Well, why not write about a really hot topic, so to speak. Climate change has become almost as contentious an issue as abortion access and morality in the late 70s. The difference is that instead of arguing about morals and unprovable assertions about 'when life begins' or 'when a fetus is a person' we have substituted scientific assertions about climate data. I wanted to look at data on both sides of this issue, and where it comes from.
The essence of the question is whether human CO2 output, primarily from power plants and cars, is accumulating in the atmosphere and warming our planet. There is no question CO2 is able to trap heat. That was discovered in the 1850s. The question is whether human output of CO2 is significant relative to other source, and if there has been enough output to affect global temperature.
The data in favor of this scenario are nicely summarized byNASA. NOAA has nice graphs and material also. Much more detailed data are available from IPCC. This is the largest organization addressing climate change, and the one about which there has been controversy. Those who are skeptics about climate change have produced their own data summary, the so-called NIPCC (NON-intergovernmental panel on climate change), whose conclusions are found here. As I have read this material it strikes me there are underlying social, political and practical issues producing controversy. The greatest issue for debate, however, is the quality and character of the data itself. There is a nice summary of the controversy in Wikipedia. Regrettably, the controversy has extended, as almost all discussions do in these latter days, to name-calling and ad hominem attacks that inflame emotions and do nothing to further understanding.
Broadly speaking the data quality on climate change is terrible. Very long term data, from ice cores and rocks, is subject to decay and marked fluctuation from method of analysis. Short term data exist for perhaps 150 years. This material comes from temperature measuring stations around the world. Unfortunately, many of these are ill-sited, or concentrate in only a few places. They are also at a wide variety of elevations and depths. While this may make for a nice 'average' it does not allow for a serious look at temperature change in one location and elevation over time. More than 80% of temperature measuring stations in the world date from after 1965.
Observational data, or secondary markers, are more suggestive. Polar ice cover is lower than ever measured. This alarming datum is tempered by the fact that we could not even measure polar ice coverage until 1965. We have no idea if this is a fluctuation within the bounds of normal or not, only that it is the lowest ice coverage since 1965. There is a huge difference in those statements. Ocean level data also suggests melting, as does data on glacier coverage.
Data on extreme weather is more confusing. Snow fall in the northern hemisphere has fallen over 50 years, but extremes of cold are worse. The number of hurricanes striking the US is down over 50 years even as the number of storms is up. This may in part reflect the increased ability to detect hurricanes, and the naming of these storms when they are tropical storms rather than hurricanes. Tornadoes are up.
The most difficult part of IPCC is its political cast. Data are simply information. How it is analyzed and applied can vary markedly. There is a distinct bent in the IPCC to presenting data as catastrophic, a 'sky-is-falling' type of approach. Further, there are so many political and social policy associations for the conclusions that it is difficult not to believe the data are cherry picked to support policy the IPCC already wants to see formulated. On the other hand, the 'climate deniers' too often use data that are old, or that reframe the problem in terms of millions of years. That too is a distortion. For a person watching their savings evaporate in 2008 it is irrelevant to compare the magnitude of the recession with the panic of 1873 or the Dutch Tulip Bulb speculation. Their cavings are just as gone.
One part of all this controversy and its data is that we are so stunningly self-centered. Opponents of climate change are called self centered for denying it, but those who advocate for it are looking across a time horizon ridiculously short. They too are thinking only in terms of their own wellbeing, as the planet will certainly survive any warming.
Another problem with all of the effort is the need for international cooperation. Argument immediately occurs when Italy asks China to stop burning coal for electricity in order to save Venice, a city placed in a swamp by an ocean. The Chinese don't care. For all the hullaballoo about the US not signing Kyoto, the US has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions more than any country in the world, in total amount if not in percentage terms. Self interest certainly appears to be more of a motivator than any philosophical concern for 'the planet'. Our large scale planners seem to have learned nothing from sandbox days. In nursery school there is no 'sandbox authority' to get everyone to play in their own space and using their own toys. There is simply a free-for-all of children making their own dreams. We are no different as adults. Central authority fails almost every time, and people generally resent it. Setting sandbox rules, like 'don't throw sand' is completely different from getting everyone to play together, adn the two should not be confused.
What do I feel about all this? I feel several things:
-the IPCC conclusions are heavily politicized;
-data are uniformly of bad quality and applicability;
-actual physical effects are impressive and troubling;
-it is a good idea to reduce carbon emissions, more for ourselves than 'the planet'.
In summary, I support reduction of CO2 emissions for the same reason I support reduction in stream pollution and ground water contamination- it makes our world a cleaner place, and cleaner is better. I don't support politicized and alarmist reports clearly intended to sway public opinion, and I am doubtful of any grand scheme to get the world to cooperate on CO2 reduction. A further problem is that I do not perceive undeveloped countries being willing to let their citizens die in heat and cold to reduce a gas no one can see, and I do not believe developed countries will suddenly decide to reduce electrical generation for CO2 reduction.
We need to get our energy somewhere. Until solar is better developed I have long thought nuclear was the best choice, but that's a whole different argument. I support continuing to make voluntary efforts and non-punitive policy. I don't support 'carbon taxes' or energy exchanges. But I do think we need to keep our planet clean, and the evidence is distressingly suggestive that we are warming the earth.
