Matt Jones' Random Acts of Verbiage

Global warming and climate change are obviously hot button issues. But they are issues that people who have nothing to do with science seem to comment on a lot. I suppose I am being a bit hypocritical when I talk about it then, yes? I suppose so. But this is my blog and my perrogative. I will preface things by stating that I do have a degree in physics and astronomy so, while not explicitly about the climate, I feel that I can make halfway intelligent comments about the issue. I will also be a bit hypocritical because I will be pointing to people that aren’t climate scientists. I don’t mean to suggest that just because you aren’t a climate scientist, you shouldn’t comment on the issues, but it would be better if you (and I) were.

So here we go. Do you trust your weather man to predict what the weather will be like tomorrow? How about in three days? How about 10 days out? How about 100 years out? No? I wouldn’t figure so. Obviously climate scientists will have a bit more understanding than your local weather guy pointing to a few Doppler images, but not that much more. Climate conditions are complex and chaotic, it is fairly ambitious (to put it mildly) to suggest that climatologists can look at temperature data going back the last 100 years (realistically, only a portion of that data is accurate or comprehensive) and be convinced that over the next 100 years the average global temperature is going to go up by a degree or two.

Am I denying that global warming exists? Not flat out, but possibly. At least I have never seen any convincing evidence to suggest that it is happening and that it is truly a bad thing. There have been numerous scientific studies that could go both ways. But here is the thing about science: it is supposed to create a model of reality that can then be used predictively. (Basic example: you want to figure out how forces work, you set up experiments to test how objects of different masses react to different amounts of forces. Eventually you have enough data to realize that F=ma. Since we can reasonably assume that F=ma isn’t going to change, we can use that formula to predict outcomes of similar situations. This is a simplistic example, but still valid.) Right now, there is not nearly enough scientific evidence to support any sort of predictive model. Even if the current data did suggest that there is a warming trend (which is not necessarily the case), there are so many assumptions that have to be made and believed for us to arrive at any sort of “scary” results. How can we assume that current conditions will remain the same (and in a complex, chaotic situation, they don’t) so as to keep the trend going in the same way?

I like Michael Crichton. I don’t think he is necessarily any sort of authority on global climate change, but a number of years ago he gave a speech called “Aliens Cause Global Warming” (which I wrote about here) that, while controversial, I think was pretty insightful and still well worth the read. His main thrust was that policy should be separated from science… and that that is not the case with global warming and climate change.

Last year there was an article published by the Telegraph called “ There IS a problem with global warming… it stopped in 1998” that also had a few interesting things to say and started with a view similar to Crichton:

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society’s continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Moreover, this article (via Ace) notes:

Wingham et al. report that “overall, the data, corrected for isostatic rebound, show the ice sheet growing at 5 ± 1 mm year-1.” To calculate the ice sheet’s change in mass, however, “requires knowledge of the density at which the volume changes have occurred,” and when the researchers’ best estimates of regional differences in this parameter are used, they find that “72% of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining 27 ± 29 Gt year-1, a sink of ocean mass sufficient to lower [authors' italics] global sea levels by 0.08 mm year-1.” This net extraction of water from the global ocean, according to Wingham et al., occurs because “mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica.”

So should we be worried about Global Cooling instead of Global Warming? An article at the Canada Free Press written by Timothy Ball (who does actually have a PhD in Climatology) starts out thusly:

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

And the always wise Mark Steyn cleverly points out (and go read the whole thing):

Alas, the science isn’t so solid. In the ’70s, it was predicting a new ice age. Then it switched to global warming. Now it prefers “climate change.” If it’s hot, that’s a sign of “climate change.” If it’s cold, that’s a sign of “climate change.” If it’s 53 with sunny periods and light showers, you need to grab an overnight bag and get outta there right now because “climate change” is accelerating out of control.

He goes on to say:

If “global warming” is real and if man is responsible, why then do so many “experts” need to rely on obviously fraudulent data? The famous “hockey stick” graph showed the planet’s climate history as basically one long bungalow with the Empire State Building tacked on the end. Completely false. In evaluating industrial impact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used GDP estimates based on exchange rates rather than purchasing power: As a result, they assume by the year 2100 that not only South Africans but also North Koreans will have a higher per capita income than Americans. That’s why the climate-change computer models look scary. That’s how “solid” the science is: It’s predicated on the North Korean economy overtaking the United States.

I am pretty worried.

So what is my point with all of this? Don’t freak out. Listen to actual scientists and not policy makers. But I also want to end with this: Be good stewards of the earth! I don’t bash global warming because I want to be able to pollute the earth more, I bash it because I want to live in reality. Just because our CO2 emissions might not actually be playing a factor, doesn’t mean we have a free pass to be irresponsible. The earth is a pretty good place to live so we should still to our best to treat what we have been blessed with in a caring manner. But stop freaking out. And stop wasting money trying to prevent the atrocities of global warming… they just aren’t there.