also state where they stand on the question of taxes on carbon-based fuels.
The vast majority of global warming fear-mongerers just want higher taxes. At least they ought to be willing to admit it.
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Andy T:
Although probably not an expert himself, he’s smart enough to listen to the experts.
Now if he had funded the school and had final say on research direction and hiring/firing, I’d question his motives.
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:35 pm
Barry:
It’s been a while…. The first thing I thought on your latest post was.. “Oh no…! Not another Global Warming alarmist, tree hugger…” Just kidding….
The Following is the ECONOMISTA NON GRATA DOCTRINE ON CLIMATE CHANGE
“….We must stop viewing the issues of sustainability and climate change as good or evil and we must stop viewing this planet Earth as a servile entity, a slave that we can dominate and beat into submission. If we don’t criminalize the battering of the planet and coerce the ignorance that allows this battering into submission, we risk the loss of our species on this planet. The survival of our species on this planet can not be achieved through democratic means. This planet Earth, is simply not going to allow us the timeframe to build consensus and vote for solutions to this problem…..”
“….We can either step up to the plate “right now” and conserve, preserve and reclaim the damage we have done to this planet by whatever means are necessary and recruit the receptive, persuade the skeptic, coerce the ignorant and eliminate the recalcitrant, or we can leave it to the wisdom of our natural environment to eliminate our entire species, both the so called good and the so called evil, in the same fashion that we eliminate viruses that endanger our species….”
The nuance of violence is politically incorrect and has upset both liberals and conservatives, however, ask me if I give a shit….. It’s all about time frame and the clock is a tic-kin…..
Best regards,
Econolicious
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:39 pm
DL Says:
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:30 pm
. . . unless they are willing to also state where they stand on the question of taxes on carbon-based fuels.
The vast majority of global warming fear-mongerers just want higher taxes. At least they ought to be willing to admit it.
_________
I don’t like the idea of taxes on the consumption of fossil fuels. I prefer taxation on the production of fossil fuels, or, even better, that those profiting from the extraction and burning of them charge enough to the end user/consumer to pay for the clean-up of their waste stream.
No doubt any business would be highly profitable if allowed to ignore the full costs associated with the production and use of its product.
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:47 pm
A String Theorist is an earth scientist? He probably has very little knowledge on the subject area, similar to a lot of libertarian scientific illiterates. String theory may or may not have a future in science, but so far it appears to be math with no predictions. http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/
People who understands the subject and are experts:
“Climate change basics I – observations, causes and consequences”
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/18/ccbasics1/
“Climate change basics II – impacts on ice, rain and seas”
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/21/ccbasics2/
http://gallery.usgs.gov/video_tags/ClimateChange
http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html
http://www.climate.noaa.gov/
http://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/index.htm
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:47 pm
DL – Atta boy! Does that count for all the scientists as well? Can you provide a source for the claim “The vast majority of global warming fear-mongerers just want higher taxes”? Or did you just pull that out of your ass? ;-)
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:50 pm
“No doubt any business would be highly profitable if allowed to ignore the full costs associated with the production and use of its product.”
Even more profitable yet if subsidized by taxpayer dollars as the extraction (and finance) industry has been for lo these many moons: They’ve been sucking at the government teat for so many decades now they think they’re producing milk all on their own.
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:55 pm
Here’s a clear thinker on climate change on the costs and economic benefits of dealing with a warmer globe. It’s a little long, but probably worth it if you’re in the camp of: “We must stop Global Warming at any cost.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:55 pm
A while back The Economist had a story on how we could eject CO2 into space.
http://www.economist.com/node/9253976?story_id=9253976
I know that climate change will ultimately be an issue at some point in time, both warming and cooling, but I think that human technology will find a way to solve the problem. We seem to be fairly resourceful. I don’t think we give ourselves very much credit.
I think a bigger danger is that we blow ourselves up with these particle accelerators – the LHC and such.
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Wheatstraw@10.32
Exactly! Which is why BR was sort of a disappointment in the way he went ad hominem in his attacks on those who questioned the SEC case and their motivations.
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Andy T:
I don’t know about “any cost”, but I think we’re plenty foolish for shitting where we eat and claiming that there was nowhere else to go, except for the middle of the banquet table.
C02 is just one of the very dangerous but completely unnecessary pollutants we release each day without a second thought (petrochemicals are a source of several highly polluting substances).
Is there really no way to act more responsibly? We’ve only been hooked on this shit since 1910, or so.
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:13 pm
I find this website offers a good, science based critique of the science of global warming (http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/table-of-conten.html).
Basically, we have had a half degree of warming in the last 30 years. The need for action comes from predictions that this half degree of warming will accelerate and feed on itself, like a snow ball rolling down a mountain, becoming four to six degrees of warming over the next one hundred years. That CO2 and the greenhouse effect is pretty accepted science . . . the predicted runaway feedback effects that drive the need for action . . . not so much.
As someone who is skeptical about global warming that comes from a science background, with a great respect for science and the scientific method, I always cringe when someone describes all skeptics as loons. There are honest reasons for reasonable people to be skeptical of global warming.
As an engineer who has studied the mathematics and physics behind what drives our society, I am disheartened by the people who downplay just how easy it will be to solve this issue.
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:14 pm
This issue is just another example of how much bullshit you can recycle for partisan purposes.
Believe in global warming or not, pollution can’t be good and neither are greenhouse gases.
If you are interested in long term progress or just a little less shit in the air you breathe, you would certainly advocate for changes.
This guy says this, this guy says that, grey smoke is good for business and you don’t need to be an expert to know that it’s bad for you.
Andy T makes a good point, why spend too much on dealing with the cause when we could cheaply deal with the consequences for a while, Andy, you should be working for the government or some rich lobby because this is what they do all day, being stupid and short sighted.
“Would it be better to dust trillions of dollars of economic wealth to drop the temperature a 1/2 degree or would be better to spend 50-100 billion in ways to just deal with affects of a warmer globe?”
