A great site, once again, to reference for some information on how to talk with the few global warming skeptics that are out there. The site does not go into a ton of details, but it is informative regardless.
Someone commented on my post “Global Warming Claims Lake” and said the following: “Give me a heads up here, what SUV, Freon Fridge caused the earth to melt the first ice age…matter of fact, what caused the first ice age…if we can’t get the weather correct for the next 7 days…how do we predict 50 years ahead… why do we believe facts are facts [when they come] from [politicians] or [celebrities]?”
As I was responding, I realized I want my comment to be out here on the main page, not just tucked away. I feel that his comments and questions are common, and valid if you do not know a whole lot about climate change or geology and science.
“…if we can’t get the weather correct for the next 7 days…how do we predict 50 years ahead…”
This is a common question and it makes sense why it is asked so often. It’s VERY important to understand the following: weather and climate are very different things, and the level of predictability for each is very different. Climate is defined as weather averaged over a period of time – usually 30 years at minimum. So, yes we are terrible at predicting the weather; I enjoy the surprises the weather might bring: ie a dramatic thunderstorm on a summer afternoon, or hail on your college graduation at the end of May. Climate predictions have far fewer surprises, as they are the the result of the averaged effects that we feel on a day-to day basis. For example, ten of the hottest years on record have occurred in the past 14 years, the hottest one of all was 2005 (as of release of An Inconvenient Truth). That is weather being averaged, and that is showing us that our climate is warming. The reason? We are releasing copious amounts of global warming pollution into the atmosphere as we burn fossil fuels and our agricultural practices spew more pollution into the atmosphere. The mainstream scientific community predicts that this pollution will cause the atmosphere to continue to warm; we can expect a rise in global temperatures if our behavior continues unchecked for much longer. Consequently, we will experience a global sea-level rise as ice caps, glaciers, and landlocked ice melts and dumps into the world’s oceans. As the water warms, it will also expand and increase sea levels further.
He also asked a question about the 2005 vs. 2006 hurricane season, and seemed confused about the link between global warming and hurricanes: There is no established link between global warming and hurricane frequency. None. What we do know is this: water is the fuel for hurricanes. The warmer the water, the stronger the hurricane. The relatively “lackluster” hurricane season in 2006 does not mean that global warming isn’t happening. That was weather. Warming sea surface temperatures due to global warming means that hurricanes will essentially be on steroids. Therefore, what we can predict is that there will be stronger, more intense hurricanes due to global warming, ones that will wreak havoc on our coastlines. We just can’t say for sure how many of them there will be in a given season. Does that make sense?
Concerning the cycle of climate, and the link between CO2 and climate: Long term oscillations in climate, aka: ice ages and interstitial warm periods, have occurred throughout our Earth’s history. Such warm periods have made it possible for our survival. What we know about what is happening right now is this: the rise in temperatures is happening much more rapidly than EVER before, and it is certain that human activities are responsible for this rapid (geologically speaking) heating event. There is no climatological theory in which CO2 does not drive temperature. Therefore, since we know we are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, we also know that we are causing the warming.
So it’s warming? Why is that a problem? Well, given the predicted consequences (see above), and that many of them are coming to fruition, and our energy crisis – I feel very strongly that we are morally obligated to take concrete action to combat global warming pollution, and instill a sense of urgency in this process.
On celebrity science: Celebrities are not scientists, nor are politicians. They are not coming up with the ideas, or facts, so celebrity science simply does not exist. They are repeating the science they believe in and there is nothing wrong with that. Some claim Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth was alarmist hype, and while he did make the movie dramatic, he did not twist science or do anything to jeopardize the credibility of what his movie communicated. Al Gore became a celebrity due to his political endeavors, but before he was ever a buzzword for environmental consciousness he devoted years and years to studying global warming and wrote “Earth in the Balance,” a passionate book about environmental issues – I suggest you read that as well.
Global Climate Change 
July 21, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Hi Alisha,
If the book I noticed yesterday in a prime position in Borders bookstore is anything to go by, I wonder if the book Vince could be reading is The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). It had nice gold bestseller stickers on it, so it is definitely doing the reading rounds right now, and is even being sold by Amazon paired with another skeptic favorite Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years. I must admit, if you look at the front covers of both books, the penguin dancing cheerfully with a Hawaiian lei round its shoulders looks a lot more appealing than the grey smoking skyscraper image …
P.S. Hello matt!
P.P.S. My answer to comments such as “…if we can’t get the weather correct for the next 7 days…how do we predict 50 years ahead?” is this:
It is the equivalent of a child asking a doctor “…if you can’t tell me exactly where and when the next spots will appear on my body this week …how can you tell me I have chicken pox/measles now and that I will have recovered from it by this time next year?”