Ted, skeptic of everything....
The essence of the question is whether human CO2 output, primarily from power plants and cars, is accumulating in the atmosphere and warming our planet. There is no question CO2 is able to trap heat. That was discovered in the 1850s. The question is whether human output of CO2 is significant relative to other source, and if there has been enough output to affect global temperature.
The data in favor of this scenario are nicely summarized byNASA. NOAA has nice graphs and material also. Much more detailed data are available from IPCC. This is the largest organization addressing climate change, and the one about which there has been controversy. Those who are skeptics about climate change have produced their own data summary, the so-called NIPCC (NON-intergovernmental panel on climate change), whose conclusions are found here. As I have read this material it strikes me there are underlying social, political and practical issues producing controversy. The greatest issue for debate, however, is the quality and character of the data itself. There is a nice summary of the controversy in Wikipedia. Regrettably, the controversy has extended, as almost all discussions do in these latter days, to name-calling and ad hominem attacks that inflame emotions and do nothing to further understanding.
Broadly speaking the data quality on climate change is terrible. Very long term data, from ice cores and rocks, is subject to decay and marked fluctuation from method of analysis. Short term data exist for perhaps 150 years. This material comes from temperature measuring stations around the world. Unfortunately, many of these are ill-sited, or concentrate in only a few places. They are also at a wide variety of elevations and depths. While this may make for a nice 'average' it does not allow for a serious look at temperature change in one location and elevation over time. More than 80% of temperature measuring stations in the world date from after 1965.
Observational data, or secondary markers, are more suggestive. Polar ice cover is lower than ever measured. This alarming datum is tempered by the fact that we could not even measure polar ice coverage until 1965. We have no idea if this is a fluctuation within the bounds of normal or not, only that it is the lowest ice coverage since 1965. There is a huge difference in those statements. Ocean level data also suggests melting, as does data on glacier coverage.
Data on extreme weather is more confusing. Snow fall in the northern hemisphere has fallen over 50 years, but extremes of cold are worse. The number of hurricanes striking the US is down over 50 years even as the number of storms is up. This may in part reflect the increased ability to detect hurricanes, and the naming of these storms when they are tropical storms rather than hurricanes. Tornadoes are up.
The most difficult part of IPCC is its political cast. Data are simply information. How it is analyzed and applied can vary markedly. There is a distinct bent in the IPCC to presenting data as catastrophic, a 'sky-is-falling' type of approach. Further, there are so many political and social policy associations for the conclusions that it is difficult not to believe the data are cherry picked to support policy the IPCC already wants to see formulated. On the other hand, the 'climate deniers' too often use data that are old, or that reframe the problem in terms of millions of years. That too is a distortion. For a person watching their savings evaporate in 2008 it is irrelevant to compare the magnitude of the recession with the panic of 1873 or the Dutch Tulip Bulb speculation. Their cavings are just as gone.
One part of all this controversy and its data is that we are so stunningly self-centered. Opponents of climate change are called self centered for denying it, but those who advocate for it are looking across a time horizon ridiculously short. They too are thinking only in terms of their own wellbeing, as the planet will certainly survive any warming.
Another problem with all of the effort is the need for international cooperation. Argument immediately occurs when Italy asks China to stop burning coal for electricity in order to save Venice, a city placed in a swamp by an ocean. The Chinese don't care. For all the hullaballoo about the US not signing Kyoto, the US has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions more than any country in the world, in total amount if not in percentage terms. Self interest certainly appears to be more of a motivator than any philosophical concern for 'the planet'. Our large scale planners seem to have learned nothing from sandbox days. In nursery school there is no 'sandbox authority' to get everyone to play in their own space and using their own toys. There is simply a free-for-all of children making their own dreams. We are no different as adults. Central authority fails almost every time, and people generally resent it. Setting sandbox rules, like 'don't throw sand' is completely different from getting everyone to play together, adn the two should not be confused.
What do I feel about all this? I feel several things:
-the IPCC conclusions are heavily politicized;
-data are uniformly of bad quality and applicability;
-actual physical effects are impressive and troubling;
-it is a good idea to reduce carbon emissions, more for ourselves than 'the planet'.
In summary, I support reduction of CO2 emissions for the same reason I support reduction in stream pollution and ground water contamination- it makes our world a cleaner place, and cleaner is better. I don't support politicized and alarmist reports clearly intended to sway public opinion, and I am doubtful of any grand scheme to get the world to cooperate on CO2 reduction. A further problem is that I do not perceive undeveloped countries being willing to let their citizens die in heat and cold to reduce a gas no one can see, and I do not believe developed countries will suddenly decide to reduce electrical generation for CO2 reduction.
We need to get our energy somewhere. Until solar is better developed I have long thought nuclear was the best choice, but that's a whole different argument. I support continuing to make voluntary efforts and non-punitive policy. I don't support 'carbon taxes' or energy exchanges. But I do think we need to keep our planet clean, and the evidence is distressingly suggestive that we are warming the earth.
Ted, skeptic of everything....
A nice summary of the issue. I know many Australians see their government's emphasis on carbon taxes as being utterly ridiculous, especially when comparing the population of Australia with that of China...
ReplyDelete-D-