Economic wealth above all, you’re a twat and I actually kind of hope you choke on your greenbacks one day wondering where all the oxygen went.
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:15 pm
Greed drives our species.
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:18 pm
@Wheatstraw….
Yeah, you’re sort of making the points for me….
“I don’t know about ‘any cost’”
Right. We wouldn’t solve any problem at “any cost,” so it’s probably important to understand the costs of these grand solutions, correct?
“Is there really no way to act more responsibly? We’ve only been hooked on this shit since 1910, or so.”
Ok. You want to go back to 1910? Would you sacrifice all of the economic progress we’ve achieved in the last 100 years for a few degrees more of global temp? It’s been a pretty amazing run in terms of global economic progress–wouldn’t you agree?
I’m not a global warmer denialist. I’m just not going to get hysterical over it. We just need to deal with things in a rationale way and not make matters worst.
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:20 pm
“…even better, that those profiting from the extraction and burning of them charge enough to the end user/consumer to pay for the clean-up of their waste stream.
No doubt any business would be highly profitable if allowed to ignore the full costs associated with the production and use of its product…” –Wheatstraw, above
Yes, quite.
as in: “…Yes, it’s a huge polluter
Contrary to Environment Canada’s fairy tale presentations, David Schindler, one of world’s most respected water ecologists, told the committee that the project was directly polluting the Athabasca River. In particular, industry emissions were now depositing substantial volumes of bitumen, heavy metals and fish-killing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons on the landscape which then run-off into the river. (After his appearance, Schindler published a peer-reviewed paper in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showing that air pollution alone created the equivalent of an annual 5,000-barrel oil spill on the Athabasca River.)
Schindler also told the committee that once upon a time the federal government did good monitoring on the river but then turned it over to Alberta which “turned a lot of it over to industry itself. As a result we have a database that’s not available to independent scientists to use.”
…
“The scientists found that RAMP repeatedly changed what pollutants it studied and where and how it sampled them…”all the things that violate the first principles of monitoring programs.”…”
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2010/07/15/TarSandsReport/index.html
“Tar Sands” = Financially Profitable (for some), Economically Profitable? a, not so much..
But, a CO2-based ‘Cap n’ Tax’ will solve every-(any-)thing?
add’l: http://search.yippy.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&v%3Aproject=clusty&query=European+Carbon+Credits+fail+to+reduce+emmissions
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:22 pm
Kudos to Barry for this post, one that’s guaranteed to annoy many of his readers. It’s amusing how folks believe in science when it gives them stuff they want (iPads, CAT scans) but don’t want to believe in it when it tells them something they don’t want to hear, like, you’re fucking up the planet and no matter how much money you have, you won’t escape the consequences.
I’ve had a global warming portfolio now for years and there’s one category of investment that stands out: pest management. Warmer weather, more bugs, especially termites and bedbugs. I’m long ROL which has done pretty well vs. the SP 500 over the past 10, 5, and 1 years.
And I’d be willing to pay taxes at a much higher rate if I could be assured the money would go to protecting biodiversity.
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:26 pm
cdrueallen – It’s amusing how folks believe in science when it gives them stuff they want -
Don’t forget high frequency trading, trading from home, the ability to create stock charts, or trade from their phones.
Amusing indeed. That science is valid – environmental science is just overblown fear mongering.
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:35 pm
Thor, what’s your criteria for deciding what branches of science are valid and which ones are “overblown fear mongering”? The ones whose products and conclusions you like are valid and the others are overblown fear mongers? I’ve yet to read the work of a single respectable biologist who isn’t pretty much panic stricken about the current rate of species extinction.
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:39 pm
cdrueallen – That was parody my man, I was agreeing with you :-)
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:46 pm
Thor,
And you have documentation which proves that all of these global-warming enthusiasts have no interest in raising taxes on energy?
I’m not NECESSARILY opposed to higher taxes on energy (subject to certain provisos); what I object to is people who are disingenuous about their intentions.
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:47 pm
Thor. D’oh. I’m never quick at picking up on satire. Probably a sign that I take myself way too seriously.
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:54 pm
DL – you made a rather serious blanket accusation about quite a few people so I think it maybe should be up to you to back that claim up with something,. Otherwise, it’s just opinion right? Also, I think it may be unwise to accuse a large subset of society of being disingenuous, unless you have direct evidence that they are indeed being disingenuous, all you’re doing is projecting right? In any case, I was mostly just giving you shit, that’s what the wink was for.
cdrueallen – No, that’s my fault, I do it all the time unfortunately :-/
July 23rd, 2010 at 12:00 am
Thor,
Have you EVER heard a politician call for a revenue-neutral tax on energy (e.g., raise taxes on gasoline, and cut the payroll tax)…?
I certainly have never heard a politician take such a position. And with one or two exceptions, I’ve never even heard a journalist take this position.
July 23rd, 2010 at 12:08 am
DL – oh oh oh, politicians – sorry, thought you were talking about everyone who believes in global warming. My bad. Yes then, you’re absolutely right!
July 23rd, 2010 at 12:26 am
BR- stick to your knitting- you know markets and money, same goes for JG. It may be that playing the “market” for Gobal Warming can make money- that’s entirely different than man made GW is “real”. Look at the data for 10,000,00 yrs- a stastistcal “1week S&P delta ” and tell me with a straight face you care….
July 23rd, 2010 at 12:36 am
Wow thank you for pointing out the errors of my thinking. I actually thought the scientific method had to be followed; this is the 21st century and green politics trumps verification and skeptical enquiry.
July 23rd, 2010 at 1:10 am
Especially here, there are two problems that are being mixed up with each other.
1. Does(or can) global warming exist?
2. What could be done to make it less costly for the future?
If your answer to the first question is no, you can hardly be surprised when the people discussing the second question laugh at you.