July 21, 2007 at 9:53 pm
One problem I have with this whole ‘debate’ is the concept of ’scientific consensus’. Consensus is a political, not scientific, term.
Here’s an interesting, albeit non-scientific, exercise: You know there’s lot’s of information to find out there by doing a Google search for ‘global warming’, and a lot of it is quite scary; but try adding ‘climatologist’ to your search terms and the results – the ‘consensus’, if you will – changes dramatically. It’s quite interesting how many climatologists are anthropogenic global warming doubters, compared with the doomsayers who are in other fields like geology, biology, politics, and entertainment.
Try it for yourself. You should at least be aware of what your ‘enemies’ are saying –
http://www.google.com/ search?hl=en&q=climatologist+global+warming
July 21, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Thanks for your thoughts Inel – I agree!
Ron,
Thanks for your comment also. That is interesting, I did do the google search – and you are correct to say that a lot of the sites listed on the first two or so pages are ones that focus on the “debate” and “climatologists” who are on the fence and calling for us to cool the hype, so to speak. I wouldn’t necessarily call them enemies. What you should also notice, and say, to be fair, is that the sites are news magazines, tv stations, etc. They are reporting on climatologists who are on the fringe; such fringe fanatics (or “mavericks, as the first site listed, NPR, reports) make incendiary claims that make a good story. These sites are not representative of popular opinion, or large masses of climatologists who are global warming skeptics and have their own sites full of scientific information to back up their claims. Does that make sense?
A quick note, also: the word consensus is not, by definition, a strictly political term; I agree it can have that connotation but do not agree it is always employed in a political setting. Consensus is still used by members of the Quaker community, of which I am an active part. Concerning the politics in the US, we vote on things and some people win, some people lose. When making decisions by consensus, the thoughts and ideas of each person are considered until a consensus, or uniform agreement, is reached. Therefore, I do not associate consensus with the political practices we observe with the scientific community and global warming. I repeat, there is no climatological theory in which CO2 does not drive temperature. Therefore, if we are emitting more CO2, we are influencing temperature, and warming out planet. The scientific community has debated global warming, all sides, and reached a consensus that it is happening and that it is caused by human activities. Now THAT is a consensus, based on science, that unfortunately has become a political issue. It is in everyone’s interest to work to stop global warming and I also believe it is a huge economic opportunity for our country.
July 21, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Alisha,
You said “there is no climatological theory in which CO2 does not drive temperature”, but that simply is not true.
However, I’m no scientist, so I won’t try to disprove that idea. I’ll offer another angle for you to think about instead.
What causes ice ages? Do another Google search. (Also, I found some interesting info on ice ages in my kid’s 6th grade science textbook.)
And then ask yourself what might cause the warming periods in-between. It does seem logical that cyclical ice ages could also be related to the warming periods in-between, doesn’t it? Isn’t that what ‘cyclical’ implies?
July 23, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Well, Ron, looks like you’re already a skeptic… and I don’t want to get into an endless argument… But I’ll respond anyway, for now!
I don’t have too much to say about CO2 and climate, in response to a sentence that ends with “that simply is not true,” because that is a ridiculous thing to say with absolutely no base in factual knowledge, or reality. While it might be easier to just write something off like that, that type of behavior doesn’t really get you very far or increase your knowledge; is that how you answer questions about the world from your child(ren), instead of looking into it further or considering the fact that there might be some information out there that you haven’t heard before? Ok so I guess I do have a lot to say about that… moving on:
What info. did you find in your 6th grader’s science book, and please when making statements such as that provide specifics.
Google is great – but it is not the sole source of knowledge on Earth! Please, try an academic-search, on a verified engine such as LexisNexis, Web of Science, or an actual library and then we can talk answers. The bottom line: ice ages and interglacial periods are controlled by the amount of solar insolation (ie: solar radiation) penetrating our Earth’s atmosphere in a given time period. We’ve burned a hole in the ozone layer, so more solar insolation arrives. We are responsible for the greenhouse effect, where gases cannot radiate back into space and warm our planet. We are warming our Earth as we produce more CO2 than ever before, a greenhouse gas, which now threatens our survival – while in moderate amounts it is not bad, it is good, and perhaps that is where you are getting confused.
I don’t understand why you desire to dispute the science so much. The implications are grave, and the available solutions would be good for our society in the medium to long-run, economically speaking. It is not like everyone is proposing dramatic life-sacrifices, which seems to be a misconception that really hurts the environmental movement. Do you just fear change? The oil is going to run out, anyway, so we might as well get a head start. What will you say when your kid(s) ask you: where were you, when we had a chance to make a difference and stop global warming? What were glaciers like? Why are so many animals that were alive when you were younger, now extinct?