It’s very similar to the “end the fed” brigade. If you start out with the opinion that it shouldn’t exist, how can you be taken seriously by the people trying to reform it?
July 23rd, 2010 at 1:11 am
If man is causing the planet to warm (a big if), then the most effective solution is population control on a global scale.
July 23rd, 2010 at 1:15 am
If I hadn’t lived in this country for the last 15 years, I wouldn’t comprehend why it is going in the wrong direction.
However, just reading the farcical “arguments”, the pseudo-logic, sophistry and, let’s call it like it is, PURE BULLSHIT of all the denialists here, it is now crystal clear.
@Hey You: You obviously do not know SHIT about the scientific method.
July 23rd, 2010 at 1:22 am
@river,
There is a simple checklist to verify which skeptic is a genuine one and which is a fanatical (or financial) denier.
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2010/02/distinguishing-climate-deniers-from.html
July 23rd, 2010 at 2:51 am
Whoever taught these loons the word “skeptic” did them a great disfavor.
July 23rd, 2010 at 3:45 am
Jeremy, you have missed the point because you don’t understand what the Global Warming and Greenhouse theory actually says. The doubt is not about the warming effect of rising CO2. The doubt is about what happens to this in the earth’s climate. Is it amplified by positive climate feedback, as the theory says? Or is it lowered by negative climate feedback? If its not amplified, the CO2 warming is trivial. If its lowered, it could be non-existent. Its only with feedback, whose existence is unproven and uncertain, that you get the apocalyptic scenarios.
This is the problem, the existence and scale and nature of feedbacks. If this were not the issue, doubters of warming would be flat earthers. But as long as it is the issue, advocates who argue along your lines are blindly asserting that the energy content of a gallon of gas means that physics says that a given car will do 40mpg. It could, but it depends on lots of other stuff. Its just like cash flow of x may be great. But how much of it goes to earnings rather depends on what else the company does.
July 23rd, 2010 at 5:10 am
@FrancoisT: Pour moi, c’est le contraire. J’ai quitté les E-U il y a vingt ans et je les comprends d’autant mieux.
Global warming has, like almost all issues, been hijacked on both sides by political, moral, and economic groups for a variety of reasons. Big Oil wants to keep pumping. Radical Luddites want to follow the Taliban’s development plans and roll us back into the fifteenth century.
But GW is real science carried out not by politically driven think-tanks but by real scientists using the scientific method. The science is not rock-solid. Climatology is in its infancy and the complexities make predictions difficult and imprecise, but that does not mean it is not a science.
Do deniers refute Newtonian gravity because it has been proven to be wrong? Do deniers refute Einsteinien relativity since it has proven to be wrong? Do deniers refute quantum chromodynamics since it is incomplete and does NOT provide predictable responses?
It is possible that global warming can be a natural event (as may be inferred from previous climate changes), but this does not mean that the present global warming is a natural, uncontrollable event. Or that since climate change happens anyway, we might as well let it happen by natural or manmade causes.
The counter-arguments on this blog pretty much fall into the categories provided by Grantham. It mainly boils down to the paranoid, you-hate-capitalism-freedom-money-God rants which point to some conspiracy of research scientists all working as a global cabal to raise taxes to fund their Sect.
Science is hard, but the scientific method is easy. If there are counter-examples to global warming, they would negate the science of global warming (a scientific theory may hold up one billion times under experiment, but must be discarded as ultimate truth if it fails just once).
Global warming is just one one part of the meta-science and moral philosophy of environmental sciences (I use this term in the scientific sense, not the tree-hugging sense). The question remains whether or not we are worried about what we are doing to our home. Are we polluting it to a point where human existence will be severely altered? Are we over-exploiting our resources?
Or are these questions irrelevant? Inch’allah. Que sera, sera. Whatever!
July 23rd, 2010 at 5:21 am
Oh, and by the way, your boy Motl is a “believer” in SUSY. If you want to pick a single field of science which is is less “scientificky” than string theory you will be hard-pressed to find one. String theory is not a scientific “theory” at all; rather it is a “theory” in the sense used by Creationists when they deny the Theory of Evolution. The math behind string theory is quasi-inexistent and the various competing sub-theories have myriad contradictions.
SUSY is extremely compelling, though, for its charming resolution of infinities at sub-Planck scales and its apparent inherent prediction of a gravity producing particle. But it has proven a big old bust in terms of concrete predictions or math.
Of course, this does not mean SUSY is wrong, just that it is in its infancy and the complexities make predictions difficult and imprecise, but that does not necessarily mean it is not a science. Unfortunately, unlike global warming SUSY has no data to sustain it yet.
July 23rd, 2010 at 5:25 am
I have degrees in chemistry and enviromental science and I am very confident that the average temperature ,+30 F, is higher now than at the peak of the last ice age. I am less confident about our influence on the last 1 or 2 degrees F. What I find amazing is how convinced highly intelligent non scientists are on the debate since very littke is known for certain.
On one side of the scientific debate we have scientists that receive research grants,speaking fees, book royalties and increased academic standing based on global warming. On the other side we mostly have sciemtists that work for energy companies.
Trying to make an informed decision is like basing a logical investment on watching CNBC.
July 23rd, 2010 at 5:50 am
“Trade of the Decade”, eh?
Now I get it.
July 23rd, 2010 at 5:52 am
Thor,
Perhaps, you mean me (also known as rootless cosmopolitan).
Maybe one of the climate contrarians here can explain why more than 95% of climate scientists who publish on climate change agree with the statement of a significant human contribution to global warming since pre-1800, whereas the fraction who agrees decreases with increasing distance to the area of climate change. The lowest agreement is found for the general population.[1]
[1] http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
My hypothesis to explain this phenomenon is that scientists who work in the field have a better overview on the scientific evidence and there is a higher chance that they base their statements on an evaluation of this scientific evidence, whereas the farther away someone is from the scientific field the higher the chance is that non-scientific factors, like political affiliations and ideological convictions, influence the views on the matter and replace the emphasis on the scientific evidence.
July 23rd, 2010 at 6:56 am
What about pirates? Some data suggest that drcreasing population of pirates are responsible for the global warming ;-)
http://www.braveathena.com/images/piratesarecool4.jpg
July 23rd, 2010 at 7:16 am
Several of my friends, who are big global warming deniers and believe it is big conspiracy among liberals/scientists, assert that the science is flawed. They tell me the scientists have it wrong, the data is incomplete, etc. They tell me I am foolish to believe in man-made global warming.
On the other hand, they are more than happy to believe in angels, ghosts, the devil, and resurrections. The data here is apparently sufficient to them. Too funny.
July 23rd, 2010 at 7:17 am
A little light weekend reading:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175275/tomgram%3A_ellen_cantarow%2C_blowback_crude__/
July 23rd, 2010 at 7:45 am
To be more serious let’s talk about facts:
Facts are:
1)You can receive Noble prize for fight against global worming even if you alone produce more CO2 than a small town from a developed world
2)If you are a scientist you can get a grant for proving global warming. If your resarch claims something opposite yoo will get nothing.
3) There is a rise in global average temperature during last 1 hundred years
4Planet Earth has a longer history than 1 hundred years. Something like 50 000 000 times longer
5)Global, avarage temperature was not steady before people have started producing CO2. Temperature changes were rather big. There was a glacier in place were a live now . There was also a warm Jurassic sea.
5)You can prove that CO2 could cause a greenhouse effect
6)You can not tell how much greenhouse effect has contributed to the rise of global temperature during last 1 hundred years. Was it 1 degree? 0,1 degree? 2 degree?
7)People activity affects climat in many ways. Not always it should cause warming. It is very hard to measure this.
July 23rd, 2010 at 7:46 am
@dougc:
Where is the scientific debate? This statement would make sense, if there was a scientific debate on equal footing between climate scientists who work in the field on both sides and if where there were good arguments for either the reality of man-made global warming, or against it. Instead, there is a 30-year body of research, and then there are a very few dissenters. A scientific debate would be happening in the peer-reviewed journals of the field, or on conferences, where the scientists publish the results of their studies after they have worked hard on it. The results can be scrutinized by other scientists and may be challenged in this way. Then these results will stand or they will be revised. Most climate contrarians aren’t climate scientists. They don’t work and don’t publish in the field, at least not in the peer-reviewed journals. Instead, they are being found in the blogosphere, where they make a lot of noise, without being equally scrutinized by peers, and in the mass media where they get plenty of opportunity for PR.
This doesn’t mean that there wasn’t any scientific debate. There isn’t just any on the reality of man-made global warming. The scientific debate is on many aspects of it, e.g., the modification of the warming by other climate drivers, like aerosols, the carbon cycle, the relative importance of certain feedbacks in the climate system, abrupt climate change, uncertainty in the projected scenarios due to uncertainty in the emission scenarios, regional effects of climate change and many more topics.
July 23rd, 2010 at 7:47 am
He seems VERY sure of statement number #2.
Read this article and the physicists summary here, which raises significant doubt.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
July 23rd, 2010 at 8:18 am
V,
what makes you think the text under the link would be a valid basis for significant doubt?
Gerlich and Tscheuschner (GT) claim the greenhouse effect is against the second law of thermodynamics and provide some wrong calculations to prove it.
My favorite question to the fans of GT is to explain, please, if the greenhouse effect is against the laws of nature why is it hotter on the nightside of Venus than on the dayside of Mercury, although Venus only gets about a 1/4 of the solar radiation intensity Mercury gets?
The greenhouse effect isn’t against the laws of nature, it can be derived quite quickly as done by Arthur Smith in a rebuttal of the GT text:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324
A. Smith only needed a few pages for this, compared to the monster text by GT w/o any substantial content.
July 23rd, 2010 at 8:21 am
Thankfully, I’m late to this global-warming party.
But I’d echo one of the points made above, namely, that Jeremy Grantham’s opinion about global warming is just that: “an opnion.” And that his scientific qualifications and credentials for opining on this subject are nil.
A-Rod, MVP 3rd baseman of the World Champion New York Yankees, earns gobs of money too. What’s his opinion on global warming? And what’s it worth to you?
That’s what I thought.
.
July 23rd, 2010 at 8:24 am
@ Darekkkkkkkkk:
1) There would almost certainly be a Nobel Prize (which is a very noble prize) for the scientist which proves that human activity does not cause global warming.
2) Do you have to reimburse the money if you prove human activity does not cause GW? Can GS write a reverse CDS to cover this risk?
3) A rise in global average temperature is just a statistic, which as all deniers know is easily falsified. So, please don’t bore me with you so-called “facts” which are nothing more than the result of years of painstaking research and the arduous accumulation and collation data.
4) Planet earth was created about six thousand years ago, so obviously your math is wrong. 1 hundred years is only about three to four times the period in question.
5) Thank God for human activity. We have managed to steady the global average temperature. No more pesky temperature volatility! Does GS write options on global average temperature? They should be super cheap since implied vol must now be so low. I pity those suckers who bought temperature options back in the Triassic! They are sucking wind on theta bleed and now they stomped on their vol! Hello! Bad investment!
I am confused. Was the glacier in your neighborhood really a giant iceberg slowly melting in the Jurassic sea? Is Jurassic next to Pasaic? You from Joisey? I’m from Joisey. What exit?
5) Five is also MY favorite number, so I too will list it twice. Yes, you could prove that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect but you could also prove the contrary so what does that prove? nothing! ha! See, I told you so.
6) Was it! Was it! Who knows? Maybe back in the 1800′s the thermometers were all different. Maybe it’s like inflation. Back in 1802, two degrees Fahrenheit would go a long way. Try to spend a night out in Manhattan these days with even ten degrees Fahrenheit. Ha! You won’t even get into a diner!
7) People activity certainly affects the climate in many ways. I remember once at a formal dinner a colleague of mine turned to the guest of honor and called him a cunt. Well, that certainly cast an icy pall over what were up to then warm festivities. And I agree it was hard to measure, though the bill for dinner was fairly steep. I don’t how to convert British pounds into celcius though. Anyone out there have any ideas?
July 23rd, 2010 at 8:32 am
V, and here is the refutation of their “conclusions”, published at the same web site:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
Nice try.
July 23rd, 2010 at 8:36 am
“De gustibus non est disputandum”.
“In matters of opinion, debate is pointless.”
July 23rd, 2010 at 8:37 am
hammerandtong2001.
Jeremy Grantham’s opinion about global warming is just that: “an opnion.”
Having an opinion is not the same thing as being informed. Grantham has taken the time to inform himself. Maybe you should do the same?
July 23rd, 2010 at 8:49 am
Is he informed or misinformed or disinformed?
July 23rd, 2010 at 8:54 am
I dunno, dougc. How ’bout you? Are you informed, a skeptic, or a denier? Check here to find out:
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2010/02/distinguishing-climate-deniers-from.html
July 23rd, 2010 at 8:55 am
@number2son
The paper you cite as a refutation, only discusses one of the many conclusions that refute the physical basis of CO2 Greenhouse effects. The paper you cite makes a number of errors, even given its limited scope.
Here is a refutation of the refutation:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0904/0904.2767.pdf
Nice try.
July 23rd, 2010 at 8:56 am
And oddly enough many of these same individuals, so skeptical when it comes to global warming, fully embrace a different ‘crisis’ which has no basis in fact …… the need to immediately, before other issues such as unemployment, address the national debt.
July 23rd, 2010 at 9:02 am
The planet Earth has been here for five BILLION years. That’s 5,000,000,000 years. If we know “for sure” that humans have wrecked her in just 30 or 100 years, then we’re either full of ourselves or no matter what we do, we’re toast in another 50 years.
July 23rd, 2010 at 9:02 am
sceptic
July 23rd, 2010 at 9:04 am
Wow! I am horrified and dismayed at the lack of rational thought on this blog. Even if climate change (global warming is a misnomber) is magically removed, our future, as a race/society, scares the shit out of me. Maybe 10% of you are actually talking facts. The rest are talking ideological ideas and don’t give a shit about facts.
Citing some random Czech physicist against climate change is fine, but thinking that proves anything is ridiculous. You can find someone “respectable” who is against any subject (General Theory of Relativity, etc.). Hell, you can even find scientists who back up the ludicrious intelligent design theory or that the world is 3000 years old. Doesn’t mean they are correct in anyway.
Also, stating that guys like Barry and Grantham aren’t scientists, and thus are useless in a debate like this is plain nonsense. Their job is to sort through ideas and identify the ones that are correct. They couldn’t tell you how to make a cell phone, computer, or how to drill in deep water for oil, but they can tell you who has a better chance of doing all those things successfully, and part of that evalution is based on the tech/science. They are good at being rational and thinking through issues. No, you don’t want them doing the science, but you want them picking which science team gets the money.
With all of that being said, let’s assume all the deniers (yes, it’s negative and for a good reason) are correct and climate change doesn’t show up over the next hundred years. If that happens it is STILL to our benefit to make renewable resources our main power sources for geopolitical reasons and economic reasons (Grantham mentions this briefly in #6). Any rational person can easily see the national security impact renewable energy can provide. These reasons alone would provide the U.S. with a massive benefit any rational and intelligent person can see.
July 23rd, 2010 at 9:04 am
V … again, nice try. Read the previous link and get a clue.
July 23rd, 2010 at 9:06 am
Petey Wheatstraw at 8:54 pm
In response to my statement (actually, it’s Thomas Kuhn’s) that true science offers reliable predictive value, you write:
“Bullshit. There are forecasts out the wazoo for both the increase in c02 emissions and continued temp rise.”
WTF are you talking about? Science isn’t about making predictions. If it was, then Psychics would by Scientists.
Science is about providing theories which offer reliable predictive value. The models and theories provided by climatologists (to date) about long term temperature patterns have never provided reliable predictive value. It’s a fact.
As for falsifiability, the science of climatology has not progressed far enough that one can either prove, or disprove an AGW hypothesis. Again, this is a fact.
Just like AGC (that would be the climatologists theory of Anthropogenic Global Cooling) could not be disproved until decades elapsed, the AGW hypothesis will not be able to be disproved (or proved) until decades have elapsed. These 20-50 year time periods are baked into the theory. No matter what one might say in opposition to AGW, the inevitable response is, “The effects of AGW take time to manifest themselves. ”
I’m not saying AGW is wrong. I’m just saying, it is not science. I think Popper and Kuhn would agree.
July 23rd, 2010 at 9:10 am
@constantnormal
There is no doubt that the earth cannot support so many people as we have today. The method of cooling the earth that I’ve suggested is a relatively short term fix to the warming problem. In the long run, there must be fewer people. We’ve used up nearly half of the total oil, and other minerals are being used up too. Since there is already so much CO2 in the atmosphere already, reducing CO2 output will only slow the warming. Considering how many Chinese are going to buy cars in the future, it is unlikely that a reduction of CO2 will have any real effect. It seems it would be far effective to reduce warming with a solar reflector of some sort, such as the sulfur dioxide method proposed by Intellectual Ventures. Ultimately we must reduce the drain by reducing population. I just think this approach needs more disicussion. It certainly seems doable to me (as an engineer).
July 23rd, 2010 at 9:26 am
Wow. 101 comments, 10 worth reading and an army of skinned knuckles. Poor primates, always reaching for a hammer to drive a screw. When all you’ve got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Most skeptics want to discuss temperature, which for the simple minded, seems like the point of contention. There were one or two that cited the the most reliable science, which is simple chemistry. People, the argument is one of chemistry, not physics. Choose the right tool and you can do the job right. Is there anyone here that wants to refute chemistry except those that failed it in college, high school drop-outs or religious fanatics? All you skeptics need to get a salt water aquarium. Stick to a very small one with a few inexpensive corals as you are bound to kill them with your hammer. But, it will give you a great lesson on chemistry, ph, temperature and how complex and sensitive our oceans are. Get one parameter wrong and you will off the whole experiment.
Primates…listen. Even if the temperature isn’t rising or falling, the levels of carbon dioxide we are producing has risen 30% and is acidifying our oceans and soils. In the oceans we have records of corals going back to primordial goo that could not exist without stable ph levels of our oceans, which in turn are the product of stable carbon dioxide levels. Many of these organisms, like native oysters and shellfish in Puget Sound and the Northwestern Pacific Coast, haven’t naturally reproduced in years due to lowered ph, which dissolves their shells. The same is happening to our coral reefs and according to some major Ag universities, some of our most productive soils. Hell, if the warming doesn’t wipe us out, starvation will. We can add lime to soils to offset ph changes, but oceans are something a bit bigger.
But skeptics should all try the SW aquarium. It’s a great lesson in chemistry and ecosytems. My bet is about 99% of the skeptics won’t be able keep an aquarium over 30 days and most won’t make it beyond two weeks.
July 23rd, 2010 at 9:37 am
I am not a scientist and I am not going to watch all the you tube links that have been provided here. But I do like to make observations. This has been a very early and very hot Spring and summer so far. For some reason, the wild Rubekia Hirta ( Black eyed Susan), in my neck of the woods were blooming with the Chrysanthemum leucanthemum ( common Daisy). I’ve been observing plants for over 45 years and I have never seen this before. Also the Cirsium vulgare ( Bull thistle) are blooming now. This is a very prickly and spiny plant that blooms in August and when the flower is done ,it turns to a very soft down that the American Goldfinch uses to line their nests. The Goldfinch is the last bird to nest and produce young ( in the northeast), every summer. They are brood raising in late Aug., early Sept. Well the males are turning their bright yellow earlier than usual and I guess are moving up their time line to match the growth change in the thistle. And the Hibiscus syriacus ( Rose of Sharon), are also blooming now about four weeks ahead of schedule. These are just observations and it is important to watch how these plants and birds are adapting to this change this summer. It will be interesting to wait, see and compare next season. It this part of something bigger? I don’t know but I do think that as old as this planet is, and as many changes that it has gone through before, those changes haven’t been force fed to it in a short amount of time as we have since the Industrial Revolution. Of course this has to have some kind of effect. Instead of getting in over your head, just pay closer attention to your immediate surroundings, how’s it out your way, any changes? My little picture here is that this summer brought on changes in nature that people around here can’t ever remember.
July 23rd, 2010 at 9:41 am
@Jan Perlwitz
The paper does not say that ‘greenhouse effect is against the laws of nature’, only that the [CO2] in our atmosphere, even if it were doubled would not lead to a measurable climatic effect.
This is where the debate gets exaggerated, suggesting this one particular molecule, over all the others in the atmospheric mix wields such influence at very low concentration, compared to something like water vapour. (Which incidentally so much about atmospheric water remains unstudied.)
I found it an interesting paper to read because of how many assumptions are involved in the IPCC reports. Given these assumptions how can climatology be a ‘hard science’, when it’s definitions are more like those found in economics?
To answer your question:
Venus has an atmosphere of 96% CO2 at a density 90x greater than earth, so yes it clearly does have a strong atmospheric greenhouse effect and is different to say a Mercury where the atmosphere is thin and is being lost to space due to the strong solar flux.
I don’t want to annoy BR by clogging up his blog with climate debate, but suffice it to say science is not about mainstream/consensus versus conspiracy/deniers. It is about a hypothesis requiring continued testing and revision. Unfortunately the arguments are not as simple as those communicated by politicians or even by the scientists.
As usual time will reveal all, I’m not for polluting the planet, but think there’s many other things environment-wise we can and should be doing (i.e. protect rainforest, wean ourselves off coal etc). My fear is the emphasis placed on what so far have been extremely marginal temp changes and the political response to it allows these other things to go on unseen. It’s the law of unintended consequences.
July 23rd, 2010 at 9:53 am
I read somewhere that the volcano that tied up air traffic earlier this year did more harm to the environment than anything man has done in a long time. Does anyone know if this is true?
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:16 am
The amazing thing to me is the number of people who feel qualified to accept or reject the conclusions of the scientific community.
You are all investment/business experts. How long did you work at your craft? Where did you divine your world view on investing. How many successful investors do you know that made their money on their first dozen trades? Why are you good at what you do?
Members of the National Academy have employed the significant intellectual horsepower they were born with to the study of the natural world for decades. They have spent their lives employing the scientific method to their particular field of study. They have earned the respect of their peers. Many have contributed significantly to human kind’s understanding of the natural world.
If you want to refudiate global climate change get to work. Learn the math, take the measurements, build the model, submit it for review and earn the adulation of your peers and your $100K per year salary. When your theory disproves GCC we will all breathe a sigh of relief and be reminded as you collect your Nobel Prize that you were right and the rest of the world was wrong.
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:43 am
Yes, they have been snookered too! LoL!
Here is the letter to members of Congress from 18 top U.S. scientific organizations:
Oct. 19, 2009
Dear Senator:
As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view.
Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.
These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades. [See Footnote #1 below]
If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced. In addition, adaptation will be necessary to address those impacts that are already unavoidable. Adaptation efforts include improved infrastructure design, more sustainable management of water and other natural resources, modified agricultural practices, and improved emergency responses to storms, floods, fires and heat waves.
We in the scientific community offer our assistance to inform your deliberations as you seek to address the impacts of climate change.
The footnote reads:
The conclusions in this paragraph reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and U.S. Global Change Research Program. Many scientific societies have endorsed these findings in their own statements, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, and American Statistical Association.
Here are all the organizations that signed on:
• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Chemical Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Biological Sciences
• American Meteorological Society
• American Society of Agronomy
• American Society of Plant Biologists
• American Statistical Association
• Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
• Botanical Society of America
• Crop Science Society of America
• Ecological Society of America
• Natural Science Collections
• Alliance Organization of Biological Field Stations
• Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
• Society of Systematic Biologists
• Soil Science Society of America
• University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:54 am
Some interesting things are happening
The Arctic temperatures (above 80 latitude) are the lowest they’ve been at this time of year going back to 1958.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Check out the previous years and you see that this is a huge deviation from the average.
South America has just experienced a record breaking cold snap, and the blast of cold air actually made it across the equator. Several hundred people have died, and livestock has been devastated in some areas.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/cold-snap-freezes-south-america-%E2%80%93-beaches-whitened-some-areas-experience-snow-for-the-first-time-in-living-memory.html
Australia has been unusually cool this southern hemisphere Winter. So far it looks like the nh Winter will, once again, be brutal for Europe. We should know pretty soon as temps should begin to rapidly fall as the anomalous Arctic cold continues to build. Luckily it looks like we will be on of the few places in the nh that will escape this Winter’s mayhem.
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:56 am
There are 191 responses to a nonstarter set of articles on global warming. And 6 responses to a very fine piece on state-by-state foreclosures that proceeded this entry on heating the earth. When 48 states go belly up, possibly this month, your investment dollars will fly far away.
The disparity between responses on these two topics is telling.
Barry – Maybe your readers would rather have an emotional tear at a subject that will affect us little, than get solid information on issues that directly affect their investments and pocket books.
Something is bad wrong here.
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:11 am
The Asia Society has an exhibition of photos taken of Himalayan glaciers as early as 1899 paired with photos taken more recently from the same vantage points. The differences are stark. Be sure to check out the Comparative Photography section to get a sense of the scale involved. More photos at the NY Times Lens blog.
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:25 am
Marcus, this is an extremely timely and hot (warm?) investment topic. The veracity of the climate arguments is key to the riskiness of future investments in this realm. To minimize financial risk it is paramount that skeptics be squelched or discredited whether they are right or wrong. If skeptics are right then the truth will very SLOWLY overturn the current burgeoning orthodoxy and the increase in investment risk on bets FOR warming will be manageable, allowing an orderly escape for the smart money. This investment topic has every hope of being the Next Big Thing. On further thought, this field may have so much risk of loss that it is not suitable for investors. It may be that we must make a National bet so that if there is a horrendous loss, the People can pay for it Collectively.
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:36 am
@river;
Nice to see an actual skeptic (rather than a denialist) take part in the debate. I agree that there is a lot of uncertainty about the feedback effects, and exactly how fast we will get to what kind of temperatures – that is where the scientific debate is right now. However, would you question the feedback from melting of ice reducing sunlight reflection? I also agree that the kind of investments that can be justified for slowing release of green house gasses depend on the predicted temperature increase (and associated damage). So the issue of feedback effects is both very important and still scientifically up for debate.
Climate has to be studied and debated in the context of some fairly complicated multivariate models with all kinds of positive and negative feedback mechanisms all included. That is where a lot of the debate outside the climatologist science community ends up short, and at times become absurd. The models initially allow a lot of “slack” on parameters and effects that are not easily defined or measured, so you end up with predictions of “between 0.5 and 15 degrees”. But then models can be refined (and “slack” reduced as more data is collected and previous years predictions are compared with the reality of actual measurements.
The thing that has convinced me that there probably are some serious positive feedback mechanisms, is the last decades predictions and observations on melting ice in the arctic and other places. Models containing not only sunspot variations and continued greenhouse gas release but also (conservative) feedback mechanisms, did not predict how severe the ice melting would end up being. If you take out feedback mechanisms (presume they do not exist) from those models, it would seem even more difficult to adjust them so they would fit with the reality that was later observed
Sometimes I wonder if people a hundred years from now will look back at this global warming debate as idiotic and misguided. There are so many other reasons why we have to become more efficient in energy use and give up carbon-based fuel as our main energy source. Those reasons are being drowned in idiotic postulates about corrupt scientists and poorly substantiated predictions of the effects of doing or not doing this or that.
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:37 am
Marcus,
Getting financially eviscerated is yesterdays news. Most people couldn’t do anything if they wanted. Or execute a strategy, even if they knew the correct one to implement. All the big wheels around my neck of the woods are beyond broke, but they are still posing up a storm. The muscle cramps must be hell. Our real estate market is totally imploding and taking me (one of the few still solvent) with it. Totally painted into a very dark corner. More and more people are beginning to realize they are beyond broke. Erstwhile paper millionaires now living with their children-at least the ones that still have a job. All we want to know now is if and when we get burnt to a cinder. Now that’s porn the doomed millions can get into. All this financial blather is just the stuck together pages of a 1975 Sears catalog.
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:42 am
@V:
Well, then we apparently perceive things differently, because I see very clear statements about a non-existence even of a natural greenhouse effect:
Abstract: “The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the
traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which
is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in
which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is
radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.[...]”
pg 35: “3 The fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect”
pg 65: “3.7.5 Non-existence of the natural greenhouse effect”
pg 93: “In other words: Already the natural greenhouse e ffect is a myth beyond physical reality. The CO2-greenhouse eff ect, however is a ‘mirage’”
If GT were right your explanation for the high temperatures on Venus couldn’t be, since GT claim there is not natural greenhouse effect. You can’t have both, agree with GT on the greenhouse effect and give this explanation for Venus w/o being inconsistent in your argument.
I wouldn’t rely on GT to inform myself about assumptions made in climate studies. The text by GT is filled with misrepresentation of statements in climate science or the theoretical approach on which climate models are based. In addition to that, there are ad-hominem attacks against climate scientists and political/ideological statements in the text. This alone disqualifies the text to be at the standard of a scientific paper. I wonder how something as unprofessional could be published in a scientific journal where the papers are supposedly peer-reviewed. I have never seen before such a thing happening in any of the scientific papers I have read.
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:45 am
I don’t know how to put this politely but I’m shocked how many intelligent people are climate change deniers on this site, a site which I enjoy and respect for it’s diverse and often well informed opinions.
From everything I’ve read by actual researchers in this field, this really is settled science. There is no debate among those that study the issue of Climate Change. The current warming trend is fast and well correlated to human CO2 production. It does not take a high percentage of CO2 to change the amount of heat retained in the atmosphere – chemistry (and physics for that matter) is like that. The rate at which the amount of carbon will change the climate is not precisely known (obviously) but is quite measurable looking backward. So far the changes happen faster than the consensus of climate scientists have predicted. Not a good thing.
Like with tobacco, there is a heavily funded, concerted effort to create a debate on this. And it HAS worked well – less people now see Global Warming as a problem than 5 years ago. The money to be made is clearly on the side of making Global Warming either laughable or confusing enough to prevent any action. This is unconscienable, but so human. We love to believe that we don’t have to change anything we’re doing. I would love to believe that were true.
Am I scientist, myself, no. I’m an engineer and an MBA with an upper management position in a research environment with a lot of PhD’s. Don’t know of any here that have followed the science that have any question about the relation between human CO2 production and the effects on the atmonsphere’s ability to retain heat. It’s physics (and chemistry for thatr matter).
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:52 am
Well, B.R., this is a great button to push if you want to keep the conversation lively!
I think more interesting than the question of whether anthropogenic climate change is or is not reality is the vehemence with which the positions are held.
With no intent to sound flippant, I am free to not care whether or not it is true. In the long run, I’m dead. I have no offspring that I know of and unless overweight middle aged men suddenly become sexually fashionable, that is unlikely to change.
Regardless of whether irrefutable empirical evidence of climate change is available today, I am persuaded by the logic: everything we do—plow the prairie, fell the forest, levy the river—impacts the environment. We are changing the composition of the atmosphere and the chemistry of the oceans. We are altering the engines that maintain the climate. Why will the climate not be altered?
I suggest to those of you with, as we like to say now, skin in the game that the only sane response climate change is to wager as Pascal did on the existence of God: there is everything to gain if it is true and nothing to lose if it is not. In fact it is a better bet than Pascal’s since as several correspondents have pointed out, there are other benefits to reducing the desequestration of carbon.
July 23rd, 2010 at 12:04 pm
The best part of being a sceptic, about global climate change or anything else, is that you don’t have to pass any exams. Also, most self-educated people don’t have the time to learn anything difficult — they’re too busy sounding off about their opinions.
July 23rd, 2010 at 12:25 pm
the bohemian: And hopefully or I should say the earth will eliminate homo sapiens if they are unable to evolve. And judging by the number of commenters on this blog, the prospects don’t look good.
July 23rd, 2010 at 12:33 pm
I think AGW science relies too much on ‘correlation equals causation’ methodologies to warrant the amount of vehement pronouncements from AGW scientists (much less bleating from investment advisors with zero meteorlogical/atmospheric research training).
PS, remember kids, its politicians and policy wonks who came up with the bright idea that the only way to solve this problem is to just give them $100s of billions of dollars in additional tax revenue and legislative control over it. That seems to be their prescription for any crisis. I would submit that they are not the most objective bunch to heed advice from.
July 23rd, 2010 at 1:03 pm
There’s “stupid”, “industrial strength stupid”, and “military grade stupid”.
AGW deniers I’d put in the military grade stupid category. I can’t really believe all these people are all that stupid, so there must be several other explanations. Unfortunately, the top possible explanation is they think everybody else is military grade stupid.
Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Fact: We’re putting millions of tons of it into the atmosphere every year
These are undeniable.
How this debate gets classified by some as a liberal vs conservative thing amazes me.
July 23rd, 2010 at 1:28 pm
There is an excellent video series by Potholer54 that covers the development of the science over the last 20 years, which he has covered as a professional science reporter. He has been doing the series over the last 2 years, so it includes the arguments that have gone on in both the scientific world and the public picture of it. This is the link to part1; it is now up to 10 parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo
~~~
BR: Outstanding suggestion!
July 23rd, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Wow, can I have the chemical formula for the Global Warming Denier Attractant you sprayed on your website today Barry? It sure works a treat!
I’d like to dump a tub of it at the bottom of a cliff somewhere so we can finally concentrate on drastically reducing carbon output.
Or stick them in a spaceship and give them a guided tour of Venus, so they can see what’s in Earth’s near future if they don’t gulp down a spoonful of STFU pretty soon.
The crazy thing is that if the denialists are proved right, but we took steps to reduce carbon output anyway, it’s only “cost” the world a small amount of money (and we have the added benefit of reducing pollution and hence improving health). If we’re proved right, but they were successful at shutting down any response to the problem, then we’re all fucked!
They’re probably your standard corporation management – too busy worrying about short term profits to think about the long term.
July 23rd, 2010 at 3:41 pm
@Lugnut:
Based on what do you think this? Based on pure gut feeling? Or can you actually back up your claim with some facts? Perhaps you could point out some specific instances where climate scientist allegedly relied too much on such methodologies in their studies on AGW?
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:23 pm
BTW, good science follows Barry’s “strong convicions loosely held” approach. We must remain skeptical nof our own theories, not just those in competition (or opposition)
DM
July 23rd, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Thank you for all of your comments.
Comments are now closed